Most translations are diabolical at 2 Thes. 2:7

The Real John Milton

Well-known member

The words in red are often "translated" to mean "till he / it is taken out of the way." Since when does ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται mean that ? μέσου means "midst," and γένηται means something like "to be" or "to become." So the expression actually means "until he/it comes to be in the midst," quite the opposite meaning of the Edit per mod. This belongs in the Trinity Forum.


Edit per mod. This belongs in the Trinity Forum.


 
Last edited by a moderator:

cjab

Well-known member
You don’t think the Holy Spirit which inspired apostle Paul meant for us to know who the “he” in the following statement is — until he be out from the midst ?
I concur that the current renderings of 2 Thess 2:6-7 are insanely confusing, and done in terrible English. I shall read some articles (there are a fair number) on this subject before I venture to contribute.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Check out this article:

"God's Plan and God's Power: Isaiah 66 and the Restraining Factors of 2 Thess 2:6-7", Journal of Biblical Literature, December, 1977. Link here.

I feel this article alone is on the right lines. I definitely like the OT analogy. The puzzle needs inspiration to solve, and I feel this author achieves some measure of success, with a natural conclusion that is neither forced and eminently reasonable.

An important matter is that the Greeks from the earliest days (at least 4th century) took the the mystery of lawlessness as being removed or disappearing in 2 Thess 2:7, and the man of sin being the one restrained (and thus also the day of the Messiah), so given nearly 2000 years of consensus on that, it is going to be near impossible to argue the contrary. The riddle that the Greeks and Romans never solved was who is the one that restrains. Only (the angel of) God has that power, surely.

The conclusion to the article is this:

"The above interpretation of the κατέχειν motif in 2 Thess 2:6-7 does not
solve all the difficulties inherent in the text. There are too many variables in
these verses to attain any absolute certainty. Nevertheless, the solution offered
above has two major arguments in its favor. First, it means that το κατέχον
and ό κατέχων are intimately related. God, he who now restrains the Day of
the Messiah, does so because of his plan or will that the gospel first be brought
to all men. Secondly, it is based on an OT text, Isaiah 66, which is employed
elsewhere in 2 Thessalonians. The author then employed imagery from the
same OT chapter for his description of the restraining factors in 2:6-7.
 

cjab

Well-known member
I am still trying to get up to speed on this topic, which is obviously complex. However in respect of your article "ὁ κατέχων in 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7":

"For these reasons, we should reject the traditional three-phase interpretation– which posits a pre-
parousia outpouring of evil, and instead recognise that Paul is describing events which will take
place (more or less) simultaneously – Satan will be removed, revealed and destroyed."

I have to say I find this appraisal incoherent: satan can't be said to have been "removed" if he is then immediately revealed.

There are other passages in the bible that seem to be related to the above that suggest that the final and full manifestation of satanic power will exist for a little while, a short while, or an "hour" - the Gk. hora in Rev 17:12 (usually translated hour) is used variably in the NT (see here) but originates in the idea of a season.

Also note Rev 20:3 - the one restraining demonic power for a 1000 years is the "angel coming down out of heaven" (Revelation 20:1). The ones "restraining" the truth in Rom 1:18 are the wicked, bu κατέχω is used in a contrary sense in 1 Cor 11:2, and 1 Cor 15:2 to mean "keep the Word/Faith." So κατέχω is highly contextual to the sentence in which it is used.

________________

cf. Revelation 17:10 "They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while."

cf. Revelation 17:12-14 "Kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings."

cf. Revelation 20:3 "He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time."
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
Not "removed" as in annihilated , but removed from his spiritual stronghold , cut down, so that his presence is revealed on earth and limited to it. Consider the following scripture:



Rev. 12:9
In Rev 12:9, the context is Satan being removed from heaven and cast to earth. This entails the religion of satan, particularly the polytheistic systems, that had occupied such a prominent place in heathen systems of religion, being exposed as a sham. Also contrast: Luke 10:18, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." IMO this involves the destruction of pagan polytheistic systems, which all collapsed soon after the time of Christ. It also involved the blood of many martyrs being shed. Satan then becomes a roaring lion on the face of the earth, "looking for people to destroy" 1 Pet 5:8. This is the mystery of wickedness. Rev 9:13 "And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child." It culminates in a final manifestation before his destruction and the end.

From your article by Michael R. Stead:

"The phrase ἐκ μέσου γένηται in 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7 is most naturally understood in a ‘negative’
sense, in terms of the forcible removal of the Oppressor from our midst (or from the midst of this
world, which amounts to the same thing). For all these reasons, I come to the conclusion that ὁ κατέχων
in 2 Thess. 2:7 is referring to Satan –The Oppressor– and that Paul is pointing forward to the day when
Satan and all his forces will one day be removed from our midst."


