Sirach is Positive for Pharmakon

Sirach uses pharmakon twice—and found positive each time.

The Book of Sirach—aka The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, aka The Wisdom of Sirach (or The Wisdom of Ben Sira), aka Ecclesiasticus—was written in the 2^nd century BC.¹ In Protestant tradition Sirach is considered a part of writings known as the (Old Testament²) Apocrypha. Roman Catholicism and Orthodox traditions include this work in their respective Deuterocanons (second canon).

In comparison with Sirach’s use, the term pharmakon occurs only once in the entire New Testament (NT). But the context indicates a negative sense: “And they did not repent of their murders, their pharmakōn_[pl]…” (Revelation 9:21).³ Looking at usages outside and predating the NT, the term can mean (see pharmakon in the LSJ)⁴ “a drug, whether healing or noxious”, “remedy, medicine”, “enchanted potion”, or “poison”. As with most any word, context will determine the connotation. But context may not provide enough to define fully.

Following are the two instances in Sirach:

Sirach 6:16: A faithful friend is a pharmakon of life, and those who fear the Lord shall find one.

Sirach 38:4: The Lord created pharmakōn_[pl] from the earth, and a prudent man shall not despise them.

Verse 6:16 seems best rendered medicine. The Revised Standard Version (RSV) translates the usage and associated clause “an elixir of life”, while the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) renders it “life-saving medicine”. However one prefers to translate, it speaks of the importance of a faithful friend!

Both the RSV and NRSV translate Sirach 38:4 simply “medicines”. We would probably all do well by seeking natural, God-made “pharmakōn_[pl] from the earth” when appropriate.

Valuable as they may be, these contexts in Sirach cannot shed any light on exactly what John the Revelator meant in 9:21.

[Research for this post is adapted from previous work on a for-now put aside conclusion to my earlier series “By Your Pharmakeia Were All the Nations Misled” (Revelation 18:23). See part I and part II.]

_______________________

¹ See David A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), p 153.

² This is to differentiate from New Testament Apocrypha, which is a completely different, and less known, body of works. See, e.g., the two volume set by Wilhelm Schneemelcher,  New Testament Apocrypha, Rev. ed. English transl. edited by R. McL. Wilson (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1991).

³ The subscripted _[pl] indicates plural over against singular.

⁴ LSJ refers to the Liddell, Scott and Jones lexicon, now available online. From the home page: “The Liddell, Scott, Jones Ancient Greek Lexicon (LSJ) is perhaps the best known Ancient Greek-English dictionary.”

And the Word Became Flesh

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us—Emmanuel, God with us. Some beheld Jesus’ glory. All will someday behold His glory.

He is full of grace and truth. To all those who receive Him—to those believing in Jesus’ name—He gives authority to become God’s children. Grace and truth comes through Jesus Christ.

God with us. Christ with us.

Christ with me.

For Whom the Bells Toll

The church bells suspend
yet the sound keeps blooming
out of the flowers

Throughout the West, in select towns and villages large and small, church bells beckon congregants on Sundays and Holy Days. The ringing bells reverberate down the streets and corridors, the streams and river beds, and in and through creation—both God’s and man’s.

Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad; let the sea and all it contains roar; let the fields and all that’s in them exult: then all the trees in the forest will joyfully shout before the LORD (Ps 96:11–13).

The bells toll for whom?

The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky proclaims His handiwork (Ps 19:1).

Opening this post is an adaptation of a Matsuo Bashō haiku.¹ Imbued with God’s radiance, the flowers, as all God’s creation, wait in anticipation for the coming emancipation—the glorious Day of the Lord (Rom 8:18–25).

For from the creation of the world, God’s invisible attributes—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made (Rom 1:20).

[See also Music for the Times: Arvo Pärt: Da Pacem.]

__________________________

¹ As translated by Robert Bly: The temple bell stops, but the sound keeps coming out of the flowers. The idea for this blog post arose from reading the liner notes to Arvo Pärt’s Arbos, ECM NEW SERIES 1325 (831-959-1), ©1987 ECM Records GmbH.

Cessationism or Continuationism?

Cessationism is the doctrinal stance that the “sign gifts” (tongues, prophecy, healing, e.g.) have ceased. This is usually further defined by the temporal qualifier ‘after the Apostolic age’.

Continuationism is the doctrine that all the gifts are for today. Some believe that the gifts have continued on—albeit with less frequency—from the Apostolic age, others that they have come anew after being dormant for a long time.

Which position is true? More pointedly, which is Biblical? I submit that cessationism is not Biblical. I will briefly explain why I think is so further below. But, this will not be a rigorous deep dive into the issue; so, if any reader thinks I’m wrong, please explain why—using Scripture to substantiate—in the comments section.

Before going further I absolutely agree that most of the “sign gifts” we see or hear about nowadays—especially those seen on TV or video—are not real in the sense that they emanate from pseudo-prophets and pseudo-apostles (or even pseudo-Christs). I term this hyper-charismaticism. Some may say these are ‘of the flesh’, meaning fake. Others may believe these are satanic in origin. I’m inclined to think there is a bit of both in practice. (I’ve personally witnessed what I believe to be some of each.) The degree to which it is one or the other I will not hazard a guess. I think many of the leaders wield power from dark forces. Some of their followers exhibit ‘signs’ by the flesh, in an effort to fit in with the crowd.

Yet I know of individuals who claim to speak in tongues in prayer. One in particular I’ve known personally for a while, and he exhibits all the traits of a true Christian, while denouncing hyper-charismaticism.

This issue has been on my mind for quite a while, but it was brought to the fore by a suggestion on a different forum that I might be interested in viewing a new movie called Cessationist. See trailer here. I watched the trailer, and I read its description. To be blunt, I completely disagree with the premise in the following sentence describing the movie’s thrust: Are the Apostolic sign gifts in operation today? That is, I see nowhere in Scripture that there are “Apostolic sign gifts”, meaning the sign gifts were strictly for the Apostolic era.

Regarding at least some (many?, most?, all?) of those who claim the “sign gifts” were only for the Apostolic age, the further claim is that there is no evidence of these gifts occurring after the Apostolic era. My counter to that claim is evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. More bluntly, I submit that no human can make such a definitive statement. Absent omniscience (and omnipresence), no one can possibly know what has not transpired down the centuries any and everywhere.

On the other hand, returning to hyper-charismaticism, there IS a movement claiming there is now a “Second Apostolic Age”, namely the “New Apostolic Reformation” (NAR). Though it is now minimized or even denied to be an actual movement, it is the basis for many modern-day “Apostles” and “Prophets”. The evidence is on Internet Archive (aka, the Wayback Machine): apostles.net, aka International Coalition of Apostles (ICA). Here is an excerpt:

What is an apostle?  Here is the ICA definition:  ‘An apostle is a Christian leader gifted, taught, and commissioned by God with the authority to establish the foundational government of the church within an assigned sphere of ministry by hearing what the Spirit is saying to the churches and by setting things in order accordingly for the extension of the kingdom of God.’

The Second Apostolic Age began roughly in 2001, heralding the most radical change in the way of doing church at least since the Protestant Reformation.  This New Apostolic Reformation embraces the largest segment of non-Catholic Christianity worldwide, and the fastest growing.  Churches of the Apostolic Movement embrace the only Christian megablock growing faster than Islam…

–  C. Peter Wagner, Presiding Apostle

At the above hyperlink, the reader can click through the pages on the left side of the screen for more information. (And here is a link to a 2009 ICA membership list.)

The NAR is a dangerous movement, in many ways threatening Christianity: some seekers may think the NAR reflects true Christianity; some outsiders may assume the NAR is true Christianity, and thus label true Christians part of this movement; it is spiritually dangerous; etc. To my mind, it looks to be negatively represented in Matthew 7:21–23 and 2Thess 2:9–12.

We certainly seem to have ample evidence of the false. But must that mean there can be no ‘true’? For that answer we must turn to Scripture.

Among the evidence adduced for the sign gifts having ceased in the first century is 1Corinthians 13:10–12. To counter this, I shall quickly go through portions of the larger context of 1Cor 12:1–13:13.

