The RESTRAINER in 2 Thes. 2:2 is NOT Michael

The RESTRAINER in 2 Thes. 2:2 is NOT Michael

I’m reading a passage from Arethas (Fragm. in Epist. II ad Thess, 661.15): “SUNUPAKOUETAI TAUTA TOIS PROKEIMENOIS· MHDEIS hUMAS EXAPA THSHi hOTI ENESTHKEN hH hHMERA PRIN TAUTA GENHTAI TOTE THN APISTIAN TWN ANQRWPWN hO DIABOLOS EISHGEN”

I wanted to compare it with 2Thes 2,2: “hWS hOTI ENESTHKEN hH hHMERA TOU CRISTOU”

Is ENESTHKEN in both cases a proleptic Perfect ? That means the events are still future.

My other question is the exact meaning of “SUNUPAKOUETAI TAUTA TOIS PROKEIMENOIS” – I can’t handle the semantics and the syntax.

Isn’t this simply, in the case of 2 Thess 2:2 a proposition that is being set forth by others (that “the day of Christ is here now”) and that Paul disputes? And in the case of the Arethas, it’s a direct citation of the passage from 2 Thess. The enclosing hOTI should make it clear that this is a citation, I think.

I think this is simply saying, “This (TAUTA) is consistent with/in accordance with/implicit in (SUNUPAKOUETAI) what has been set forth previously (TOIS PROKEIMENOIS — PROKEIMAI serving as the perfect passive for PROTIQHMI).

I would tend to the view that in Re 1.3 that is precisely what is intended.

Μακάριος ὁ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας καὶ τηροῦντες τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ γεγραμμένα, ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς.

MAKARIOS hO ANAGINWSKW KAI hOI AKOUONTES TOUS LOGOUS THS PROFHTEIAS KAI THROUNTES TA EN AUTHi GEGRAMMENA, hO GAR KAIROS EGGUS.

The departure in 2Thes is the the Greek noun, apostasia It is used only twice in the New Testament in 2 THESSALONIANS 2:3 and in Acts 21:21 where it states that an accusation was made against Paul that he was “teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake [apostasia lit. to depart from] Moses.”

The word is used in verb form a total of 15 times in the New Testament, and only three of these have anything to do with a departure from the faith (Luke 8:13, 1 Timothy 4:1, andHebrews 3:12). In other settings, the word is used for departing from inquity (2 Timothy 2:19), departing from ungodly men (1 Timothy 6:5), departing from the temple (Luke 2:27), departing from the body (2 Corinthians 12:8), and departing from persons (Acts 12:10 andLuke 4:13).

This insight about the use and meaning of the word was certainly compelling, but the argument most convicting comes the first seven English translations of the Bible rendered the noun, apostasia, as either “departure” or “departing.” They were as follows:
1. The Wycliffe Bible (1384)
2. The Tyndale Bible (1526)
3. The Coverdale Bible (1535)
4. The Cranmer Bible (1539)
5. The Great Bible (1540)
6. The Beeches Bible (1576)
7. The Geneva Bible (1608)
The Bible used by the Western world from 400 AD to the 1500s — Jerome’s Latin translation known as “The Vulgate” — rendered apostasia with the Latin word, discessio, which means “departure.”

The first translation of the word to mean apostasy in an English Bible did not occur until 1611 when the King James Version was issued. So, why did the King James translators introduce a completely new rendering of the word as “falling away”? The best guess is that they were taking a stab at the false teachings of Catholicism.
Also quite important for us is the fact that Paul used a definite article with the word apostasia. Since the Greek language does not need an article to make the noun definite, it becomes clear that with the usage of the article, reference is being made to something in particular. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 the word apostasia is prefaced by the definite article which means that Paul is pointing to
a particular type of departure clearly known to the Thessalonian church.

In light of this grammatical point, it is observed that the use of the definite article would support the notion that Paul spoke of a clear, discernable notion. And that notion he had already identified in verse 1 when he stated that he was writing about “our gathering together to Him [Jesus].
This interpretation also corresponds to the point that Paul makes in verses 6 and 7 where he states that the man of lawlessness will not come until what “restrains” him “is taken out of the way.”

Facebook Comments