2Th 2:3 — The main clause to be supplied is something to the effect of, “The day of the

Lord will not arrive.”

2Th 2:4 lego,menon — One’s first instinct might be to diagram this participle as a
neuter substantive (object of evpi,), with qeo,n as its predicate and pa,nta as its
modifier: “over every thing being called God.” But pa,nta is masculine (unless it be
taken as neuter plural, which seems highly unnatural with the singular participle). The
object of the preposition, then, must be “every God,” with the participle as its modifier:
“over every so-called God,” as many versions render it. The real difficulty is whether to
construe the participle with one or both nouns. I have construed it only with qeo,n, since
the idols really are objects of worship (though not legitimate ones) and therefore do not
need this qualifier. The neuter gender of se,basma is not relevant to this question, since
an attributive to both nouns would be able to agree only with one. pa,nta, on the other
hand, makes good sense with both nouns, so I have diagrammed it accordingly.
2Th 2:9 yeu,douj — The versions vary on how to construe this word. Most take it only
with “wonders”; some take it with “signs and wonders,” and some (most notably the
NIV) with all three nouns: “power, signs, and wonders.”
2Th 2:3 — The main clause to be supplied is something to the effect of, “The day of the
Lord will not arrive.”
2Th 2:4 lego,menon — One’s first instinct might be to diagram this participle as a
neuter substantive (object of evpi,), with qeo,n as its predicate and pa,nta as its
modifier: “over every thing being called God.” But pa,nta is masculine (unless it be
taken as neuter plural, which seems highly unnatural with the singular participle). The
object of the preposition, then, must be “every God,” with the participle as its modifier:
“over every so-called God,” as many versions render it. The real difficulty is whether to
construe the participle with one or both nouns. I have construed it only with qeo,n, since
the idols really are objects of worship (though not legitimate ones) and therefore do not
need this qualifier. The neuter gender of se,basma is not relevant to this question, since
an attributive to both nouns would be able to agree only with one. pa,nta, on the other
hand, makes good sense with both nouns, so I have diagrammed it accordingly.
2Th 2:4 — Recast hOTI clause as predicate accusative (was appositive).
2Th 2:5 — Introductory OU was on a conjunction widget rather than interjection. (See
help files III.5. for policy.) Wonder how many other times I did this?
2Th 2:6-7 — Corrected verse labels (had 1Th).
2Th 2:9-10 — The evn phrases could alternatively be construed as adverbial, modifying
evstin.
2Th 2:9 yeu,douj — The versions vary on how to construe this word. Most take it only
with “wonders”; some take it with “signs and wonders,” and some (most notably the
NIV) with all three nouns: “power, signs, and wonders.”
2Th 2:10 — recast ANQ hWN clause as modifying APOLLUMENOIS.
2Th 2:10 — The avnqV w-n clause could alternatively be construed as adverbial to
evstin, a thought connection that seems to be supported by vv. 11-12. The diagram
reflects what seems to be the consensus of the modern versions.