You then go on to say you "don't have much trouble with the GAR in v.
7." Would you mind elaborating? How, then, do you explain v. 7? Do you
see it as explaining v. 6, or at least something in it? If so, what?
This is something that has always bothered me and I'm not sure I have
seen an explanation under the good restrainer view that makes much
sense. It does seem the neuter TO KATECHON (v. 6) is being explained by
the neuter TO MUSTERION of v. 7. This would make sense only under an
evil restrainer view.
You ask what I do with hO KATECHWN in v. 7 and hO ANOMOS in v. 8, since
they seem to you to be referring to the same person. No, hO KATECHWN
refers to Satan (v. 9) and hO ANOMOS refers to the man of lawlessness (v.
4). No problem here.
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 Tue, 3 Sep 1996 DWILKINS@ucrac1.ucr.edu wrote:
> Paul, I find your suggestion of treating the EIS clause as purpose on God's
> part interesting, because I have considered this same idea elsewhere in the
> gospels (e.g. Matt 2:15) where it appears that a purpose clause does not make
> good sense in the normal way. I'm still reluctant to go that route because of
> normal grammar and am inclined to attribute it to translation Greek--maybe
> some of the other veterans have some thoughts on this. Assuming this as a
> possibility for the moment, I don't have much trouble with the GAR in v. 7,
> and to the contrary I wonder what you do with O KATECWN in v. 7 and hO
> ANOMOS in v. 8. Don't these all have to be referring to the same person by
> your interpretation? It appears to me that hO KATECWN is subtly contrasted
> in v. 7 to MUSTHRION, as it is also to hO ANOMOS in v. 8.
>
> Don Wilkins
> UC Riverside
>