The Removal of restraint happens in Revelation 9.

II Thessalonians 2:7-8 tells us something is currently restraining the Son of Apoleia and that's why the Abomination of Desolation hasn't happened yet and in turn the Parusia and Rapture can't happen till after that.  The use of the word "he" in translations is misleading, it's not necessarily any person doing the restraining, but you could in my view say the "restrainer" is the Fifth Trumpet Angel if you wanted to.

Revelation 11:7 and 17:8 both tell us that at least one of the Beasts ascends out of the Bottomless Pit aka the Abyss aka the Great Deep.  At the beginning of Revelation Chapter 9 the Abyss is locked but after the Fifth Trumpet is sounded it is opened and entities in that Abyss begin to leave.  Revelation 20 further tells us that in the future this is where Satan will be restrained for a Thousand years.

This argument is not dependent on identifying either Beast with any specific personage in Revelation 9, the facts I just laid out should be enough to make it obvious.  None the less I feel a strong argument can be made for Apollyon being the Son of Apoleia.

It annoys me that this simple answer to the Restrainer mystery is so rarely what Prophecy teachers argue for.  The Early Church Writers tended to think the Restrainer was Rome for some reason, today most Pre-Tribbers say it's the Holy Spirit to try and make this obviously Pre-Trib destroying passage compatible.  And the "Pre-Wrath" view of Chris White tends to say it's Michael doing what he does in Revelation 12 and Daniel 12 even though that makes no grammatical sense at all, not to mention how it makes no Chronological sense in the context of Pre-Wrath, that makes more sense as a Midway Point argument.

In his most recent Podcast while addressing Pre-Tribbers Chris White says that Matthew 24:38's description of people "eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage" makes no sense in a context where any of the Trumpets have already happened but specifically singled out the Fifth.  He makes a similar argument about the "peace and safety" from I Thessalonians 5:3.

The problem with that argument is Revelation 11:10.  I view that verse of Matthew 24 as that same three and a half day period, same with the "peace and safety" verse.  Doesn't matter how much bad apocalyptic stuff had already happened, people think it's over now.  And I still think the End Times deception will be partly based on people thinking the first half of the 7 year period is the second half.

If you think "as the days of Noah were" must mean nothing catastrophic had happened yet, I direct you to this post where I discus overlooked details of Genesis 6.
https://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-flood-did-not-destroy-earth-it.html

Which Beast is actually in Control?

I'm still highly skeptical that the Islamic Anitchrist model will be how things play out.  But I also remain firmly confident that the Mahdi prophecy was made for the purpose of being a potential seed for the Antichrist.  The Abomination of Desolation itself shouldn't be expected in such false prophecies though, these are merely potential plans to set the stage for it, the Abomination is when the mislead ends and the real agenda is revealed.

Chris White in his criticism of the Islamic Antichrist theory, has among other things criticized the desire of Christians to misrepresent Islamic Eschatology so that Isa (Muslim Jesus) is subordinate to The Mahdi.  And all that is very good.

Here is the thing, is our traditional assumption that the Second Beast is subordinate to the First Beast possibly wrong?

For starters if either is being possessed or indwelt by Satan it would be the Second Beast, that's the one speaking with The Dragon's voice. 

The First Beast is defined as the object of worship.  But that could be consistent with being a mere figure head, a flesh and blood Idol for the people to focus on while someone else holds the real power.  In George Orwell's 1984 the possibly exists that Big Brother isn't even real, or who he's based on is long dead.  He's now merely a poster, a Face of the Party designed to be an object of both adoration and fear.

The First Beast is a political system, his Empire, not just the individual.  So the whole "Who is able to make war with him" I feel is explained in chapter 17 where it seems clear the 10 Horns are the source of his military power. The individual of the Eight King may not be a military figure at all.  The other major reason for seeing The Antichrist as a conqueror is Daniel 11:36-45 which I've discussed elsewhere.