In verses 12:4–6, Paul affirms spiritual gifts are not ‘merely’ of the Spirit, but Trinitarian in origin. This sets up the remainder of his argumentation. Verses 12:7–10 list a few of the charismatic gifts, to include the “sign gifts”, but as the late Gordon D. Fee notes, this is hardly a full list:

. . . Paul’s argument is entirely ad hoc, reflecting the Corinthian situation itself . . . [T]he list of nine items in vv. 8-10 is neither carefully worked out nor exhaustive; it is merely representative . . . Paul’s concern here is to offer a considerable list  so that they will stop being singular in their own emphasis . . . [Paul] would almost certainly not recognize some of the schematizing that later interpreters have brought to these texts.¹

Adding to Fee’s insight here, these nine are, essentially, in parallel. Therefore, one must either reject or except them all, in order to be grammatically consistent, syntactically faithful. In all intellectual honesty, one cannot simply pick and choose to one’s liking. Amongst the “sign gifts” are faith and distinguishing between spirits. Shall we declare these have ceased, as well?

One of the sign gifts that receives quite a bit of scrutiny from cessationists is prophecy. And rightfully so. The modern “Prophets” have quite often uttered futuristic ‘prophecies’ that fail to come to pass. To my mind (and Scripture), this immediately labels such “Prophets” false.

Yet, we must keep in mind Paul’s words in 1Thessalonians 5:19–22: 19 Do not quench the Spirit, 20 do not utterly reject prophecies/prophetic gifts, 21 but examine everything; hold firmly to that which is good, 22 abstain from every form/appearance of evil (NASB).

This is a difficult issue, for sure. John Piper provides helpful counsel:

Paul continues his argument in 12:12–30, by comparing the body of Christ to a human body, concluding that just as the human body is composed of many ‘parts’, so the Christian body has many different parts—different gifts—each one essential to the whole.

The Apostle Paul then illustrates how the gifts are to be manifested in love (13:1–13). Spiritual gifts will eventually cease (13:10): But when the perfect comes, then the partial ceases.  What is “the perfect” here? Some cessationists claim it is the closing of the Apostolic age or the closing of the Biblical Canon. After engaging some of the interpretive options for “the perfect” here, the NIV Study Bible concludes: Verse 12, however, seems to indicate that Paul is here speaking of Christ’s second coming.² Yes, indeed—the eschaton, the end of all things negates the need for spiritual gifts. Yet love continues into the next age.

So, “the partial” continues in the present era. For his part, Fee is dismayed at the abysmal treatment the spiritual gifts have been relegated to:

Most have simply yielded to historical reality and have tried to make a virtue out of that reality, that for the most part the extraordinary gifts have already ceased for so many . . . One wonders how Paul would have responded to present-day cerebral Christianity, which has generally implied that we can get along without the Spirit in the present age, now that the church has achieved its maturity in orthodoxy. It seems likely that he would not be pleased to see this text used to support such a view of things.³

At two points I would nuance Fee’s thoughts. I’d already noted that we cannot know the extent to which the gifts have manifested historically. Were they operational in remote portions of the globe, especially pre-modern era? Also, I’d change his statement to now that the church has achieved rigidity in “orthodoxy”—amidst quite a bit of variance among different traditions.

This is a difficult issue. But, which position is truly Biblical? I do not see how the cessationist stance can withstand Biblical scrutiny. But perhaps I’m wrong?

__________________________

¹ Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), pp 585–587.

² Kenneth Barker, Gen. Ed., NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984, © 1995), p 1754.

³ Fee, First Corinthians, pp 651–652.

Revealing “The Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2: Concluding Exegesis/Interpretation—it’s about TIME!

Gathering together everything discussed so far related to our subject verses 2:6–7—the Introduction describing the main interpretive issue, Grammatical Parameters, and An Alternate Angle for exegesis—I now offer my own exegesis and interpretation. I shall call it a ‘tentative conclusion’, for it has not been subjected to any sort of peer review. However, I have made every effort to stay faithful to the grammar and syntax, and—more importantly, in my view—the context.

What if “the restrainer” is not a restrainer at all?

Position Revealed and Contextually Justified

If we had to reduce the Thessalonians’ misconception to one word, it would be timing. Apparently due to ongoing persecution (1:4–7), and perhaps some erroneous foreign communication (2:2), they mistakenly thought the Day of the Lord had already begun (2:2).¹⁹ Under that false premise, they then seemed to have assumed Jesus’ Parousia was imminent (2:1).²⁰ Paul corrects this notion by reminding them of what he had told them in a previous face-to-face teaching (2:5), specifically that the rebellion (apostasia) and the revealing of the man of lawlessness had to occur before the Day of the Lord could begin (2:3–4).

The presumption Paul had provided ‘in-house information’ (2:5) only contemporary Thessalonians were privy to²¹ encourages speculation upon the passage (2:6–7). It abets eisegesis. We ought to question this premise. The idea that Paul is referring to some oral teaching absent from the epistle itself begs the question: Why would we presume Paul would withhold such crucial information from subsequent audiences of his epistle? Certainly there would be later converts to the Thessalonian ekklēsia, who would then be in the dark as to the exact meaning here without assistance from other congregants. Perhaps more pointedly, if we take the position this letter is Holy Spirit inspired—as all Scripture—then we should seek an interpretive solution within the context itself.

Thus, it is better, I submit, to understand Paul’s “these things” (tauta) in 2:5 as strictly referring (anaphorically) to the events in 2:3–4, which are a re-explanation of an earlier oral teaching.²² From this foundational premise, Paul then restates (2:6–7) what he had just re-explained (2:3–4) in order to correct their misconception (2:1–2). In other words, 2:6–7 should be interpreted as Paul’s encapsulation of the issue at hand (2:1–2) and his re-explanation (2:3–4) of his earlier face-to-face teaching (2:5) to correct it. Through this interpretive lens, I suggest Paul is not speaking of some elusive “restrainer” holding back the lawless one but, rather, a “detainer” figuratively ‘holding back’ Jesus’ Parousia (cf. Luke 4:42, “crowds were keeping/detaining Him”).

With this framework in mind, below is my translation of our subject passage. Explanations of the referents for katechō in v. 6 and v. 7 as well as the two pronouns in v. 6 are in italics and brackets. Each occurrence of katechō is interpreted transitively, with the corresponding implied direct objects supplied in italicized red text:

2:₁ Now, dear brothers and sisters, concerning the coming [Parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you ₂ not to be easily troubled in mind or alarmed by any spirit, message, or letter, seemingly from us, to the effect that the Day of the Lord has already begun. ₃ Let no one deceive you in any way, for ⸤ that Day will not begin ⸥ unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed [apokaluptō], the son of destruction, ₄ the one opposing and exalting himself above all that is called ‘God’ or ‘object of worship’, such that he seats himself in God’s sanctuary, proclaiming that he himself is God. ₅ Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I was telling you these things? ₆ And now you know understand what [rebellion and man of lawlessness’ revealing] detains Jesus, that He [Jesus] may be revealed [apokaluptō] in its [what detains’] season. ₇ For the mystery of lawlessness is already working, only until that which [season (of lawless one’s revealing)] detains Jesus now becomes out of the middle. ₈ At that time the lawless one will be revealed [apokaluptō]—whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of His mouth and extinguish by the radiance of His coming [Parousia]— ₉ which is the coming [parousia] according to the working of Satan . . .

Jesus is ‘detained’ by the yet future season of the lawless one, in which the lawless one will be revealed. Once this season “becomes out of the middle” between the current “mystery of lawlessness” and the Parousia of Jesus, the revealing of the lawless one will occur. This in turn will prompt the Day of the Lord, and Jesus’ Parousia would then be imminent.

This interpretation concurs with v. 8, in which Paul follows at that time the lawless one will be revealed immediately with whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of His mouth and extinguish by the radiance of His Parousia. In other words, once this season “becomes out of the middle”, first will come the rebellion and the lawless one’s revealing, which will be followed by the Day of the Lord and Christ’s Parousia.

We should understand “detain” not that the future Day of the Lord and Jesus’ Parousia are actually being delayed, but that Paul is clarifying the proper sequence of events. For sure, God’s timing prevails, God’s sovereignty is secure.

