“The Church is Full of False Believers”

I was listening to local Christian radio this morning, and John MacArthur (Grace to You) came on. During his preaching MacArthur stated: The Church is full of false believers. In the context of his overall sermon I think I know what he meant; if so, he’s certainly correct. But I think this statement reveals what I see as the very problem with using the term “church”.

The word church has a number of meanings. It can refer to a building where people gather for services. It can strictly refer to the people making up said gathering. It can refer corporately to all those who gather in ‘church’ buildings across the world—such ‘church’ buildings can be individual homes or other buildings not usually associated with ‘church’ gatherings. It can refer to those making up the hierarchical structure of a given tradition or denomination. Yet the corporate Church is most often (solely?) meant to refer only to true believers—those who profess Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and live as Scripture dictates. The latter would necessarily exclude “false believers”.

MacArthur seems to have meant a corporate sense. Thus, I might amend his statement to:

The Church has been infiltrated with many false believers.

Or perhaps better:

Many false believers have infiltrated the Church.

Jesus illustrates this very thing in His tares amongst the wheat parable (Matt 13:24–30). Using the terms in Jesus’ parable, we could amend it further to:

Many tares have been planted amongst the Wheat.

Such a statement is Biblically accurate and alleviates any ambiguity in the term church.¹

_________________________

¹ I’ve written more extensively about this issue of using church in an earlier blog post: Re-Assembly Required.

Too Oft Forgotten

For those who are grieving, healing occurs only through time. When you discover that an hour has passed since you’ve last thought about the object or subject of your grief, then you know you are traveling down the path of recovery. After hours or even days go by that you realize you’ve focused on other things to the exclusion of your grief, then you know you are recovering all the more.

But I find myself grieving in a sort of inverse manner with respect to time. When I discover that I’d not thought about my faith, my Savior, or about the Holy Spirit residing in me for an hour, I grieve. And when this has occurred over a few hours stretch, even more grief and disappointment ensue. I know I should always rely on the Spirit to guide me, even in the most mundane of things, yet I too often rely on myself.

The impetus for writing this post came when I revisited one of my favorite musical pieces, titled “Forgotten Love”. I wondered: To whom or what does the writer/pianist refer? Was this his own forgotten love? If so, what prompted the remembrance? Will it no longer be forgotten now that the piece itself provides a musical reminder?

I know Who my ‘forgotten love’ is (Rev 2:4). And now this music will help me remember not to forget.

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.

Ambiguous Signs

While driving the other day I saw this sign:

HITCHHIKERS MAY BE ESCAPING CONVICTS

Given that there is a ‘corrections’ facility nearby, this probably means, “Hitchhikers may be escapees from prison.” The word ESCAPING is functioning as an adjective—specifically, an adjectival participle—modifying the noun CONVICTS. Therefore, it means:

HITCHHIKERS MAY BE CONVICTS THAT ARE ESCAPING

But the way the sign is written, ESCAPING could be interpreted as a verb rather than the intended adjective:

HITCHHIKERS MAY BE ESCAPING FROM CONVICTS

This places an entirely different meaning over what was intended!

Should those responsible for creating this sign see this blog post, I hope they are convicted . . . of their unintended ambiguity. That is, I hope the writers would come under conviction for their imprecise wording. Making one minor change would alleviate the ambiguity:

HITCHHIKERS MAY BE ESCAPED CONVICTS

If convicts are hitchhiking, they have already escaped! So, changing the adjectival participle from present (-ing) to past (-ed) would convey the message properly.

Praising Polysemy

But sometimes ambiguity is intentionally employed as a linguistic device to enrich a text. It can take the form of polysemy, in which a text plays on a particular word’s myriad shades of meanings (also known as multivalence). Our Scriptures contain quite a few instances of such. An example is in John 1:5:¹

1:₁ In the beginning the Word existed, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ₂ He was in the beginning with God. ₃ Through Him all things came to be, and without Him not even one thing came to be that has come to be. ₄ In Him was life, and that life was the Light of humanity. ₅ The Light shines in the darkness, yet the darkness did not apprehend [katelaben] it.

D. A. Carson calls 1:5 “a masterpiece of planned ambiguity”.² A newcomer to John’s Gospel may only see the creation event of Genesis 1-2 here. But, of course, the Gospel writer intends much more than that.³

The final verb katelaben [aorist active indicative form] is a compound word consisting of the preposition kata and the verb lambanō. The former means ~down, the latter take or receive. But as with many words prefixed with a preposition, the resulting word acquires intensification and an additional nuance. Its basic definition is grasp, as in either hostile (seize) or non-hostile (secure), though, alternatively, it can carry the idea of mental grasping (perceive).⁴ Danker asserts that the writer in this context intends the combined “sense of grasp as seize and comprehend.”⁵ The translation “apprehend” above is an attempt to capture this perceived polysemy.