I don't believe this sentiment (in bold) finds corroboration in any other part of the bible, excepting the day when the church is called to heaven 1 Thess 4:16. Christ himself appears to suggested no such thing. As he said, Matt 24:12-14: "Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."

This is why the day of the Lord had not yet happened in Paul's day, I suppose. At least, it's a reliable starting point.

Another thing: one must be weary of giving too much power to satan in interpretation. He is a defeated foe. He only does as the angels of God allow.
 
Last edited:

Photine

Well-known member
That is diabolical, especially since he says the following in the immediate context:


μή τις ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατήσῃ κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον· ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας,ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον Θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ καθίσαι, ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν Θεός. Οὐ μνημονεύετε ὅτι ἔτι ὢν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ταῦτα ἔλεγον ὑμῖν;καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε, εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ καιρῷ·

Apostle Paul tells them that Christ cannot come until the apostasy occurs and the man of sin is revealed, and then in verse 5 chides them for not remembering that this is what he used to preach to them in previous occasions. And then he says, now that you know what restrains Christ.....

"Christ cannot come"...? Christ is everywhere. Eph 4:10.

Christ is not being restrained! The Antichrist is! You do not know Christ!
 
Last edited:

Photine

Well-known member
Actually second person of the Trinity.

Nope. "The third person of the trinity" is a spirit that supposedly takes place of Christ on earth "while He's away" (which He isn't, He's in us). That is the spirit of the antichrist and it lives in most so-called Christians.. it sits in the temple of God calling itself God...
 
Last edited:

Photine

Well-known member
2 Cor 13:3-5
3 Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you. 4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you. 5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

Christ is the Holy Spirit who dwells in us (the Temple). "The third person of the trinity" is a false Christ, who likes to live in those who call themselves Christians.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
2 Cor 13:3-5
3 Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you. 4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you. 5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

Christ is the Holy Spirit who dwells in us (the Temple). "The third person of the trinity" is a false Christ, who likes to live in those who call themselves Christians.
Re "The third person of the trinity" : don't be absurd.

Christ has nothing in common with belial (2 Cor 6:15). To pretend that the spirit of antichrist, or just "antichrist" could be any part of a trinity or triad (let alone "the trinity") with Christ is blasphemy.

When you speak of a "trinity," you invoke a Latin loan word, "trinitas," which doesn't appear in the Greek bible, and which was the Tertullian denotation for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with a common "substantia" (Latin). What "substantia" denotes in this context Tertullian never actually said, and so the basis of his "trinitas" is strictly conjectural, excepting that "substantia" (Latin) was obviously used by Tertullian as an antithesis to "persona" (Latin).

One problem is that "substantia" (Latin) may not in certain situations be the antithesis to "persona" that Tertullian made out, especially where it is used, as it is, to translate the Greek word "hypostasis", which can mean "subsistence:" here there is overlap between the two words.

Because his "trinitas" was so obscurely defined, it isn't worth arguing over, unless someone chooses to put a specific connotation on "substantia" (i.e. some carnal idea of co-equality) that renders "trinitas" heretical. In fact this is what Trinitarians do a lot.

But even if this is so, let "Trinitarians" work out their own problems with "substantia". For some triads are valid: the Greek bible does know of τρεῖς (triad of) witnesses in agreement, in 1 John 7:7/8 (non Comma version), being "the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement."

The triad of "heavenly witnesses" in the Comma version of 1 John 5:7 is fictitious. Heaven is a single witness in scripture. It is the fictitious Comma which I believe is truly demonic in spreading confusion as to the single witness of heaven.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
Anyone can forumulate a triad or tinity. John did so in 1 John 5:7,8 and obviously it is biblical.

The Greek trinity went through several stages of modification, starting mainly with Tertullian, and progressing to ever greater degrees of philosophical sophistication. I think it an illusion that all "trinitarians" believe in the same Trinity/triad. They clearly don't.

In protestant circles "trinitarian" increasingly became a loose and default category reserved for those who accept the deity of the risen Christ and of the Holy Spirit (in any sense), along with the Father (God by definition) i.e. so as to include both subordinationists and classical Trinitarians (who believe in co-equality of "divine persons"). I see "trinitarian" as a moderately ambiguous word that really only serves to distinguish adoptionists (soccinians) and arians and docetists, who were the principal identified heretics prior to the Council of Nicea.

However I see hyper-Trinitarianism, or classical Trinitarianism as espoused cumulatively by the numerous Councils as outside anything defined by the bible, and in effect neo-Sabellianism, where the Trinity of deity becomes principally defined in terms of economies, which is wrong, because this is essentially what Sabellianism teaches New Testament term reserved for the Father).

Take this to the Trinity forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top