The word “season” (kairos) should be understood, per usual, as a segment of time, rather than a point in time. Thus, the revealing of the lawless one occurs within the ‘season of the revealing of the lawless one’.

Paul has no intention of being chronological in a strict sense. We might call his argumentation here a poetical paraphrasing. In his rhetorical style—using two different referents for katechō as he restates his correction to the Thessalonians’ mistaken timing—Paul is tautological. Yet, the Apostle likely repeated katechō for emphasis. First century Thessalonians probably well understood Paul. Comparatively, we later readers view the passage through anachronistic lenses, thereby obscuring Paul’s intent.

Using the interpretation above, we could paraphrase the passage:

And now you know understand that it is the rebellion and revealing of the lawless one that detains Jesus, so that He is to be revealed in the season of this revealing. For the mystery of lawlessness is already working, only until this season detaining Jesus becomes out of the middle (between the already present mystery of lawlessness, which you are now enduring, and the Day of the Lord, which will bring Jesus’ Parousia). At that time the lawless one will be revealed…

Grammatical (and Inter-Contextual) Justification

Here we shall go through 2:6–7 clause by clause to grammatically justify the exegesis and interpretation.

And now (kai nyn): Most interpreting to katechon as “restrainer” understand “and now” in v. 6 as temporal (and you know what is now “restraining”).²³  In contrast, the view herein interprets it as logical. The sense is and now that I’ve re-explained all this, you know understand. This is where Paul begins to restate the clarification of 2:3–4 and the issue of 2:1–2.

And now you know understand what detains (kai nyn to katechon oidate): The grammatical rubber meets the road right here. Where do we find the neuter referent for “what detains” (to katechon)? The verb is singular, so is it possible to see it as referring to the neuter plural tauta, “these (things)” in v. 5? Maybe, but perhaps it is better to view it as correlating simply to v. 3’s the rebellion and revealing of the man of lawlessness, as opposed to the entire description in 2:3–4. [See Addendum for further explanations.]

The New Testament uses the singular “it is written” (gegraptai) to refer to a single verse or short section of Scripture. But when more than one Scripture is referenced the plural is used. An example is John 12:16 in which these (things) had been written about Him (tauta ēn ep’ gegrammena) refers to the multiple Scriptures mentioned in 12:13–15.

The account of Jesus healing the man at the pool of Bethesda in John’s Gospel provides a good back-and-forth comparison. In John 5:14 the narrator uses the plural meta tauta, “after these (things)”, to refer to the sequence of events related to the healing of the man (5:5–13). Yet in 5:16 the narrator first uses the singular dia touto, “because of this” to refer back strictly to 5:15 (The man departed and reported to the Jews that it was Jesus who made him whole). Yet in the same verse “because of this” is later followed by the plural hoti tauta, “that these (things)” (were done on the Sabbath), referring to 5:5–13 once again. Then in reaction to 5:17 (So Jesus told them, ‘My Father still works, and I am working’) the narrator records them in 5:18 with the singular dia touto, “because of this” (the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him).

So, as we can deduce, the singular “this” (touto) refers to one event. In 5:16 “this” (touto) refers to the healed man’s reporting. In 5:18 it refers to the reaction to Jesus’ response. Comparatively, the plural “these (things)” (tauta) refers to something more expansive, a series of events—in this case the entire account of Jesus’ healing of the man (5:5–13).

Given the above, I interpret the plural “these (things)” in 2:5 as referring (anaphorically) to all of 2:3–4. In comparison, I understand the singular “what detains” (to katechon) in 2:6 as referring (anaphorically) to only a small portion of 2:3, specifically the rebellion and revealing of the man of lawlessness. The rest of 3–4 detail the aftermath of his revealing, and so are not pertinent to the issue of a ‘delayed’ Parousia.

what detains Jesus: Interpreting “what detains” (to katechon) transitively, I construe Jesus as the implied direct object. This brings us back to the main issue: What is delaying Jesus’ Parousia? The Thessalonians were apparently anxiously anticipating Jesus’ Parousia to bring them relief from their persecution (1:4–7).

Alternatively, the Day of the Lord could work as the implied direct object.

that He may be revealed (eis to apokalypsthēnai auto): Over against other interpretations—excepting Schaefer/Frame (noted in An Alternate Angle)—I construe the masculine pronoun as referring to Jesus.

As Witherington observes, in this chapter Paul is employing a rhetorical synkrisis, which contrasts one thing or person with another by using similar verbiage for each.²⁴ In this case, the Apostle contrasts one Parousia with another—a true Parousia, and a false parousia. I also construe one “revealing” (apokaluptō) contrasted with another. The two other instances of “revealing” in this chapter clearly refer to the lawless one (2:3, 8), but here I deem the occurrence as relating to Jesus. The verbal form (article + infinitive) is different from the other two (finite verbs), and I interpret this one as an allusion to 1:7 (article + noun form of the verb), which explicitly refers to Jesus.

Those who view this clause through the lens of a “restrainer” holding back the lawless one usually interpret it as expressing purpose. The method herein favors the clause expressing result:²⁵ As a result of the yet-future revealing of the lawless one “detaining” Jesus, He will be revealed… (see next section).

in its season (en tō̹ heautou kairō̹): The (emphatically placed) reflexive pronoun (heautou) can be interpreted either as masculine or neuter. Under the construal here, most naturally the emphasized pronoun is intended to refer to the neuter “what detains”: in its season. Jesus will be revealed in the season of the lawless one’s revealing. The true Parousia follows the false one (2:8–9).

The word “season” (kairos) here may well be intended as an allusion to 5:1 of the first Thessalonian epistle: Concerning the times [chronos] and the seasons [kairos], brothers and sisters, you have no need to be written to you. It appears they did need this!

For the mystery of lawlessness is already working (to gar mystērion ēdē energeitai tēs anomias): This (independent) clause is fairly straightforward. This is Paul’s way of putting the Thessalonian persecution in perspective. They are currently living in “the mystery of lawlessness”, apparently a subdued level of lawlessness—and persecution—as compared to what will be present at the revealing of the lawless one. Yet this fuller (full?) manifestation of the lawless one will be no match for the Coming One.

Revelation 10:6–7 provides a corollary to the overall interpretation here:

10:₆ …“There shall be no more delay! ₇ But in the days of the sound of the seventh angel, when he should be about to trumpet, then the mystery of God is finalized, as he proclaimed to his servants, the prophets.”²⁶

only until that which detains now (monon ho katechōn arti eōs): only until provides the termination point for “the mystery of lawlessness”.²⁷

The masculine grammatically gendered “that which detains” (ho katechōn) is (anaphorically) correlated to the masculine “season” (kairos) at the end of v. 6. In turn, “season” is (anaphorically) correlated to the neuter “what restrains” (to katechon) via the modifying pronoun “its” (heauton). In this way each referent flows nicely in the text. Each one refers back to an antecedent, as opposed to (cataphorically) looking forward to a postcedent, which is less natural. I submit this better suits Paul’s intention here, for he would surely not want to further confuse the beleaguered Thessalonians!

that which detains Jesus now: Like the earlier instance in v. 6, I interpret “that which detains” transitively, while also understanding “Jesus” to be the implied direct object.

becomes out of the middle (ek mesou genētai): Here I think it best to retain Paul’s apparent poetical intention. It is the lawless one’s season that “becomes out of the middle”, and such a pure translation seems appropriate to suit Paul’s rhetorical style here. Recognizing God’s sovereignty over seasons, “becomes” (genētai) is probably functioning as a so-called “divine passive”; that is, God is the implied agent.²⁸ The lawless one’s revealing, just as the lawless one himself, is subject to God’s sovereignty.

In this context, the phrase “becomes out of the middle” may well be alluding to Matthew 24:34: …this generation shall not pass away until all these things come to be (panta tauta genētai).

And at that time (kai tote): Those interpreting “And now” in v. 6 temporally (as referring to then-current time) also construe v. 8 as beginning with “And then” (referring to the future). By contrast, I understand this word (tote) as “at that time” (see Weymouth NT and Berean Study Bible) and the clause as logical: Once its season “becomes out of the middle” the lawless one’s revealing occurs.