The First Beast remains a central object of discussion after the Second Beast is introduced, that helps make it seem like he's more important.  But perhaps what we're told after the Second Beast is introduced is meant to help us better understand what was said before.

At the beginning we're told The Dragon gave his Power and Authority and his Seat/Throne to the First Beast.  But in Verse 12 it's the Second Beast who "exerciseth all the Power of the First Beast".  It's the Second who speaks with The Dragon's voice.  He's the architect of the Mark system.

In the first part of my False Prophet study I discussed the possibility that many Prophecies outside Revelation we assume are about The Antichrist could really be The False Prophet.  Including that the title Son of Perdition might belong to the False Prophet.  I saw at least one website long ago argue that the Second Beast not the First is the one we should apply the title Antichrist too.

 I argued in the third part of my False Prophet study that that term Antichrist could in fact require both Beasts put together.  John defines the Antichrist heresy as denying the Deity of Christ.  So the ultimate expression of that could be two individuals, one claiming to be God and not Jesus, and the other claiming to be Jesus and not God.  And that is an even more Ironic deception if even the False Jesus is in fact closer to having godlike powers then the false god.

At the beginning of the Book of Kings people like to see Adonijah as a type of The Antichrist, a usurper to the Throne of David.    But Adonijah was a pawn, a puppet, Joab (the type of Satan) and Abithar the Priest (False Prophet) are the real players of that Game of Thrones, opposed by Nathan and Zadok, and also Bathsheba.

Let's discus the mystery of The Image of The Beast.  Today we're obsessed with seeing this through a SciFi lens, wanting to see it as a Robot/Android, or a Hologram, or an Artificial Intelligence program on the Internet.  I myself have been guilty of that in the past, preferring the A.I. theory.  But I noticed reading Revelation 13 today it never describes the Image being made, just the Second beast giving Life to it.

Let's use Scripture to interpret Scripture, and go back to the first use of the term Image.  Genesis tells us Adam was made in the Image of God.  So there is a Scriptural precedent for describing a body of flesh as an Image.

And many including Chris White have conjectured independent of considering that, that The False Prophet will be responsible for The Beast's resurrection/mortal wound healing, or at least be publicly given the credit for it.

What if the Image of The Beast in Revelation 13 is the same thing as the Eight King in Revelation 17?  One of the first 7 Kings, probably one of the first 5, in some way "resurrected".

It's been confusing to me in the past about whether when the Man of Sin stands himself in the Temple and deifies himself as II Thessalonians 2 describes, or when the Image of Revelation 13 is set up is the more precise Abomination event.  But what if those are not separate things at all?

In the past I'd suggested the resurrection of the Antichrist is like an early form of the second resurrection.  Lately I've been rethinking the nature of the second resurrection (not in a way that conflicts with being Premillenal and Futurist).

What if the Eight King's resurrection is more like the original concept of a Zombie (before George A Romaro)?  A dead body that has been reanimated, but merely to be the pawn of the Witch-doctor who reanimated it.

The True Identity of The False Prophet

I've discussed The False Prophet's possible ties to other Bible Prophecy, and the nature of his Signs and Wonders, as well as who he might claim to be.  Now I shall speculate on who he really is.

The term "Son of Perdition" is used only twice, the 2 Thessalonians 2 passage that's been important to this study is the second.  You'll recall I argued that the "Son of Perdition" could be the second Beast rather then the first.

The first was John 17:12 where it refers to Judas Iscariot. Because of that many have taught that Judas is the Antichrist. This ties in with the statement about Judas being sent to "his own place" after he died, possibly meaning the Abyss.

But to me Judas being The First Beast isn't possible because Judas was not a King in a succession of Seven Kings.  (I also partly feel it's important that both the death and resurrection of The Beast is witnessed by the 70th week World.)  But since I've already argued Paul's "Son of Perdition" might actually be the Second Beast rather then The First.  I notice that those issues are not a problem with Judas being The False Prophet.