On first reading, one could understand all of 1:1-5 cosmologically, such that the darkness of Genesis 1:2 would not overcome the light of Genesis 1:3. But after having read through John’s Gospel, a subsequent reading of the prologue (John 1:1–18) may prompt the reader to see an allusion to Genesis 3.⁶ More likely, the light/darkness dichotomy exhibited throughout the Gospel will bring the reader to perceive a connection between v. 5 and vv. 10-11.⁷ While the Light continued and continues to shine (imperfective aspect) in order to illuminate the darkness (John 8:12; 9:5), the darkness chose to remain in darkness (John 3:19-21), failing to comprehend the true nature of the Light (John 11:9-10; 12:35-36, 46).⁸ Those in darkness can be brought to the Light through the continuous shining of the Light, but the darkness itself remains.

Continuing in this light (pun intended), the reader can see an illusion to Revelation 12:4: And the dragon [darkness] stood before the woman who was about to give birth [to the Light], so that when she gave birth he might devour her child. Yet despite the dragon’s best efforts, Christmas did come!

__________________________

¹ My translation.

² D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary, D. A. Carson, gen. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), p 119. [I am also reminded of one of my favorite lyric lines: well-defined ambiguity (from “Straight Jacket”, written by Mike Watt, as performed and recorded by Minutemen, The Punch Line, SST records, SST-004, 1981.)]

³ Carson, Gospel, states, “it is quite possible that John, subtle writer that he is, wants his readers to see in the Word both the light of creation and the light of the redemption the Word brings in his incarnation” (p 120).

⁴ F. W. Danker, The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: Chicago, 2009), p 191.

⁵ Ibid; emphasis in original. Cf. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, two volumes (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, [2003] 2010 [1^st softcover ed.]), p 1.387. Contra, e.g., Andreas J. Köstenberger, Encountering John, Encountering Biblical Studies Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999), p 55, in which the author opines that “overcome” is the primary meaning, though “understand” may be ‘latent’ (my word) in the verse “in preparation of 1:10-11”.

⁶ See Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII, The Anchor Yale Bible; (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), p 8. Under this understanding the aorist κατέλαβεν, katelaben is interpreted as a one-time past event.

⁷ See C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2^nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), p 158.

⁸ See Keener, Gospel of John, pp 1.382-387 for fuller discussion of light, including light as Wisdom and Torah; cf. Brown, John I-XII, pp 519-522.

Thanking God in Failure: Arvo Pärt | Litany | Orient & Occident

“…It was July 25^th, 1976. I was sitting in the [Pühtitsa] monastery’s yard on a bench, in the shadow of the bushes, with my notebook. ‘What are you doing; what are you writing there?’ The girl, who was around ten, asked me. ‘I’m trying to write music, but it’s not turning out well.’ I said. And then the unexpected words from her, ‘Have you thanked God for this failure already?’”¹

During the Soviet control of Estonia, composer Arvo Pärt found himself at odds with Moscow numerous times. One of these occurred with the premiere of his 1968 work Credo, which contains the words (Latin), Credo in Jesum Christum—I believe in Jesus Christ. Consequently, Pärt was unofficially censured. “[T]he composition was hushed up and further performances were banned.”²

The middle section of Credo was structured “to imitate chaos and destruction”, in order to juxtapose an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, with but I say to you, do not resist evil (Matt 5:38–39).³ As Pärt relates, this could have been interpreted as “the collapse of the Soviet regime”.⁴

Tensions increased to the point the composer realized it was becoming economically infeasible to continue in his profession while under Soviet rule.⁵  Shortly thereafter, a ‘recommendation’ prompted him to leave his homeland, as his wife, Nora recounts:

“A leading member of the Central Committee visited us at home in autumn 1979; he recommended that we leave the country. It was supposed to look like a voluntary decision—but in fact it was an expulsion which, at that time, was irreversible; we boarded the train to Vienna shortly afterwards.”⁶

Residing now in the West, freed from Soviet shackles, Pärt increasingly undergirded his works with Christian-themed texts. After the Soviet Union disintegrated, Pärt eventually returned to his homeland, Estonia.⁷