Afterword

This article is the culmination of literally years of thought and work. When I initially had a germ of this interpretation, I lacked the confidence and competence to complete it. I hope I am not now overconfident and my conclusions flawed!

Critique is welcome, both pro and con—especially con. If I have made any blunders, please identify them by commenting. Thanks for reading!

_____________________________________

¹⁹ “Day of the Lord” was likely understood not as one twenty-four hour period, but as the time period encompassing the end of the age. See, e.g., Wanamaker, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, p 240. It is beyond the scope of this article to more fully engage other works regarding the possibilities for the Thessalonian misconception. Space will allow only a brief summary.

²⁰ As Witherington opines (Ben Witherington III, 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006]): “[T]hey may have simply thought that their current sufferings were part of the [D]ay of the Lord, and that Jesus’ coming must then be imminent, all being part of the final events” (p 215). This succinctly captures my own view.

²¹ Even BDAG—“κατέχω” in Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd. ed. (Chicago, IL: Chicago, 2000)—presumes this in a parenthetical note: “vs. 5 appears to imply in-house information” (p 532.1.c).

²² See Frame, Thessalonians, pp 257–258. Using the neuter plural tauta, “these (things)” is a very common way of referring back to things just stated or written, e.g., Matthew 1:20, John 5:16. See further below.

²³ I’ve yet to find a source that interprets καί νυ̑ν as logical, though some admit it as a possibility, e.g., Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), p 286. Fee, though, ultimately favors a temporal interpretation (pp 286–7).

²⁴ Witherington, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, p 217.

²⁵ Though Fee, First and Second Letters, favors a “restrainer” holding back the lawless one, he understands the clause expressing result, leaving purpose unmentioned (p 287). In other words, it appears Fee does not see purpose as a possibility here. Cf. Decker at note 10 from the second segment.

²⁶ Many thanks to PowerPoint with Dr. Jack Graham, pastor of Prestwood Baptist Church in Plano, TX for this insight. I heard part of his sermon/exposition of Revelation on KDRY while driving just this past week. As soon as he quoted Revelation 10:6–7, the Spirit immediately correlated “no more delay” and “mystery of God” with “mystery of lawlessness” and the interpretation “what detains” here.

²⁷ On initial inspection, the syntax seems a bit convoluted. But see note 7 above (in the Grammatical Parameters segment) for explanation.

²⁸ See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), pp 437–438.

Revealing “The Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2: An Alternate Angle

In the Introduction, a brief overview of the main issue in 2:6–7 was discussed. In the Grammatical Parameters segment, relevant grammatical, syntactical, and—to a lesser extent—contextual issues were considered. In this segment, we will take the information gathered thus far and explore another’s alternative exegesis of this passage.

Throughout the centuries, a particular methodology seems to have straight-jacketed exegetes. It was just assumed and followed. This restrained other possible exegeses. For our purposes here, I shall borrow Guthrie’s imperative: “We must continue to ask questions of our methodologies as well as of the text.”¹⁴

Following are some questions we should ask of our subject text, starting with the first clause of 2:6 and finishing with the final clause of 2:7. Questioning the text afresh could yield other interpretive avenues foreign to those usually assumed:

-Is “now” to be understood as logical (‘and now that I’ve re-explained all this, you know’) or temporal (and you know what is now “restraining”’)?
-If intransitive use of to katechon (v. 6) is assumed, what/who holds/prevails?
-If transitive, what/who is being restrained/held?
-If transitive, what/who is the restrainer/holder”?
-Who does the pronoun (“he”) refer to in the middle clause (the accusative/direct object)?
-Whose/which (“his”/”its”) season/time is referred to?
-If intransitive use of ho katechōn (v. 7) is assumed, what/who holds/prevails?
-If transitive, what/who is being restrained/held?
-If transitive, what/who is the restrainer/holder?
-What is the best way to translate ek mesou genētai, “out of the middle becomes”?

In some cases, an answer to one will directly impact, or even eliminate, another. The alternative interpretation below rather radically ‘reinterprets’ the passage by answering some of these questions differently than prevailing exegesis. A brief background will serve as a preface.

The Schaefer/Frame Interpretation

James Everett Frame, in his early 20^th century International Critical Commentary, references a work (from 1890) by Schäfer (Schaefer), an obscure Roman Catholic scholar.¹⁵ Since Frame’s work is now in the public domain, we shall quote at length.

First, however, owing to the commentary’s technical nature, Schaefer’s exegesis—as interpreted, in part, by Frame—shall be laid out just below. Brackets identify the referents:

2:₆ And as to the present, you know what holds sway [the secret of lawlessness], that He [Jesus] may be revealed in His season. ₇ For the secret of lawlessness has already been set in operation [by Satan], only until he who is now holding sway [Satan] becomes out of the middle. ₈ Then the lawless one will be revealed…¹⁶

Thus, in v. 6 Schaefer/Frame interprets the first clause temporally (“as to the present”), the verb intransitively and (cataphorically) referring to v. 7’s “secret of lawlessness”. The direct object is “Jesus”, and, presumably it is in Jesus’ season that He Himself will be revealed. Since, in the Schaefer/Frame conception, the source of “the mystery/secret of lawlessness” is Satan’s power (mysterion, “mystery” is neuter), then the masculine “restrainer” in v. 7 is Satan himself.

Schaefer in his commentary (1890) agrees with Döllinger in taking κατέχειν [“to hold”] intransitively and in translating it “herrschen,” “rule,” “hold sway.” In his exegesis of the passage he comes to the conclusion not only that τὸ κατέχον [v. 6, “what holds sway”] is the mystery of lawlessness and that αὐτόν (v. 6 [“He”]) is Christ, but also that ὁ κατέχων [v.7, “who holds sway”] is Satan. This identification of ὁ κατέχων with Satan, original apparently with the Roman Catholic scholar, has the advantage of fitting admirably into Paul’s thinking both here and elsewhere. Assuming Schaefer’s identification as a working hypothesis and applying it in our own way, we suggest first of all that just as Christ is to Paul both the exalted Lord and the Spirit operating in believers, so Satan is both (1) “the god of this age” (2Cor. 4:4), “the prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2), the (temporary) ruler (ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι [“who holds sway now”]) of the spiritual hosts of wickedness, and (2) the evil spirit (τὸ κατέχο) that energises in the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2). The effect of the operation of Satan, the spirit or person who is now holding sway, is characterised as “ the mystery of lawlessness,” that is, the lawlessness which is secretly growing in unbelievers under the spell of Satan. This control of Satan is in accordance with the divine purpose, for it prepares the way for the revelation of the Anomos [“lawless one”] in the time set him by God and not before, the reason being that the mystery of lawlessness, which Satan sets in operation, is to culminate in a definitive apostasy on earth which is the signal for the advent of Satan’s instrument, the Anomos. But this apostasy will not come, and the Anomos will not be revealed until Satan, who is now holding sway, is put out of the way…But the unsolved difficulty in our passage is the reference intended by ἐκ μέσου γένηται [“out of the middle becomes”]. It is just possible that Paul is alluding to the war in heaven (Revelation 12:7 ff.), the religious revolt led by Satan, which is the signal for the sudden apostasy on earth. In this case, ἐκ μέσου [“out of the middle”] refers to Satan’s expulsion from heaven to earth. Though he is thus removed, he makes use of his peculiar instrument, the Anomos, who now issues forth from his place of concealment, and gives him all his power, just as the Dragon (Revelation 13:2) gives the beast his power, his throne, and great authority. Equipped with this power, the Anomos, whose advent is for the doomed alone, gathers his forces for war against Christ (cf. 1Cor 15:24 ff.), attempts the assault on the throne of God in his holy temple in heaven, but is slain in the attempt by the Lord Jesus with the breath of his mouth and is destroyed with the manifestation of his advent. To this conjecture, based on Schaefer’s identification of ὁ κατέχων with Satan, it may be objected not that Satan is described in reference to his function of κατέχειν, for Paul calls Satan ὁ πειράζων [“the tempter”] (1Thess 3:5), but that (1) Paul might not subscribe either to the identification or to the deductions therefrom indicated above, and (2) that ἐκ μέσου, which to be sure designates only the fact not the manner (forced or voluntary) of the removal, does not at first blush suggest an ἐκβάλλεσθαι εἰς τὴν γῆν [“throwing down to the earth”] (Revelation 12:9).¹⁷

In Frame’s conception of Schaefer’s position (which seems to have not been fully fleshed out by Schaefer), Satan and “the mystery of lawlessness” are “connected both essentially and temporally.”¹⁸ In other words, Satan is the spirit behind the mystery of lawlessness in the time before the revealing of the lawless one. Concurrent with when this more subdued lawlessness reaches its zenith, Satan “becomes out of the middle” via his expulsion from heaven, which results in the adversary directly operating through the lawless one in a mock ‘incarnation’.