There are two Old Testament prophecies cited in the New Testament as referring to Judas, yet when read in their entire context seem much grander then just Judas as we normally think of him, (and have been interpreted as referring to The Antichrist independently of noting their Judas connection). Psalm 109 (in Acts 1:20), and Zechariah 11 (in Matthew 27:9).  The latter has also already been relevant to this study.

Zechariah 11:17 calls him "the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock", sounds like it could connect to the same terminology as the verse where Jesus calls Judas the Son of Perdition. "I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.". This is a strong verse on Eternal Security, but Judas is sort of the exception that proves the rule, and his being lost is a fulfillment of prophecy.

Psalm 109 actually has three evil personages in mind, the subject of the Psalm (Who we are told is Judas) and verse 6 says "Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand." Could it be another picture of the counterfeit Trinity?

In John 6:70 Jesus refers to Judas as "a Devil" (after saying He Chose him). In the Greek this is Diabolos, any time you see references to people being possessed by "a devil" "devils", or any references to plural "devils" the Greek is Daimon or Daimonian. This is the only time Diabolos refers to anyone other then Satan himself, but in reference to Satan it's always "the Devil" not "a Devil" so this is very unique.

Revelation 13 says of the Beast out of The Earth "he spake as a dragon", the dragon in mind here is almost certainly The Dragon. Judas is the only person who is known to have been indwelt by Satan himself, (Luke 22:3 and John 13:27). So he could easily speak with his voice.

Judas had the ability to perform miracles, just like the False Prophet will do. In Matthew 10:1-8 the Disciples (all of the Twelve are listed, including Judas) are given the power to perform miracles. Even tough Judas wasn't really saved he could perform divine miracles, including healing and raising the dead.   In this period they'll be Satanic miracles rather then divine as in Matthew 10, but the point is Judas has experience in doing this.

In Revelation 13:13 he can make "fire come down from heaven on the earth". Satan had this ability in Job:12. But Luke 9:51-56 implies this was also in the arsenal of the Twelve, though Jesus rebuked John and James then for desiring to use it in that way.  Chris White considers that miracle the key clue to who the False Prophet claims to be, why not consider it also a clue to who he really is?  Judas as one of the 12 is the only unsaved Human outside Revelation ever even remotely attributed this power.

The Second Beast isn't just the religious leader, he's also in charge of the new economy. In Revelation 13:16-17 we're told he makes everyone get The Mark and requires them to need it to buy or sell. John 12:6 tells us Judas was in charge of the moneybag during Jesus' ministry, he was their treasurer.

Judas "hanged himself" the same day Jesus was crucified. Different means of execution (the Greek term here is precise, it refers to hanging with a rope to cause strangulation), that can both fit the description of "hanged on a tree" (Deuteronomy 21:23). The First Resurrection began with Jesus, so perhaps likewise the Second Resurrection will begin with Judas.

 It's popular today to view Judas sympathetically, as someone doomed by fate, and as someone probably forgiven for what he did. The Bible definitely paints him as a Villain however.

I'm not saying it's evil to sympathize with him at all, he was human and I wouldn't want movies to make him a 1 dimensional mustache twirling villain.  But remember that he was motivated by Greed.  He was not a disillusioned revolutionary like many movies have chosen to paint him.

Jesus Christ Superstar was a popular Musical, the writer of which said once his agenda was to show Jesus as "just a a messed up dude like Judas", meaning to show Jesus as human but not divine. That is the Antichrist Hersey on it's own, but on an esoteric level I noticed something.  It does not carry the story to Jesus Resurrection, but it does have Judas sing a song after he hung himself (the title track).  In the first movie version of it, this sequence began with Judas clothed in white descending from heaven hanging onto a star.

