How would Paul have arranged the verse if he had wanted to make the EIS
TO clause dependent upon OIDATE and to emphasize TO KATECHON? Hmm, might
it not be just as it appears in the text?
Paul S. Dixon, Pastor Check out my doctoral product:
Ladd Hill Bible Church "The Evangelism of Christ: a Model for
Wilsonville, OR 97070 Evangelism Today"
On Sat, 7 Sep 1996 CEP7@aol.com wrote:
> There seems to be an important factor that has been overlooked in the
> discussion of the EIS CLAUSE IN 2 THESS 2:6. Note that the object TO KATEXON
> precedes the verb, thus empahsizing the audience. If Paul had constructed the
> clause in normal Greek order it would have been verb (subject implied)
> object. The following EIS clause would then naturally be tied to the
> participle. If the the EIS clause directly followed TO KATEXON in its present
> order (in other words the EIS clause being be between the object and the
> verb) then OIDATE would be emphasized because it would be occurring at the
> end of the clause. Therefore, it seems to me that if Paul wanted to emphasize
> TO KATEXON and tie the EIS clause to it, then the present word order would be
> the most natural way of doing so.
> Charles Powell