The Schaefer/Frame position can be seen as bolstered by Paul’s use of the same root word (energeō) for “is working” (above as the dynamic equivalent “set in operation”) in v. 7 and in v. 9 (noun form [energeia] of verb: “according to the ‘working’/’operating’ of Satan”). That is, “the mystery/secret of lawlessness”, which was already in operation/working at the time when Paul penned his epistle, culminates in the lawless one’s energization “according to the ‘working’/’operating’ of Satan”. The energy source is the same, only the latter more manifest, probably to the full.

And yet it is at this point that this schema is open to criticism, as Frame freely admits. More pointedly, if Satan’s (more subdued) power is behind “the mystery/secret of lawlessness”, and it is also the adversary’s manifest power energizing the lawless one upon his revealing, then it becomes a question of why Satan would be construed as the one who “becomes out of the middle”. It all seems a bit convoluted.

Another Alternative?

Using the same framework as the lengthy quote above, we might substitute Michael the archangel for Satan here, by construing ho katechōn (v. 7) as transitive (Michael restraining Satan) rather than the Schaefer/Frame intransitive. Once Michael “becomes out of the middle” (Rev 12:9), Satan is able to fully possess the lawless one. But then the issue of context rears its head again. Michael is found nowhere in the context. And this same problem plagues the ‘usual’ interpretations.

Yet, positively, this alternative framework above can induce other conceptions. Is there another way of viewing this passage, while simultaneously remaining faithful to the context? One such view will be presented in the next segment, the conclusion.

_____________________________________

¹⁴ George H. Guthrie, “Boats in the Bay: Reflections on the Use of Linguistics and Literary Analysis in Biblical Studies,” in Stanley E. Porter & D. A. Carson, eds. Linguistics and the New Testament: Critical Junctures (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), p 32. After this statement, which was used as a section header, the author comments: The fundamental question has to do with how meaning functions—how a specific meaning comes to be obtained by the reader of a literary text. In other words, what is the nature of the author–text–reader relationship? Certain queries in this regard will occupy those who seek to integrate newer literary criticism with linguistics (p 32).

¹⁵ James Everett Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles A. Briggs, International Critical Commentary (ICC), (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912). See p 64 for first reference to Schäfer’s commentary; no title is provided. See here for digitized version.

¹⁶ The exegesis and translation are gathered from Frame, Thessalonians, pp 261–264. It’s important to note that Frame himself differs at points from Schaefer, though sharing in an intransitive interpretation for both verses. Also prefering this interpretation is Wanamaker (1 & 2 Thessalonians, pp 253–256).

¹⁷ Frame, Thessalonians, pp 261–262.

¹⁸ Frame, Thessalonians, p 264.

Revealing “The Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2: Grammatical Parameters

[See part I: Introduction.]

To assist in identifying “the restrainer” we might scan through the first chapter of 2 Thessalonians for possible points of contact. At least one commonality is found below.

First, I will translate 2:1–9, even though we’ve yet to explore other interpretive avenues for 6–7. One available option is evident in the forward slash ( / ) between two alternatives. Elsewhere, the grammar and syntax allow other renderings. Explanations will follow further below. Greek words repeated in the text are bracketed and in colored font for easy reference and comparison.

2:₁ Now, dear brothers and sisters, regarding the coming [Parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you ₂ not to be easily troubled in mind or alarmed by any spirit, message, or letter, seemingly from us, to the effect that the Day of the Lord has already begun. ₃ Let no one deceive you in any way, for ⸤ that Day will not begin ⸥ unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed [apokaluptō], the son of destruction, ₄ the one opposing and exalting himself above all that is called ‘God’ or ‘object of worship’, such that he seats himself in God’s sanctuary, proclaiming that he himself is God. ₅ Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I was telling you these things? ₆ And now you know what restrains_[nt] [(him)], that he may be revealed [apokaluptō] in his/its_[ms/nt] season. ₇ For the mystery of lawlessness is already working, only until the one who/which now restrains_[ms] becomes out of the middle. ₈ Then the lawless one will be revealed [apokaluptō]—whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of His mouth and extinguish by the radiance of His coming [Parousia]— ₉ which is the coming [parousia] according to the working of Satan . . .

Few would find Paul the model of clarity in 2 Thessalonians 2. Besides the run-on sentences and digressions, he even leaves out part of the sentence in v. 3!⁷ The italicized text between the subscripted brackets ( ⸤ ⸥ ) fills it in.⁸ Paul also deviates from the plural “we” used throughout this epistle (…we ask you…), to the singular “I” in his digression of 2:5 (…when I was with you, I was telling you these things?).

Grammatical and (Inter-)Textual Considerations

Note the repetition of both Parousia and apokaluptō. On the former (Parousia), Paul uses it twice to refer to Jesus (v. 1, 8) and once to “the lawless one” (v. 9—illustrated here by the use of lower case parousia). Paul contrasts the ‘coming’ of the lawless one with the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He juxtaposes the lawless one’s counterfeit parousia with Christ’s true Parousia.⁹

Regarding apokaluptō, this word is explicitly used twice in reference to the lawless one (v. 3, 8) and once seemingly to him (v. 6). Yet, v. 6 is in a different verbal form (infinitive¹⁰) than the others. Interestingly, the noun form (apokalypsis) of this verb signifies Jesus’ revelation in 2Thess 1:7.¹¹ Larger context better illustrates:

1:₅ …proof of God’s righteous judgment that you will be considered worthy of the Kingdom of God, for which you are suffering, ₆ since it is a righteous thing for God to repay those afflicting you with affliction, ₇ and to you who are being afflicted with relief with us, at the revelation [apokalypsis] of the Lord Jesus from heaven with angels of His power.

Paul pastorally comforts the persecuted Thessalonians by assuring them that he, Silvanus, and Timothy (1:1) will join them in their relief at Jesus’ revelation, aka Parousia (2:1, 8). Chapter 1, then, serves as a preface to his correction in chapter 2.

Paul specifically uses apokaluptō for the counterfeit parousia. That is, in 2:8–9, he defines the lawless one’s “revealing” by parousia. If we remove the portion of v. 8 referring to Christ’s Parousia (between the em dashes), we are left with: “Then the lawless one will be revealed [apokaluptō]…which is the coming [parousia] according to the working of Satan…”

Zeroing in on 6–7, we must first mention the verb katechō. At root, it carries the meaning “hold”, though in translation we may further nuance it according to context. Yet it may be important to keep this basic definition in mind, for this could foster out-of-the-box thinking in our subject verses.

The New Testament (NT) uses the word in a variety of ways, with “hold” underlying each occurrence:

-Luke 4:42: crowds were holding [keeping, detaining, delaying] Him, that He not depart from them
-Luke 14:9: in shame, you would begin to hold [occupy] the lowest place
-Acts 27:40: hoisting the mainsail to the wind, they began holding course [heading] towards shore
-Rom 1:18: the wrath of God is revealed against men who hold back [suppress] the truth
-Rom 7:6: having died in that which we were held [bound, confined]
-1Cor 7:30: those buying (things), as if not holding [possessing, owning] (things)
-1Thess 5:21: hold [hold fast, cling] to the truth

This briefly summarizes NT applications, providing fodder for possible alternate renderings in 2:6 and  2:7.

