<<>The dozen or so suggested interpretations of TO KATECON
>in 2 Thess 2:6 may be reduced to two: a good KATECON
>versus an evil KATECON.
>
>For the most part interpreters have assumed a good
>KATECON. Paralleling this is the assumption that
>KATECON is the antecedent of the EIS TO ... clause.
>The verse says:
>
>KAI NUN TO KATECON OIDATE EIS TO
>APOKALUFQHVAI AUTON EN TW hEAUTOU KAIRW
>
>I checked other occurrences of EIS TO clauses in the
>epistle and found that in every case the clause depends
>on the nearest verb. In fact, a cursory look at the NT
>reveals that there may not be an example of an EIS TO
>clause depending upon a substantive, such as KATECON,
>and not the main verb.
>
>If the more distant KATECON is the antecedent of the clause,
>then the thought is something like this: and now you know
>what restrains him (the man of lawlessness) from being revealed
>before his time. This, of course, conjures up only a good
>restrainer view, since only good could be envisioned as
>restraining evil.
>
>If, on the other hand, the nearer OIDATE is the antecedent
>of the clause, then the picture changes drastically. Paul would
>then be saying something like this:
>and now what restrains (or, holds sway) you know; you know
>this so that he may be revealed to you in his time. To explain:
>the mystery of lawlessness (paralleling and explaining
>TO KATECON ...GAP ... TO MYSTERION) is already at work.
>My question: Does any one know of any other occurrence in
>scripture (NT or LXX) where the antecedent of an EIS TO clause
>is anything other than the main verb, especially where that verb
>is immediately preceding the clause? How about Classical Greek?
>
>Much thanks,
>>>
Paul,
This problem is complicated further by the fact that neither in the NT or LXX
is OIDA moidified by a purpose clause. Verbs of perception are not normally
modified by purpose clauses. So what your looking for are constructions in
which another element in the clause (infinitive, participle) more naturally
takes a purpose clause, even though the verb may be in closer proximity, and
where normal Greek word order is maintained (TO KATECON, the object precedes
the verb, which complicates the verse further). For me it seems that it is
more natural to tie the EIS TO clause TO KATECON for lexical/sense reasons.
Charles Powell
DTS