Born September 11, 1935 in Paide, Estonia to an Orthodox father and a Lutheran mother, Arvo Pärt was raised as a Protestant, though not especially religious as a youth.⁸ At conservatory, during his studies of Western composers, particularly their sacred texts, he was moved by the works’ spiritual nature. This, in turn, motivated him to pursue his own spirituality, to the extent it would inextricably intertwine with his music.⁹

Pärt formally converted to the Orthodox Church in 1972.¹⁰

Two album releases post-expulsion (and Soviet disintegration) are reviewed below:

Litany (ECM New Series 1592, BMG 78118-21592, © ECM Records, 1996)
Orient & Occident (ECM New Series 1795, Universal Classics 289 472 080, © ECM Records, 2002)

Litany consists of three pieces. The first (title piece Litany) features the Tallinn Chamber Orchestra (Tõnu Kaljuste conducting), Estonian Philharmonic Chamber Choir, and the Hilliard Ensemble (vocal quartet). The second and third pieces are instrumental, featuring the Lithuanian Chamber Orchestra (Saulius Sondeckis conducting). Disappointingly, besides the text for the title piece, Litany, no explanatory liner notes are provided; so, information had to be obtained through other research.

—Litany is set to the (King James) English text of 4^th century theologian John Chrysostom’s hourly prayers—24, for each hour of the day. At nearly 23 minutes long, it comprises a bit over half the length of the entire disc. Each prayer begins with the vocative, “O, Lord…” Due to differing lengths, Pärt scored the music asymetrically, in order to match the specific pattern of each one.

It reaches its climax during the singing of the 24^th. This prayer reads, O Lord, Thou knowest that Thou dost as Thou wilt, let then Thy will be done in me, a sinner, for blessed art Thou unto the ages. Amen. I find the 23^rd the most poignant: O Lord, shelter me from certain men, from demons and passions, and from any other unbecoming thing. (Click on the hyperlinked title above [and those below] to listen to the entire piece.)

—Psalom (Slavonic, Psalm): The Slavonic text of Psalm 112 LXX (aka Septuagint) underlies this fully instrumental work. The Orthodox Psalter sources the Greek LXX (rather than the Hebrew Masoretic Text), so the equivalent text in typical Protestant versions is Psalm 113. Its words are exchanged for musical notation. Separating each verse-as-music are long pauses (rests), which provide space for reflection.

—Trisagion (Greek, Tri-Holy, Thrice Holy): “Although it is an instrumental piece, the parameters of this text in Church Slavonic (number of syllables per word, accentuations etc.) are the determining factor in the composition.”¹¹ Part of Orthodox liturgy, the Trisagion text itself contains portions of Scripture, beginning with the Tri-aspect of Matthew 28:19, which is then followed by Luke 18:13 (be merciful to me, a sinner). Its middle reads, “O Holy God, Holy Strong, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us”, which is thrice recited. It concludes with ‘The Lord’s Prayer’, aka ‘Our Father’. In the score this text is written under the notes, in order to guide the musicians.¹²

All in all, I rate Litany a 4.5 out of 5. Well programmed, with Psalom providing a welcome break after the more demanding listen of the title piece and Trisagion fitting as a finale. Perhaps a good place for the Pärt novice to begin.

The Orient & Occident release consists of three pieces. All tracks feature the Swedish Radio Symphony Orchestra and the Swedish Radio Choir, with Tõnu Kaljuste conducting. At over 30 minutes, the five piece suite of the final work Como cierva sedienta constitutes two-thirds of the disc’s duration.

—Wallfahrtslied / Pilgrims’ Song: The version here is for men’s choir and string orchestra (2001). It was originally written (1984—for tenor or baritone voice and string orch) after the death of friend Grigori Kromanov, Estonian film and stage director. Pärt’s musical intent here is to bridge the chasm now forged between the two—between time and timelessness, temporality and eternality. The orchestra musically represents the time side; the men’s choir, the other. The text, sung in German, is Psalm 121 (LXX), which begins, “I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills…”

Orient & Occident (East & West): As Psalom and Trisagion in the earlier (above) release, the text here speaks through the music. The underlying words come from the Old Slavonic of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381).¹³ This Creed is “among the few religious texts that are the same in the Western and Eastern Church.”¹⁴ The music is a commingling of Eastern and Western styles.¹⁵ The composition appears to reflect Pärt’s Christian ecumenism—a seeming desire that Christians be, perhaps, less sectarian.¹⁶

Como cierva sedienta (Spanish, like a thirsty deer): The text here is Psalms 42–43 (LXX), sung in Spanish, featuring Helena Olsson, soprano.