In v. 6, note “him” in brackets. The verb for “restrainer”, katechō, can be understood as acting either intransitively (without accusative direct object) or transitively (with direct object). Either interpretation is possible here. If we assume the word is functioning intransitively, then we simply end the clause with “what restrains” and leave it at that.

If transitive use is assumed, then we supply the direct object from context—“him” in the tentative translation above. Luke 8:15, in which the transitive is surely implied, exemplifies: and having heard the word, they hold [katechō]. In this verse, katechō has no expressed direct object, so translators follow “hold” with a supplied “on to it” (“it” referring to “the word”).

No matter how this is interpreted, there is the accusative direct object “that he may be revealed” in the very next clause. In the intransitive application, this clause further explains in some way “what restrains”. In the transitive application, we would then have a double accusative/direct object structure, in which the second one further explains the first in some manner: “…what restrains him, that he may be revealed”.

The verse begins with the Greek kai nyn, “and now”. The “now” can be interpreted one of two ways: temporal or logical. If temporal, it is rendered like the NASB: “And you know what restrains him now”. In other words, ‘you know what is currently restraining him’. If logical, it is akin to the rendering in the above translation: “And now you know what restrains”.  The sense is ‘now that I’ve re-explained things (2:1–5), you know what restrains’.

The final clause in v. 6 is ambiguous, in that the pronoun can be either masculine or neuter: “in his season” or “in its season”. If masculine is assumed, the pronoun most naturally refers to “he” in the previous clause. But, could it be neuter? If so, what would be the referent?

At first glance, v. 7 appears to contain a syntactical anomaly. It seems to consist in two separate sentences, the second one missing the main verb. However, the solution is to construe it as one sentence, with word order in the latter portion intending to emphasize the subject (“the one restraining now becomes…”) of the dependent clause.¹² The effect would be to understand “only” and “until” as a consecutive unit, despite the Greek having “the one restraining now” sandwiched between the two. The International Standard Version (ISV), e.g., renders it in this manner: For the secret of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the person now holding it back gets out of the way.

The first part of the sentence—the main, independent clause—is relatively straightforward: “For the mystery of lawlessness is already working”. The final phrase ek mesou genētai (ἐκ μέσου γένηται, “out of the middle becomes”, “from the midst becomes”) in the dependent clause, however, has occasioned some difficulty. This exact phrase is absent in the NT. Though the verb (from ginomai, “become”, “come to be”) is very common, ek mesou occurs only a handful of times. Excluding 2Thess 2:7, here are the NT ek mesou occurrences:

-Matt 13:49: The angels will…separate the evil ones from among the just
-Acts 17:33: Paul went out from the midst of them
-Acts 23:10: snatch him [Paul] from the middle of them
-1Cor 5:2: removed from the middle of you
-2Cor 6:17: come out from among them and be separate

Each of the above is, essentially, “from the middle/midst” or “out of the middle/midst”, though context may favor slightly different wording in English. The meaning is very much the same, however.

Some have tried to interpret this final clause using “the mystery of lawlessness” as the subject of “becomes out of the middle”. However, “the one who/which now restrains” is certainly the subject. The capable F. F. Bruce refutes such a notion:

Attempts have been made to construe the clause as though the reference were to the mystery of lawlessness “coming to pass out of the midst”—i.e. emerging from its place of concealment, but that would require εἰς μέσον [ED: accusative] not ἐκ μέσου [ED: genitive].¹³

Excursus: Becoming out of the Middle

To further assist in exegeting ek mesou genētai, “out of the middle becomes” we will compare this phrase with a very similar one (same verb but different form) in a Greek romance, likely composed in the 2^nd century AD. The selection below is from Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon.

To set the stage, Clitophon and Leucippe become attracted to each other after circumstances place the latter in the former’s household in Tyre. After a time, the two conspire to partake in a nighttime rendezvous in her [Leucippe’s] chambers, with the assistance of household servant Satyrus and Leucippe’s personal maidservant, Clio. On that night, moments after Clitophon lies down in her bed, Leucippe’s mother, Panthea, awakens from a nightmare, provoking her to run to her daughter’s room. Upon seeing the silhouette of a man in Leucippe’s bed, Panthea erupts in hysterics. Under cover of darkness, Clitophon escapes, eventually making his way to his room, unsure if Leucippe’s mother recognized him as he fled. He assumes the worst.

Panthea interrogates Leucippe and Clio [her maidservant] in order to determine the identity of the nighttime visitor. In this, Panthea reveals that she did not realize it was, in fact, Clitophon in her daughter’s room. With this knowledge, Leucippe lies to her mother, saying she did not know the identity of the man. Meanwhile, aware of Panthea’s revelation to her daughter, both Clitophon and Satyrus plan to flee before the entire conspiracy is exposed. With this plan conceived, they proceed to the house of Clinias, Clitophon’s cousin, in order to further prepare.

Soon after, Clio arrives at Clinias’ house, desiring to escape from her sure interrogation by torture come morning. With this, she informs Clitophon, Satyrus, and Clinias that Panthea was as yet unaware of the identity of Leucippe’s visitor. Upon hearing this, Clinias pulls Clitophon aside, suggesting they secretly and swiftly send Clio off, out of harms’ way. This would provide the opportunity for Clitophon and Satyrus to persuade Leucippe into fleeing with them, as well.

Following is Clinias’ reasoning in suggesting to Clitophon that Clio be sent away. First is the Greek, which is followed by a word-for-word working translation, then a more readable rendering:

Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon, 2.27.2:

Οὔτε γὰρ νῦν οἶδε τῆς κόρης ἡ μήτηρ τίνα κατέλαβεν, ὡς ὑμεῖς φατε,
ὅ τε καταμηνύσων οὐκ ἔσται τῆς Κλειοῦς ἐκ μέσου γενομένης:
τάχα δὲ καὶ τὴν κόρην συμφυγεῖν πείσετε.

And-not for now she-knows, the girl’s (the) mother whom she took, as you spoke,
that but will-make-known not be (the) Clio’s out of the middle becomes.
Perhaps now and the girl flee-along-with you-persuade

“For now, the girl’s mother [Panthea] does not know whom she saw, as you said,
and there will be no one to inform her when Clio becomes out of the middle.
And then perhaps you could persuade the girl [Leucippe] to flee with you.”

Clio is currently caught between Leucippe and Leucippe’s mother, Panthea. She does not want to divulge the conspiracy, thereby incriminating herself, Leucippe, Clitophon, and Satyrus; yet, Panthea, who wants to know the identity of the night visitor, will surely attempt to torture her for the information. By following Clinias’ suggestion, Clio would become out of the middle.

Her escape would also buy some time for Clitophon and Satyrus to persuade Leucippe into fleeing with them all.

To restate, following Clinias’ suggestion, Clio would no longer be in the middle of the situation—in the middle between Leucippe and Panthea. She would become out of the middle, removed from the entire situation. Yet, note that it is Clio’s escape that makes her become out of the middle. In other words, her escape is the means by which she becomes out of the middle. It is not some external force removing her—with help from the others, she removes herself (“becomes out of the middle”) by escaping.

We might render the above, “and there will be no one to inform her when Clio escapes”. But, this would fail to retain the poetic value of the original “becomes out of the middle”. We must be careful not to over-translate when rendering texts, thereby imposing our own interpretation upon it.

Application

Applying this excursus to 2Thess 2:7, the overarching point is that the exegete should not be constrained by the common English versions, which use verbiage such as “is removed”, “is taken out of the way”, or “gets out of the way”. It is prudent to begin with the ‘bald’ translation “becomes out of the middle”. To the extent possible, begin with a tabula rasa, a clean slate. Reach an exegetical conclusion only after considering all grammatical and contextual options.

In v. 7, the verb “becomes” can be either passive or middle. If passive, some external force/person provides the action. If middle, ‘the restrainer’ has some part in becoming out of the middle.

Considering the context of v. 8, we know that once “the one who/which now restrains” becomes out the middle, the result is the revealing of the lawless one.

Opened Avenues

Within the framework provided by this part of the current series, one can begin to explore other exegetical possibilities, unencumbered by the usual interpretations. The next segment will provide one such alternative: An Alternate Angle.

