The interaction has been good. I appreciate it. Like iron sharpening
iron. If APOKALUFQHNAI is synonymous with "may be made known" then my
point carries taking it as a result clause. If so, then a paraphrase may
be, "and now what restrains (him) you know, so that he may be made known
to you in his time." The basic meaning of the word (uncover, bring to
light) does seem to bear this out.
There are serious problems, as I have suggested, with the alternative of
taking the EIS clause as dependent upon TO KATECHON. You seem to reject
the significance of the fact, as I have pointed out, that no precedence
exists in Pauline literature for taking an EIS TO + an infinitive
construction as dependent upon a substantive (or a substantival
participle) such as TO KATECHON. Rather, as Giblin points out, whenever
such a construction exists in Paul's literature (and there are 4 or 5
others in 2 Thess alone) it always depends upon the nearest verb, such as
OIDATE in 2:6.
Also, another problem I see with the good restrainer view is it rejects
the parallel between verses 4 and 6, i.e., the perspective begun in verse
4 is switched by the good restrainer view, and that without any textual
indication. The connective KAI in v. 6 implies a continued perspective
(the man of lawlessness who opposes all that is called God ... and now
But, it probably is time to move on. Perhaps we can think and study some
more and possibly renew this later. Thanks for the sharpening.
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 Sun, 8 Sep 1996 DWILKINS@ucrac1.ucr.edu wrote:
> Paul, we seem to be near an impasse in what has become something of a Socra-
> tic argument, and like Socrates I don't know how much longer our colleagues
> on the list can put up with us (I probably shouldn't compare myself with
> Socrates in any sense; one might as well compare ants to elephants).
> Our chief problem, as it seems, continues to be the EIS clause. I appreciate
> your willingness to take it as result, but "...the result of which is that when he is revealed (you will know him)..." is still an attempt to rewrite the
> text. The apostle does not say "when" nor indicate it in any way by the gram-
> mar. You could assume something like, "so that he will be revealed at his
> proper time (and you will know it)", but then you still have the problem I
> described in my last post (i.e. the result of a result which seems to make
> little sense). I can at least allow that taking MUSTERION as explanatory of
> TO KATECWN is not ruled out by grammar, though it may not be the most pro-
> bable interpretation. I appreciate the fact that this time you did not men-
> tion the neuter gender as an argument (unless that was merely an oversight).
> Don Wilkins
> UC Riverside