Why art thou cast down, O my soul?
And why art thou disquieted within me?

David’s refrain here is universal in appeal. We all feel this from time to time. “My soul” represents the soul of each of us. Yet, David’s solution to his plight is distinctive:

Hope thou in God:
For I shall yet praise Him

Given the length of Como cierva sedienta, Orient & Occident stands or falls on its relative merits. Candidly, much in the way I dislike sustained high register trumpeting, I do not much care for sustained high pitched soprano singing. It’s just a bit too much for these ears at times. But my assessment is, of course, subjective. You may quite like it. And that’s not to say the piece has no merits. It certainly does. That said, I still prefer the first two works, the first especially. Overall I’d rate this release a 4 out of 5.

______________________________________

¹ Taken from Arvo Pärt’s commencement speech at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, May 31, 2014.

² Arvo Pärt Centre > Timeline > 1968 > Premiere of Credo in November.

³ “I Seek a Common Denominator”, Italian musicologist Enzo Restagno’s interview with Nora and Arvo Pärt, 2010, as taken from Arvo Pärt Centre.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Peter C. Bouteneff, Arvo Pärt: Out of Silence (Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2015), p 51.

⁸ Bouteneff, Out of Silence, p 48.

⁹ Bouteneff, Out of Silence, pp 48–51.

¹⁰ Bouteneff, Out of Silence, p 48.

¹¹ “Works: Trisagion”, as taken from the short description from Arvo Pärt Center site; see hyperlink at main text.

¹² Text obtained from Universal Edition’s page for Trisagion, page 2.

¹³ See description under the hyperlink at the beginning of this paragraph.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ These are my own thoughts, extrapolated from various sources. See, e.g., Bouteneff, Out of Silence, pp 50, 51–53; cf. source at footnote 3 above.

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.

Revealing “The Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2: Addendum

In further pondering the overall contents of this series, the argument surrounding the neuter to katechon (“what detains”) could—and should—be strengthened. Moreover, some of the other points would benefit from a bit of refining.

First, I shall further explain and justify my interpretation of the referent for the neuter singular to katechon (“what detains”) in 2:6. As Robertson notes, “A neuter singular as an abstract expression may sum up the whole mass.”²⁹ Larger context will provide some clarity:

Abstract substantives occur in the plural in the N. T. as in the older Greek, an idiom foreign to English…On the other hand [an abstract substantive in] the singular appears where one would naturally look for a plural. A neuter singular as an abstract expression may sum up the whole mass…[a] collective use of the neuter singular…[yet] the neuter plural indeed is common…Then again the singular is used where the substantive belongs to more than one subject…In all these variations in [grammatical] number the N. T. writers merely follow in the beaten track of Greek usage with proper freedom and variability.³⁰

The grammarian also states, “Often the neuter [singular] conveys a different conception.”³¹ By this, Robertson means a different framing than the original context. In 2:6, I interpret to katechon as referring to the collective expression including, but not necessarily limited to, “the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed” (“rebellion” is grammatically feminine, “man” is masculine). Alternatively, the singular to katechon in 2:6 could refer to the plural tauta (“these things”) in 2:5, which in turn refers to the entirety of 2:3–4. The extent to which the interpreter views Paul’s digression in 2:5 (e.g., as a parenthetical statement) may impact the decision in choosing between these two exegetical options.

In the final (dative) clause of 2:6, en tō̹ heautou kairō̹, the reflexive pronoun heautou (genitive) is interpreted here as neuter (“its”) instead of masculine. Its antecedent is construed as the neuter to katechon—“what detains”. [I]n its season. This agrees with Paul’s timing here. The Day of the Lord, which includes Jesus’ Parousia—His revealing—cannot begin until the lawless one is revealed. Jesus will be revealed in its season—the season of the lawless one’s revealing.

While we certainly do not know exactly when Jesus will return, we will recognize its imminence by remaining alert (1Thess 5:4–10). When the twigs of the fig tree become tender and its leaves sprout, we will know we are in the season of His Parousia (Matthew 24:32–51; Mark 13:28–31; Luke 21:29–36).