___________________________________________

⁷ Many would argue there is also an ellipsis in 7b, requiring the addition of a finite verb to complete it. However, it is possible ἕως, eōs (“until”) is placed postpositively, after ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι, ho katechōn arti (“the one who/which restrains now”) in order to emphasize “the restrainer”. Assuming so, 7b should be understood as a dependent clause to “The mystery of lawless is already working” instead of a separate sentence. This is the approach taken above. See, e.g., Charles A. Wannamaker, Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), pp 255–256.

⁸ More specifically (and technically), v. 3 is missing the apodosis, which is the main (independent) clause in an ‘if-then’ conditional statement. Only the protasis, the dependent clause, is stated here (“unless [‘if not’] the rebellion comes first and…”). In other words, in the case of vv. 3–4, it is the ‘then’ part that is absent. It is probably best to place the ‘then’ in the beginning of the sentence—as most English versions do—though it can be appended to v. 4, which would yield: “…proclaiming that he himself is God, [then] that Day will not begin.” See Young’s Literal Translation (“…the day doth not come.”).

⁹ Relatedly, see this post Not One Parousia, But Two.

¹⁰ More specifically, it is an articular infinitive within a prepositional phrase, indicating result. See Rodney J. Decker, Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated Workbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), pp 368, 372.

¹¹ This same noun is used to begin the final book of the Bible, Revelation: The revelation/apocalypse [apokalypsis] of Jesus Christ…

¹² See note 7 above.

¹³ F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), p 171.

Revealing “The Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2: Introduction

The identity of “the restrainer” in 2Thess 2:6 and 2:7 has eluded interpreters. Myriad opinions have been proffered down the centuries, but none have gained widespread acceptance. We might just as well throw up our hands and join Augustine in a chorus of “I confess that I do not know exactly what he [Paul] means” (ego prorsus quid dixerit me fateor ignorare).¹

Augustine, like some others, assumes the Thessalonians were privy to insider information that outsiders like us lack (2:5: Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I was telling you these things?).² Without this essential identifying information, we grasp at straws. But perhaps this premise is misguided?

The Grammatical Puzzle

Though there are several syntactical and grammatical difficulties in this chapter, the primary puzzle appears in the difference between the neuter grammatical gender for “the restrainer” in 2:6 and the masculine in 2:7. Below we will use the NASB to illustrate this grammatical gender difference by adding a subscripted _[nt] for neuter and _[ms] for masculine. The italicized portions in the translation indicate words the NASB add to the underlying Greek text. The italics in brackets show alternative translations from the footnotes of the NASB. We start at the beginning of the chapter for larger context:

2:₁ Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, ₂ that you not be quickly shaken from your composure [Lit mind] or be disturbed either by a spirit, or a message, or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the Day of the Lord has come. ₃ No one is to deceive you in any way! For it will not come unless the apostasy [Or falling away from the faith (ED: or rebellion)] comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, ₄ who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. ₅ Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? ₆ And you know what restrains_[nt] him now, so that he will be revealed in his time. ₇ For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He [or he] who now restrains_[ms] will do so until He [or he] is removed [or out of the way]. ₈ Then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will eliminate with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming . . .

“The restrainer” is understood to be holding back “the man of lawlessness”. With the neuter to masculine sequence, many have assumed an impersonal principle of some sort must apply to v. 6, while a personal actor related to this principle must be the subject of v. 7. Early interpreters (Tertullian, Chrysostom, e.g.) thought the slots should be filled by the Roman Empire and the Roman emperor, respectively. For those who interpret that Paul left out important identifying information, this would explain why he was seemingly evasive: Paul didn’t want Rome itself to target Thessalonian believers.

Other contenders include Paul’s missionary work, the preaching of the Gospel, Elijah, Michael the archangel, and God the Father or the Holy Spirit. The latter appears to be what the NASB translation committee/interpreters have in view with the capitalized “He” in 2:7. On this interpretation, echoing Chrysostom,³ Green wonders “why the author would make such an opaque reference to God”.⁴ Adding to this insight, one might wonder why Paul didn’t just spell out the references forthrightly, for, besides a Roman interpretation, there would seem to be no reason to be so indirect.

We might even question the methodology here. A neuter referent must not necessarily indicate an impersonal principle. And a masculine referent does not necessarily mean “the restrainer” is personal. For example, note that the three synonyms for the sea below differ from each other in grammatical gender. We surely would not construe a body of water as personal (except perhaps in figurative usage).

the open/deep sea = to pelagos (neuter)
the deep sea = ho bythos (masculine)
the sea/lake = hē limnē (feminine)

At root, grammatical gender is usually conditioned by the spelling of the particular word. However, as languages evolve, sometimes words can change meaning and/or spelling, which distorts the picture somewhat.⁵ Typically, words specifically referring to a male are grammatically masculine, while words referring to a female are grammatically feminine, but this is not always the case.⁶

Consider Jairus’ daughter in Mark 5. Jairus introduces her in 5:23 as his thygatrion (“little daughter”), which is grammatically neuter. Of course, the neuter hardly makes Jairus’ daughter impersonal, a non-person! Yet thygatrion (“little daughter”) is the diminutive form of thygatēr (“daughter”), which is grammatically feminine. In fact, later (5:35), men from Jairus’ house refer to the girl by that very term, thygatēr.

However, when Jesus comes to Jairus’ house to bring her back to life (5:39), He refers to her as the grammatically neuter paidion (“child”). Then, as He is about to restore her (5:41), Mark the narrator prefaces Jesus’ words with: And grasping the hand of the child [paidion (neuter)], He says to her [autē̦ (feminine)].

The account of Jairus’ daughter and the example of synonyms for the sea illustrate that we must not automatically correlate grammatical gender to personhood or non-personhood and/or biological sex. Though this methodology remains a possibility for this context, the exegete should not be constrained by such.

Contextual Considerations

We might also question the validity of the opinions proffered above on the basis that they are all absent from the context. None are found anywhere in 2 Thessalonians 2. If we were to use this as a means by which to tentatively reject such interpretations, the only possible remaining candidate from those listed above would be Rome for the reasons specified earlier.

Zooming out a bit, let us see if we can better understand the issue at hand. Paul begins this chapter with “regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him”. Related to this, we see that the Thessalonians were under the impression that the Day of the Lord had already begun. Inferring from these two concerns, it appears ‘Christ’s coming and our gathering’ falls within the Day of the Lord. Yet that Day cannot begin until the apostasy and the revealing of the lawless one.

Extracting a chronological sketch from the text, we seem to find:

-The Thessalonians were then experiencing “the mystery of lawlessness”
-This “mystery of lawlessness” will continue on, via “the restrainer”
-Once “the restrainer” is no longer ‘restraining’, the lawless one will be revealed
-After this, the Day of the Lord will begin and Jesus will come to gather His saints
-Following this, Jesus destroys the “lawless one”

This provides needed perspective.

In considering alternate exegetical methods, we might think of each occurrence of “the restrainer” as a pronoun, substituting for the thing or person it refers to. The referent could either (anaphorically) precede the pronoun, or it could (cataphorically) follow it. Examples in English should clarify:

Though Carlos scored no goals, he had two assists. (“Carlos” {anaphorically} precedes “he”)
Though he scored no goals, Carlos had two assists. (“Carlos” {cataphorically} follows “he”)

Thus, we might be able to find a reference to “the restrainer” either (anaphorically) before its occurrence or (cataphorically) after its occurrence in the text.

As we continue in this series, we will explore alternatives until we arrive at our tentative conclusion. In the next installment, we will gather a bit more background information and address one tangential aspect.

[See part II: Revealing “The Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2: Grammatical Parameters.]

_______________________________

¹ The City of God against the Pagans, XX.19.

² Ibid.

³ Homilies on 2 Thessalonians.

⁴ Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians, Pillar New Testament Commentary (PNTC); Accordance electronic ed., OakTree Software, Inc. Version 2.5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), p 315. Relatedly, see my post Rapture Ready?, in which I challenge the typical pretribulation rapture doctrine of the Spirit as “the restrainer” who is removed so “the lawless one” is revealed.

⁵ See this article by Cindy Blanco at the Duolingo blog: Dear Duolingo: What’s up with all these gendered nouns?, as accessed 07/01/2023.