The only Biblical basis to try and claim Judas was redeemed is Matthew 27:3 "Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself". First Repentance is not synonymous with Salvation, even those who erroneously think it's required for Salvation view it as only a first step. But also this word in the Greek is similar to but different from the usual word(s) for repentance which mean a change of mind. Metamellomai (met-am-el'-lom-ahee), simply means he was regretful.

Why he regretted it is not necessarily because he felt guilty. All the immediate text tells us is that "he saw that he was condemned", which could mean a number things, not liking how others view him, or it could simply refer to the outcome of what he did not being what he expected. But even so, feeling guilty isn't enough, what saves you is placing your Faith in Jesus.

Some of the Judas is the Antichrist theorists have suggested that what happened at Gethsemane was not what he planned, that he did not expect Jesus to simply willingly hand himself over. After all Satan's previous attempts to kill Him Jesus had averted somehow. It's been suggested that Satan didn't know yet there would be two Advents.

Now, "that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet" is not a contradiction, first off there is a connection to Jeremiah 32:6-9.  Second, chapters 9-14 of Zachariah unlike the earlier chapters do not begin with Zachariah identifying himself, it's possible he was recording additional prophecies of Jeremiah that he gave after his own Book was finished, and that weren't scribed by Baruch accounting for a different literary style.

Now as for the supposed contradiction in how Judas died. I'm not entirely sure what I do think, but viewing them as somehow irreconcilable is absurd given the lack of detail both verses have.

Matthew 27:5 simply says "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself." It actually does not say he died here at all, lots of attempted self hangings fail, it's kind of the easiest form of suicide to botch.

But all Luke says in Acts 1:18 is "this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." This could mean the rope broke and he fell. It's possible Luke intended here a Poetic connection to a parable he recorded Jesus saying in Luke 5:36-39.

 And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.  And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.  But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.  No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

What's Interesting is that Acts 1:18 implies Judas himself bought the field, while Matthew 27 says the Priests did. But that's not a big deal, the money was still legally Judas's, that's the point of what the Priests did with it.

Zachariah 11 is a very cryptic Prophecy. And without the help of the New Testament it's not necessarily clear who will throw the money, and it's possible many Rabbis did indeed assume it was the Good Shepard. So the theory of some is that when Judas threw the money he expected the Priests to interpret it as fulfilling that prophecy. And that now Satan had figured out that the Messiah had to be "hung on a tree" and that Judas was intentionally making a last minute ploy to set himself up as a False Messiah.

If as I suggested in part 3 of this study, The False Prophet claims to be Jesus.  Judas would have an advantage in pulling that illusion off, he too was a first century AD Judean male of probably about the same age.  He also interacted with the man he'd be seeking to imitate.  But it wouldn't be impossible for such an individual to pass as Elijah either, fitting Chris White's theory.

Another purely conjectural note.  What if the False Prophet as a fake Jesus chooses to incorporate a claim that certain heresies have made about Jesus having children who became ancestral to various Royal Houses is true?  Easy enough claim to make, but what if he offers to prove it via a DNA test?  Remembering that Psalm 109 is about Judas, it also tells us he had a wife and children.  Maybe he helped sire the bloodline(s) claimed to be from Jesus?

I no longer view the Islamic Antichrist theory as being likely to be how things play out.  But I do still hold that the Mahdi is among many false Prophecies Satan inspired for the purpose of being possible avenues for The Antichrist.

Part of that theory is seeing Isa as the False Prophet.  It is also well known how the Koran is interpreted at one point as claiming Jesus wasn't on the Cross but was switched with someone.  Well the apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas (not to be confused with his also falsely attributed Epistle) seems to, in the form of it we have, be a pseudo Proto-Islamic text, claiming to foretell Mohamed by name, and agreeing with many Islamic ideas like Ishmael over Issac.  In this Gospel of Barnabas the person who was on the cross instead of Jesus was Judas, which is potentially interesting.

The False Prophet outside Revelation

This shall be the first part of an ongoing study I shall do on the subject of The False Prophet.  The post I intend to be part 2 I actually posted a while go, with no long term plans for this subject in mind then.  I'll link to it at the end of this post.