Regarding the first (independent) clause of 2:7, Fee notes, “the Greek word mystērion usually referred to something now hidden that would in time be revealed.”³² This is why I prefer the more specific ISV rendering the secret of this lawlessness, which views the article as akin to a demonstrative pronoun—the way in which the article was first used historically.³³ This interpretation well fits the overall context and provides a proper subject for which to make the best sense of the dependent clause. For the secret [hiddenness] of this lawlessness is already working, only until that which now detains Jesus [the season {of the lawless one’s revealing}] becomes out of the middle.

It will probably prove helpful to also expound on the exegesis of “becomes out of the middle”. First, it must be observed that Bruce claims ek mesou “implies removal”.³⁴ And in Frame’s conception, “ἐκ μέσου [‘out of the middle’] refers to Satan’s expulsion from heaven to earth”, about which he later states of this prepositional phrase, “to be sure [it] designates only the fact not the manner (forced or voluntary) of the removal”.³⁵

This interpretation of removal is found in the translation of Leucippe and Clitophon below. Another rendition of the same Greek romance follows further below. However, we must note that both selections are not word-for-word translations. Moreover, as will become obvious by a comparison of the two, these renderings lean more toward paraphrasing than dynamic equivalence translations.

The first selection is from the mid-19^th century. Larger context will probably be more illustrative:

“It appears to me most advisable to get this wench* out of the way at once, and after waiting a few days we can depart ourselves, if still of the same mind. According to your account the maiden’s mother does not know who it was whom she surprised, nor will there be any one to furnish evidence since Clio is removed. Nay, we may perhaps persuade the maiden herself to share our flight; I will accompany you at all events.”

We agreed to the proposal, so Clio was delivered to the care of his slaves to be put on board a boat, while we continued to deliberate upon the course best to be pursued.³⁶

(*Wench meant servant-girl in the time this was written.)

The rendition below is from the early 20^th century:

“I think,” said [Clinias], “that I have conceived the best idea: namely, to send her away privily, and ourselves remain a few days; then, if we like, we can ourselves go after making all necessary preparations. At present, so you tell me, the girl’s mother does not even know whom she caught: and when Clio has once disappeared there will be nobody able to inform here. And perhaps you will be able to persuade the girl to escape with you.” At the same time he told us that he was prepared to share our flight abroad. This plan commended itself to us: so he handed Clio over to the charge of one of his servants, telling him to put her aboard a ship, while we waited there and discussed the future.³⁷

I submit that “is removed” and “has disappeared” describe the logical result of “becomes out of the middle”, as opposed to more authentically translating the text (an idiom, perhaps?). By extension, I suggest there’s a bit of circularity involved in the usual translations of 2Thess 2:6–7. I might agree with Bruce that the phrase “implies removal” if one interprets verses 6–7 under the premise that it is the lawless one being ‘restrained’.

But in the conception here, with the understanding that it is Jesus’ Parousia that is being figuratively ‘detained/delayed’—with the subject time—a “removal” just does not work. In other words, since “the detainer” is abstract (time), any attempt to shoehorn “removal” into the text would obscure the meaning. It seems best to retain the bald “becomes out of the middle”.

p.s.

Perhaps this further explanation will persuade some readers to accept the possibility of the interpretation proffered here?

[See the Introduction describing the main interpretive issue, associated Grammatical Parameters, An Alternate Angle for exegesis, and Concluding Exegesis/Interpretation—it’s about TIME!]

____________________________________

²⁹ A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4^th ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1934), p 409.

³⁰ Robertson, Grammar, pp 408–409. Cf. Robertson, Grammar, p 764, in which the neuter article + participle can be an “abstract singular” or used in a “representative or generic sense”. I would be remiss, however, if I did not also note that Robertson specifically cites to katechon oidate in 2Thess 2:6 as indicating “concealment of the person” (p 409), thereby reflecting his own interpretation of this expression in its context.

³¹ Robertson, Grammar, p 411. Here Robertson refers to the ‘switch’ to neuter when the antecedent is a collective consisting of an item or items of differing grammatical gender. In our case here, the referent is both feminine and masculine.

³² Fee, First and Second Letters, p 288.

³³ See Wallace, Grammar, pp 216–220, 221.

³⁴ Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, p 170.

³⁵ Frame, Thessalonians, pp 261, 262.

³⁶ Rowland Smith, translator, The Greek Romances of Heliodorus, Longus, and Achilles Tatius (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1855), p 391 / p 424 of pdf version at Archive.org.

³⁷ S. Gaselee, translator, Achilles Tatius (New York, NY: G. P. Putman’s Sons, 1917), pp 109, 111 / pp 109, 111 of pdf version at Archive.org.

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.