⁶ Relatedly, as we can see, grammatical gender does not necessarily indicate biological sex—see Misgendering the Spirit. That is, it appears that some may understand the masculine grammatical gender for “the restrainer” in 2:7 to indicate not just personhood but maleness. Cf. The Holy Spirit as “Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2? and the Contextual Considerations section just below.

Staying Within Proper Theological Boundaries: Important Words

This post is an extension of Staying Within Proper Theological Boundaries. Here we look at the color-coded words plus “Almighty” in the 381 Nicene Creed.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty [pantokratōr], Maker [poitēs] of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

And (we believe) in one Lord Jesus Christ—the sole-kin/kind [monogenēs] Son of God, begotten [gennaō] of the Father before all ages [aiōn], Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten [gennaō] not made [poieō], coessential [homo-ousia] with the Father—through whom all things came to be; Who, for us men [anthrōpos] and for our salvation, descended from heaven—enfleshed by the Holy Spirit, and of the virgin Mary—and became man [en-anthrōpos] . . .

Comparing Paired Words

Following are the color-coded terms from the Creed and reasons for their highlighting here.

God, the Father is the ultimate “Maker” (Poitēs) of all things, while the Son is the agent through Whom all things came to be. Accordingly, the Son is not “made” (poieō) but “begotten” (gennaō) instead, which means He is not a creature.

The Son is also “begotten” (gennaō) of the Father before all “ages” (aiōn), meaning ‘pre-time’. It is difficult to speak of ‘a time before time’ without using some sort of temporal category (before all ages); but the implication here is the Son was “begotten” in the eternal realm, as opposed to the temporal realm, thereby establishing His eternality. In other words, since time and space are an integral part of creation—and we have established the Son is “not made”—speaking in terms of Him ‘predating’ all “ages” is to express that an intrinsic trait of the Son is eternality.

The use of “before all ages” with “begotten” serves as a means by which to describe what is implied of the Word (ho Logos) in John 1:1–2: In the beginning was the Word. In the beginning the Word [‘already’] was. Stated more succinctly, ‘Before’ the creation event, the Son ‘already’ was with God.

The Son of God became man (en-anthrōpos) when He was “enfleshed” (“became flesh”—John 1:14) “for us men (anthrōpos) and for our salvation”. The Son of God willingly condescended to take the form of man in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, in order to become a sacrifice for us—a Divine mystery for the sake of humanity.

Who is ‘Almighty’?

God is “Almighty”. Jesus is God (the God-man). But can we say Jesus is “Almighty”?

The use of “Almighty” (Pantokratōr) in the very beginning of the Creed prompts this question.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty [pantokratōr], Maker [poitēs] of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

This word “Almighty” is specifically applied to God the Father, but not to the Son. So, would it be proper to ascribe this same title to Jesus?

Pantokratōr (“Almighty”) is only found ten times in the New Testament. Nine occur in Revelation (1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22). The remaining one is in 2Cor 6:18, where it is sourced from the Old Testament (“LORD [YHWH], Almighty”). In Revelation most all instances are in the form “Lord God, Almighty”, except two as “God, Almighty” (16:14; 19:15) and one as “Lord God . . . Almighty” (1:8). This latter one is of special interest here. In the ellipsis is the same verbiage as Revelation 1:4: the One Who is, Who was, and Who is coming, which denotes a Divine Title (or Name)¹ and is clearly a reference to God the Father in this context.

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “Who is, Who was, and Who is to come, the Almighty.”²

Moreover, the next occurrence of “Almighty” (4:8) also contains this same Divine Title (Name). Therefore, it would appear that the referent in 1:8 is also God the Father. This seems especially so given that the remaining instances of “Almighty” in Revelation all refer to the Father. And if we accept the implications of the language in in the 381 Nicene Creed (“one God, the Father Almighty”), then we should definitively conclude that 1:8 be understood as words of God the Father.

Yet in many ‘Red Letter’ Bible versions, these words are attributed to Jesus. These include: Amplified Bible, BRG Bible, 1599 Geneva Bible, International Children’s Bible, International Standard Version, Legacy Standard Bible, Modern English Version, New American Standard Bible, New American Standard Bible 1995, New Century Version, New International Version 1984, New King James Version, New Life Version, and the World English Bible.³ I contend these versions are in error, unless some strong evidence can be adduced to support such an interpretation.

Now, we must note that contained in Revelation 1:8 is the Title “the Alpha and the Omega” (cf. 21:6), which Jesus applies to Himself in 22:13. Moreover, Jesus also applies “the Beginning and the End” to Himself in 22:13, and this same Title is used by “the One Who sits on the Throne” (God the Father) in 21:6. In other words, there is quite a bit of overlap in the Titles of the Book of Revelation.

But then again, the Title (Name) the One Who is, Who was, and Who is coming is only ever applied to the Father.

Yet perhaps I’m missing a more solid connection to support attributing the words of Revelation 1:8 to Jesus? Thoughts or challenges?

________________________

¹ See Not Declining the Divine Name?

² It is possible the quotation ends just before says the Lord God: “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, the One Who is, Who was, and Who is to come, the Almighty. But this has no bearing on the issue at hand.

³ These are all found on BibleGateway, except the New International Version 1984, which I have a printed copy of. Following are among those Red Letter versions which do not use red lettering for Revelation 1:8: Christian Standard Bible, Common English Bible, English Standard Version, English Standard Version UK, Holman Christian Standard Bible, The Living Bible, New International Version, New International Version UK, and New Living Translation.

Confusing Eschatology

The vlog below is very well presented. The speaker has a good grasp of Jewish eschatological expectations as well as Christian eschatology. His presentation likely finds allies in ‘former’ Christians, those acquainted with and/or adhering to orthodox Jewish beliefs, and those generally opposed to Christianity.

His basic premise is that the split nature of Christian eschatology, specifically the ‘already’ (inaugurated eschatology) and the ‘not yet’ (future eschatology)—which is at odds with Jewish expectations—was a Christian invention in the wake of Jesus’ death. In accordance with this view, he thinks the New Testament writers fabricated Jesus’ resurrection as a means by which to alleviate the supposed cognitive dissonance resulting from His Crucifixion. Furthermore, he claims that the 2000 year gap between Jesus’ first century appearance in flesh and the Second Coming makes such a split view of eschatology even more untenable.

There are many ways to counter his views; however, given that he does not affirm the NT writings as (in any way?) authentic, the argument would be unable to properly proceed. Yet, there are a number of Old Testament passages one could point to, the first of which I think should be Isaiah 53. Surely, if this is describing the Messiah, and yet Jewish expectations include a Messianic reign, then the Resurrection must implicitly be part of the plan. Motyer lays out Isaiah’s implied resurrection in 53:10–12 succinctly:

Isaiah does not use the word ‘resurrection’ but these verses display the Servant ‘alive after suffering’ (Acts 1:3). Not, however, alive in the Old Testament sense that the dead possess in the half-life of Sheol  [ED: cf. Luke 16:19–31] . . . The dead (9) is alive (10), the condemned (8) is righteous (11), the helpless (7) is the Victor (12).¹

The way the vlogger chooses to discount the split aspect of Christian eschatology, though, is problematic. In tune with his confirmation bias, he posits a false analogy. He uses failed ‘prophecy’ in the form of Second Coming predictions—even though such predictions violate the Scriptures Christian orthodoxy accepts—to ‘prove’ how Christians use Cognitive Dissonance Theory (CDT) to resolve such failed prophecy.

He uses the Millerites and Seventh Day Adventism as his example, in which the failed date-setting is salvaged via a ‘spiritualized’ fulfillment, while the Second Coming remains yet future. He then implicitly equates this to the Resurrection and its attendant eschatology, suggesting that first century Christians supposedly used similar CDT in order to relieve their dissonance following Jesus’ Crucifixion.

My point in posting this is to show merely one way a person can try to cast doubt on the truths contained in Scripture. It’s all about one’s presuppositions.

________________

¹ J. Alec Motyer, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary [TOTC], (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009 [1999]), p 381 (I Capitalized “Victor”).

____________________________

Related:

Creating Straw Men from Cognitive Dissonance