The "as God" you have included in your boldfaced italics (for reasons unclear to me) in the KJV is a Byzantine variant (ὡς θεὸν). The standard Greek texts, as well as most of the earlier manuscripts (including Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus), lack it. It is not in the Greek text that you provided above it, for example.Irish1975 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:45 pm The more I consider 2 Thessalonians 2:4, the less confident I am that the author is referring to a contemporaneous standing temple.
Parsing the sentence itself:
ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος
ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα,
ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι,
ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός.
My translation--
Who opposes and exalts himself
above every worshipped god or sacred thing,
so as to seat himself in the temple of God,
claiming that he himself is God.
King James--
Who opposeth and exalteth himself
above all that is called God, or that is worshipped;
so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
shewing himself that he is God.
Also, the phrase "every worshiped god" does not answer to anything in the text. The participle modifying "god" is λεγόμενον; σέβασμα is a separate thing. It is more like "everything called 'god' or [every] thing worshiped."
This is ὥστε plus the infinitive; it is an ordinary result clause. Here are a few others:The author is spelling out an imagined condition to be met before the parousia. The self-exalting of the man of lawlessness "above every god or sacred thing" is the main thought, which is elaborated with a clause of result: (by) seating himself in the temple of God, he declares himself to be God. The thought of the whole verse is essentially hypothetical: there will be this sort of man who will do this sort of thing so as to make out that he is God.
Romans 15.18-19: 18 For I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me, resulting in the obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed, 19 in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the spirit; so that [ὥστε] from Jerusalem and round about as far as Illyricum I have fully preached [πεπληρωκέναι, the perfect infinitive = "with the result that I have fully preached"] the gospel of Christ.
1 Corinthians 1.4-8: 4 I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, 6 even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you, 7 so that you are not lacking [ὥστε ὑμᾶς μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι = "with the result that you are not lacking"] in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 5.1: 1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has [ὥστε... τινα... ἔχειν = "with the result that someone has"] his father's wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.
2 Corinthians 2.6-7: 6 Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, 7 so that on the contrary you ought rather to forgive [ὥστε τοὐναντίον μᾶλλον ὑμᾶς χαρίσασθαι = "with the result that you ought rather to forgive"] and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.
The Christians of which Paul writes in Romans are not merely "the sort" of people who would serve in newness of spirit if they could; nor is Paul himself merely claiming to be "the sort" of person who would preach in a wide arc if he could; nor are the Corinthians, according to Paul, "the sort" of people who who would lack no spiritual gift if they could, nor even "the sort" of people who would welcome someone who has his father's wife if they could; nor is Paul merely hoping that the Corinthians might be "the sort" of people who would forgive if they could. The results are, in all cases, in some sense real: either they have already really happened (in the past) or they are what is really being hoped for (in the future). A result clause just is not the best way to convey some abstract, hypothetical notion about "the sort" of person one might be. The best way to make sure we are rendering a result clause properly is to mentally plug in the English word "result" once: "...who opposes and exalts himself above everything called 'god' or that is worshiped, with the result that he sits in the temple of God, displaying himself that he is a god." Your translation has obscured the connection somewhat: this man is going to think so highly of himself that the result will be or ought to be that he takes a seat in the temple of God and claims to be a god. (A result clause does not have to guarantee the outcome; the result may be intended but not destined; but the outcome is also not just some vague contingency, since the intent is a real one.)
Finally, the whole point of 2 Thessalonians 2.3-4 is to provide a visible sign (as implied both by the context and by ἀποκαλυφθῇ) that has not come to pass yet. Yet, on your reading, the most visible part of the sign — the taking a seat in the temple of God and displaying oneself as a god — is reduced to a mere contingency: the person revealed is, not a man who actually does something, but rather a man of "the sort" who would do something if he could. While not impossible, this is clearly not the best reading.
It is the "temple of the God." The man of sin claims to be a God (no definite article), but he sits down in the temple of the God (definite article).It is the "temple of God" because he sits himself in it as God.
Lattke himself could not have argued it better.Similarly, the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (1994):
"the temple image "may function simply as a 'classical image' referring to the rebel's usurping God's prerogative. No concern for the physical Temple of Jerusalem is required by this visionary scenario."
ETA: Let me add another point, one which you yourself actually made earlier today:
Yes, the book of Daniel is probably the original and main source (probably tweaked by the likes of Pompey and Caligula, just as modern Christians have tweaked their expectations of the Antichrist in light of dictators like Hitler and Stalin) for the man of sin's alleged actions and character; and the book of Daniel is famously all about the actual desecration of the literal temple in Jerusalem:Irish1975 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:09 am In case this wasn't already noted--
2 Thessalonians 2:4 Daniel 11:36 (LXX) ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι, ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός. καὶ ποιήσει κατὰ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑψωθήσεται καὶ μεγαλυνθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα θεὸν καὶ λαλήσει ὑπέρογκα καὶ κατευθυνεῖ, μέχρις οὗ συντελεσθῇ ἡ ὀργή, εἰς γὰρ συντέλειαν γίνεται. who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. And the king shall do according to his will; he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is determined shall be done.