2 Thess. 2:3

Paul Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Mon Mar 25 10:51:02 EST 2002



On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 05:40:36 +0000 "Mark Wilson" <emory2oo2 at hotmail.com>
writes:
> 
> 2:2
> EIS TO MH TACEWS SALEUQHNAI hUMAS APO TOU NOOS,
> MHTE QROEISQAI MHTE DIA PNEUMATOS
> MHTE DIA LOGOU MHTE DI' EPISTOLHS hWS DI' hHMWN
> hWS hOTI ENESTHKEN hH hHMERA TOU CRISTOU
> 
> 2:3
> MH TIS hUMAS EXAPATHSHi KATA MHDENA TROPON
> hOTI EAN MH ELQHi Hh APOSTASIA PRWTON
> KAI APOKALUFQHi hO ANQRWPOS TAS hAMARTIAS
> hO hUIOS THS APWLEIAS
> 
> According to an article I read this weekend,
> the apodosis that needs to be supplied from
> verse 2 for verse 3 should be:
> 
> "the Day of the Lord is not present"
> 
> (rather than, "that day shall not come")
> 
> Since the supplied apodosis is not stated as
> such in verse 2, I am wondering how such an
> argument could be made?

The suggested ellipsis, the Day of the Lord is not present, is apparently
based on the interpretation/translation of ENESTHKEN as "has come,"
rather than "is at hand."  If ENESTHKEN means they thought the Day of the
Lord had come, then the suggested ellipsis makes sense.  But, if
ENESTHKEN means "is at hand," than "shall not come" makes good sense
(although I do note that modern translations tend to mix the two by
saying "has come ....will not come."

The KJ translators differ vastly from modern translators on ENESTHKEN
("is at hand" versus "has come").  They apparently saw the absurdity of
rendering it "has come," since that would imply the Lord had already
returned and the saints gathered together unto Him.  Not even the
Thessalonians were that dumb.  No, the KJ translators surely saw this
passage as a denial of the deceptive teaching on imminency (which says
the Lord could return at any time, with no necessary preceding prophetic
events yet to be fulfilled).  Somehow the Thessalonians had been duped by
such.  Paul corrects it by saying that day will come except certain other
things come first.

Paul Dixon



More information about the B-Greek mailing list