Please don't take it personally if we don't respond to you. Don and I
started this thread some time ago and have been following a particular
line of thought. When someone else jumps in and writes a lengthy
response and perhaps one that digresses, some of us who are focused in
one direction are not too easily tempted to jump boat. Suggestion: try
to plug in with what is being discussed and make a concise contribution
or two.
Thanks.
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"
http://users.aol.com/dixonps/evangelism.htm
On Sat, 7 Sep 1996, David L. Moore wrote:
> To b-greek and those taking part in the discussion on 2 Thess. 2:6-8:
>
> Upon considering the give-and-take on this difficult passage,
> there is a phrase that has not figured in the discussion which, IMO, is
> key to correct interpretation of the whole passage. The phrase was
> mentioned in the original question that led to this thread on 2 Thess.
> chapter 2, and I posted in answer to that particular query.
> Nevertheless, the observations I expressed then have not been
> incorporated in the subsequent discussion.
>
> The phrase in question is EK MESOU GENHTAI at the end of v. 7.
> According to BAGD, which cites several instances of the phrase, it has
> the idiomatic meaning, "to be removed" or "to leave the scene" (BAGD,
> s.v. GINOMAI, I:4:c:beta). For the "evil restrainer" theory to be
> viable, EK MESOU GENHTAI would practically have to mean, "come out of the
> midst," in the sense of "appear" or "come on the scene." BAGD's data
> doesn't seem to support that meaning.
>
> Additionally, KAI NUN TO KATEXON OIDATE at the beginning of v. 6
> may well not mean, "and you now (or "already") know what restrains...."
> Ridderbos suggests that NUN here modifies KATEXON (i.e. "what now
> impedes"). He cites Blass-DeBrunner #474,5(c) for examples of this
> construction in which the participle is "separated from its adjuncts" in
> the way found here.
>
> Whether Ridderbos's suggestion be valid or not, I find very
> difficult Paul Dixon's interpretation that the EIS TO clause in v. 6
> should be understood as of purpose. EIS TO here, rather, expresses
> movement from the state of what now impedes to the revelation of the
> antichrist. It is his coming that is referred to in v. 6b, not Christ's
> since, if we take EK MESOU GENHTAI as "be removed," then hO KATEXON in
> v. 7 is clearly referring to what presently restrains the antichrist.
> And since the GAR of v. 7a ties v. 6 in meaning to v. 7, we should
> understand that v. 6 is the logical antecedent to v. 7.
>
> So the neuter TO KATEXON in v. 6 relates directly to the
> masculine hO KATEXWN in v. 7, the reference in v. 6 being simply more
> general in scope and so, expressed in the neuter whereas v. 7
> personalizes this force, whatever it may be.
>
> verse 8, then follows v. 7b, not as a restatement of the latter,
> but as what takes place subsequent to it.
>
> Regards to all,
>
> --
> David L. Moore Director
> Miami, Florida, USA Department of Education
> dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com Southeastern Spanish District
> http://www.netcom.com/~dvdmoore of the Assemblies of God
>