The False Prophet is a key figure in The Book of Revelation, it's number three villain. "And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet." Forming a sort of counterfeit Trinity. He's first clearly introduced as the "beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon." After Chapter 13 this figure is called The False Prophet.

The only reference to either of the Beasts prior to chapter 13 is chapter 11:7 "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. " Chapter 17:8 makes the beast who " shall ascend out of the bottomless pit" synonymous with the Beast who has 7 heads and 10 horns, and thus the first Beast of chapter 13. But the symbolism of the Beast is complicated, the 7 headed 10 horned Beast represents the individual of the Antichrist but also his Empire, his political system. Which is the Roman Empire, the Fourth Beast of Daniel 7, which is now being rebuilt via the European Union but also via Western policy in the Middle East. The False Prophet as his both religious and economic overseer is part of that system, so you could argue during any section that seems to only have one of them The Beast could be seen as both together.

I also believe the "ascendeth out of the bottomless pit", to be a characteristic of his resurrection.  And based on both The beast and the False Prophet being cast into the Lake of Fire without dying first, I think it's possible that both individuals are early partakers of the Second Resurrection.

We commonly discuss a lot of verses outside Revelation that are presumed to be about The Antichrist. But I don't see any other verses commonly taken to refer to The False Prophet. False Prophets, plural, appear often as do False Christs. "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."-Matthew 24:24.

Many characters who serve as foreshadowings or prototypes of The Antichrist do have a False Prophet figure with them. Adonijah had Abiathar the Priest, Ahab had the unnamed False Prophet who had that dramatic scene with Micaiah. Also if you study the history of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees, there is Menelaus, the Benjamite Apostate High Priest who presided over the worship of the Abomination of Desolation.  As Lionel Luthor said in season 2 episode 22 of Smallville "Every Author has his Merlin".

However, actual specific Prophecies of this figure outside Revelation are not well known. I have seen it suggested that maybe many Prophecies assumed to be about The Antichrist really refer to the False Prophet, or even that some refer to both together in some way. But those suggesting this usually don't  elaborate on it.

This apparent lack of reference outside Revelation was a problem for me.  I firmly believe Revelation does not really introduce anything entirely new, it unlocks the mysteries of what came before.

Then I noticed this little detail of Isaiah 9, in verses 14&15. "Therefore the LORD will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day. The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail." The word translated "ancient" really means "elder". So we have a political leader being paired with a lying prophet.

Small little reference, but once I had noticed this I started getting all kinds of ideas.

 Some interpret "out of the Earth" as meaning Jewish, while "out of the sea" for the first Beast means Gentile, based on Daniel 7:3. And bring that into how they interpret passages outside Revelation. Passages that seem to make him Jewish (chiefly John 5:43, to me this is hypothetical in context and thud not good to build doctrine on,) they assume to be the second beast.  And those that seem to make him gentile they assume the first.  I think that doctrinal assumption is hard to prove however.

I saw one study recently suggest the "He" of Daniel 9:27 is The False Prophet, not the first beast.  "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate".  They argued that Revelation 13 makes clear it's the second beast who actually sets up the Image and enforces it's worship.  My view on this verse has changed lately.

Key I think is II Thessalonians 2:3. No words are mistranslated here, but it's one of those occasions where the translators felt the need to change the order of the words for the sake of English grammar. Which is often needed, but here I would render it this way.

 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and the unveiling of the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition.

 It appears we have two titles of the Antichrist listed side by side. He had many titles, often more then one used in the same chapter or even same verse, but simply listed in succession is unusual.

What if it's really referring to the unveiling of two people? The following verses are clearly talking about a single individual man deifying himself in the Temple. But maybe that person is the first mentioned, and the second is his supporter facilitating him in this act? If the Son of Perdition is the False Prophet rather then The Antichrist as assumed, that could be interesting.

