Let's try taking it as a result clause. To paraphrase verses 6-7: and
what not restrains (him) you know; the result of which is that when he is
revealed (you will know him); to explain (GAR), you know the mystery of
lawlessness now at work; when Satan (who now restrains the work of God
[tendentially, of course, not efficaciously] is taken out of the way
(possiblly a reference to Satan's expulsion from heaven [Rev. 12:9]
precipitating the revelation of the man of lawlessness [Rev. 12:13ff]),
then the man of lawlessness will be revealed ...
You will notice that I supply as understood (ellipsis?) their knowledge
of the man of lawlessness when he is revealed. I think at least that
much is implied, both by the meaning of APOKALUFQHNAI (however its
transliterated) and by the OIDATE immediately preceding.
Also, the explanatory parallel with v. 7 is helpful. As we both agree,
v. 7 explains (GAR) v. 6. The question is, what are the parallel
elements? I contend this: TO MUSTERION parallels and explains TO
KATECHON. TO KATECHON is the object of OIDATE in v. 6. Understood, by
parallel, is OIDATE in v. 7. So, "and what now restrains you know ...
the mystery of lawless already at work (which you know)." Likewise,
"the result of their knowledge of what restrains is their knowledge of
him when he is revealed in his time" parallels "only he who now restrains
(Satan) will do so until he is taken out of the way." This latter
explains the cause of the revelation of the man of lawlessness, ie., the
removal of Satan.
Whew! I don't blame you. I'm preaching tomorrow on Joshua 1, so must get
away from the mystery of lawlessness. Perhaps tomorrow.
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 DWILKINS@ucrac1.ucr.edu wrote:
> Paul,
> Your argument about that the reader's knowledge of the evil being implied
> by APOKALUFQHNAI has nothing to do--that I can see--with the grammar of the
> verse. What you seem to be saying is that their knowledge is implied by, and
> is the necessary result of, the true grammatical result, i.e. the revelation.
> In effect, it is the result of a result, and that means the revelation takes
> logical (and temporal) precedence. So you still have the burden of showing
> how the readers' knowledge is the cause of the revelation. If you reply that
> they do not cause it, God does, then we come back to question of whether a
> purpose clause can express the purpose of someone other than the subject of
> the governing verb, and since no one else has yet offered input on that issue,
> it is possible that the other listers are as undecided or even dubious about
> it as I am (I myself have said that silence does not equate to tacit assent,
> so I emphasize "possible"). Moreover, if the clause is from God's perspec-
> tive, it cannot logically be a result clause (precluding the possibility that
> God is the cause, not the readers)--not, that is, according to the grammar.
> As to learned opinions, based on observation, that Paul doesn't tie purpose
> clauses to substantives, I have two problems: (1) a participle may be used
> as a substantive, as it is here, but it does not thereby lose its verbal
> element, and can take a direct object etc. just as any verb can; (2) pro-
> nouncements about a writer's style are questionable. You have to have a
> great deal of literature from one writer in various contexts before you can
> approach any level of probability regarding details of his style, and I'm
> not sure we have that for any of the NT writers, though I will concede that
> Paul might be the one, if any. I am fascinated by the possibility of defining
> writers' styles using computer-assisted research and statistics, but in the
> past that possibility hasn't drawn much of a response on the lists, except
> skepticism or the reply that it can be done, but one is unsure how. You
> would think that we can be certain about stylistic details in Homer, for
> example, where there is a fairly large corpus (in length, not number) and
> repetition, but even in Homer there appear to be questions remaining. The
> observation before us about Paul's use of the EIS clause reminds me of a
> very good comedy/drama about baseball strategy I just saw. A pinch hitter
> with a very low average is hitting against a pitcher he has never seen,
> and one commmentator says something like, "But you have to remember that
> this batter has a history of hitting pitchers that he has never seen on a
> 2 and 1 count at home in domed stadiums!" The batter strikes out anyway,
> and I suspect the same thing may be true of this evaluation of Paul's
> style. (Sorry for the lengthy aside; I tend toward that on Saturdays.)
>
> Don Wilkins
> UC Riverside
>