The term can also be argued to apply to both Beasts equally, along with the phrase "goeth into Perdition" in Revelation 17. They're the two individuals who are sent into "The Lake of Fire" first in Revelation 19, before the Millennium rather then after it like everyone else destined to go there.

In verse 9 of II Thessalonians 2, it talks about his coming being "after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,". We know from Revelation 13 that the miracles are performed by the False Prophet. One could argue this reference to miracles is tied to how the Man of Sin is unveiled. I argue in the first post of this blog that the restrainer being removed refers to the unlocking of the Abyss is in Revelation 9, where Apollyon and many other entities are being restrained by chains.

That belief does not require identifying either beast with any personage in Revelation 9.  The point is nothing (save Jesus himself when he went there) can ascend out of the abyss before then. Which is a problem for Pre-Wrath.

Chris White objects to viewing Apollyon as a villain, or among those restrained in the Abyss.  He sees him as a good angel that God simply put in charge of overseeing this.  He compares him to the Angel that carried out the killing of the first born on Passover, or the plague that occurred after David's census.  He misses that for the first of those examples the LORD himself did it, Exodus 12:29.  And I would point out the Angel of Death himself inevitably goes into the Lake of Fire.

The word translated Perdition is Apoleia. Apollyon from Revelation 9:11 is a related word, derived from the same roots. Apoleia means destruction (perdition is a King James English synonym for Destruction) and Apollyon means Destroyer. It would be accurate poetically to call Apollyon the Son of Apoleia.

 The other name for Apollyon is Abaddon, his Hebrew name. Most people don't know that this name does appear in the Hebrew Scriptures, it's Strongs number is 11. The KJV always translates it "destruction" but it's not the only word for destruction, so it's important to differentiate. The verses it appears in are Job 26:6, Job 28:22, Job 31:12, Psalm 88:11, Proverbs 15:11, and Proverbs 27:20.

It's used as the name of a place, not a individual. Being frequently linked with Sheol (Hell/Hades) I take it to be an Old Testament name of the place the New Testament calls the Abyss/Bottomless Pit and Tartaros (Translated Hell in 2 Peter 4). So the ruler of the place could've become named after it, or visa-verse.

That Apollyon/Abaddon is called "the angel of the bottomless pit" causes a lot of confusion. We're used to using "Angel" as a technical  term for immortal created beings who are certainly not Human.  But it's really just a noun that means messenger, as is the Hebrew equivalent Malak. The KJV translators were rarely willing to translate it rather then transliterate it in the New Testament. But three passages where there was no denying that it refers to a human being rather then an Angel are Matthew 11:10, Mark 1:2 and Luke 7:27 which all quote Malachi 3:1 in reference to John the Baptist. The word is indeed also affiliated with Prophets who are also messengers of God, and False Prophets who are messengers of false gods. Revelation 9:11 uses it in the same form (there are many different forms of Angelos used in the NT texts) as those passages.  I also believe the Angels of the Seven Church were humans in those congregations that had the gift of Prophecy (not monarchical "Pastors" as some have argued).

Outside The Bible Apollyon was a Homeric name for Apollo, which many have read significance into.  Like in Aeschylus's play Agamemnon, where Cassandra says repeatedly.

"Apollo, thou destroyer, O Apollo, Lord of fair streets, Apollyon to me."

To me that identification fits Apollyon being the False Prophet rather then Antichrist.  Because Apollo in Greek mythology was never affiliated with Kingship but he was very much the god of Prophecy.

I think the difference between the resurrection of the false prophet and the resurrection of The First Beast is The World won't witness the latter.  I think The False Prophet died in the distant past and will after the opening of the Abyss be allowed to resurrect.  Perhaps one layer of meaning to the second Beast rising "out of the Earth" refers to the Earth his body decomposed into.

But both lives of The Antichrist are end times, one ends in the 70th week, the second plays out entirely within it.

Part 2 of the Study.