So that/insomuch

[nikolai_42]

Can someone give me some understanding of the Greek word ὥστε (transliterated hōste and Strong's G5620)?

My question really goes to the construction and cause and effect. The word, as I understand it, means so or so that or insomuch that. In english, what follows this term would be a direct consequence of(i.e. naturally follows from) what preceded it.

Is that the way it should be read in Greek? All the time?

[John Reece]

Can someone give me some understanding of the Greek word ὥστε (transliterated hōste and Strong's G5620)?

My question really goes to the construction and cause and effect. The word, as I understand it, means so or so that or insomuch that. In english, what follows this term would be a direct consequence of(i.e. naturally follows from) what preceded it.

Is that the way it should be read in Greek? All the time?

No, not all the time.

BDAG gives two definitions:

• 1. introducing independent clauses for this reason, therefore, so

• 2. introducing dependent clauses —a. of the actual result so that —b. of the intended result, scarcely to be distinguished from [greek]ina[/greek] [...] for the purpose of, with a view to, in order that with infinitive following

Do you have a particular context in mind?

[nikolai_42]

No, not all the time.

BDAG gives two definitions:

• 1. introducing independent clauses for this reason, therefore, so

• 2. introducing dependent clauses —a. of the actual result so that —b. of the intended result, scarcely to be distinguished from [greek]ina[/greek] [...] for the purpose of, with a view to, in order that with infinitive following

Do you have a particular context in mind?

Without getting into the theology, I was thinking of 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

[John Reece]

Without getting into the theology, I was thinking of 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4—ESV

Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 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.

That's an example of the 2nd definition in BDAG:

2. introducing dependent clauses —a. of the actual result so that

[nikolai_42]

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4—ESV

Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 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.

That's an example of the 2nd definition in BDAG:

2. introducing dependent clauses —a. of the actual result so that

Just so I'm clear, is it then true to the underlying Greek to read "...he takes his seat {etc}..." as a direct (and naturally occurring) consequence of "...exalts himself {etc}..."?

[John Reece]

Just so I'm clear, is it then true to the underlying Greek to read "...he takes his seat {etc}..." as a direct (and naturally occurring) consequence of "...exalts himself {etc}..."?

Perhaps not necessarily. I quoted BDAG as the standard exegetical lexicon for the Greek NT; however, your question may be more grammatical than lexical, so BDAG may not provide a definitive answer to your question.

If I be not mistaken, [greek]wste[/greek] (hōste) with infinitive (as is the case in the text in question) may be used when its clause serves only to explain the principle clause.

That is, the clause 'he takes his seat [etc.]' may be explanatory of the clause 'exalts himself [etc.]'.

I am not a grammarian, so I'm only suggesting possibilities. I hope Jaltus may weigh in on this, as he is indeed a grammarian.

[nikolai_42]

Perhaps not necessarily. I quoted BDAG as the standard exegetical lexicon for the Greek NT; however, your question may be more grammatical than lexical, so BDAG may not provide a definitive answer to your question.

If I be not mistaken, [greek]wste[/greek] (hōste) with infinitive (as is the case in the text in question) may be used when its clause serves only to explain the principle clause.

That is, the clause 'he takes his seat [etc.]' may be explanatory of the clause 'exalts himself [etc.]'.

I am not a grammarian, so I'm only suggesting possibilities. I hope Jaltus may weigh in on this, as he is indeed a grammarian.

Thank you. I'll keep an eye on this. Theologically, I've always felt like there was something more to this passage but haven't been able to verbalize it. I'm interested to see if the Greek is clear on this or not.

[nikolai_42]

Bump...

I'm curious to see if a Greek Grammarian has any comment...theology aside.

[Jaltus]

After reading it and rereading it, I am just not sure. The grammar to me is ambiguous as all [greek]wste[/greek] needs to be is subordinating. I wish I had my commentaries handy to see what they say (especially the NIGTC) but mine are currently buried (I am researching Matthew and Psalms for my sermons in March).

[John Reece]

I wish I had my commentaries handy to see what they say (especially the NIGTC) [snip]

From Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians (NIGTC), by Charles A. Wanamaker:

In the Jewish-Christian perspective from which the tradition originated, the arrogance of the person of rebellion toward religion in general would culminate or result in his usurpation of the temple of God to declare his own divinity, as [greek]wste auton eiV ton naon tou qeou kaqisai, apodeiknunta eauton oti estin qeoV[/greek] ("so that he takes his seat in the temple, proclaiming himself that he is God" demonstrates. [greek]naoV[/greek] may refer to a temple in general, as does [greek]ieron[/greek], but in the present context it probably refers to the inner sanctuary where the deity was thought to reside. The inner sanctuary in question is almost certainly the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem temple where God was thought by the Jewish people from OT times to dwell. [greek]naon[/greek] is made definite by the article and the possessive genitive [greek]tou qeou[/greek] ("of God"), indicating that a specific building was intended. Although it is true that in 1 Cor. 3:16f. Paul employs [greek]naoV[/greek] in a metaphorical sense to refer to the Christian temple of God (cf. 1 Cor. 6:19), in the present context where no mention is made of the believer and the indwelling of the Spirit of God as in 1 Corinthians, such an interpretation is highly unlikely. Jewish Christians as well as Gentile Christians undoubtedly would have understood it as a reference to the one true temple of God in Jerusalem, especially since the verse contains an allusion to Dn. 11:31-36 and the desecration of the temple at Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes (see Townsend, "II Thessalonians 2:3-12," 235-237 for this and further evidence concerning the identification of the "temple of God" in verse 4 with the temple at Jerusalem).

The definite nature of this reference makes it impossible to believe that either the creator of the scenario, whether Paul or another, or the original readers of the letter would have understood the reference metaphorically, as Marshall (190-192) and Bruce (169) seem to favor. Marshall wishes to preserve the passage as a genuine piece of early Christian prophecy in spite of the destruction of the temple in AD 70. To do so he interprets the statement about the figure taking his seat in the temple sanctuary as a metaphor "to express the opposition of evil to God." While this explanation provides us with a way to maintain the abiding relevance of the passage today, it can hardly be taken as definitive for its interpretation during the lifetime of Paul. The apostle, after all, expected a relatively imminent end to the existing world order and had undoubtedly imbibed enough of the apocalyptic tradition of first-century Judaism to know that the defilement of the temple was part of eschatological expectation (cf. Dn. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; Mk. 13:14). Bruce accepts that the reference is to the temple at Jerusalem but then claims that Paul and his companions meant it "in a metaphorical sense" on the grounds that the language was intended to denote the usurpation of divine authority. Bruce here confuses the symbolic meaning of the act of usurpation in the temple at Jerusalem with the language used to describe it, seeing a metaphor in the language instead of referring to the symbolic nature of the deed committed by the person of lawlessness.

[nikolai_42]

From Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians (NIGTC), by Charles A. Wanamaker:

In the Jewish-Christian perspective from which the tradition originated, the arrogance of the person of rebellion toward religion in general would culminate or result in his usurpation of the temple of God to declare his own divinity, as [greek]wste auton eiV ton naon tou qeou kaqisai, apodeiknunta eauton oti estin qeoV[/greek] ("so that he takes his seat in the temple, proclaiming himself that he is God" demonstrates. [greek]naoV[/greek] may refer to a temple in general, as does [greek]ieron[/greek], but in the present context it probably refers to the inner sanctuary where the deity was thought to reside. The inner sanctuary in question is almost certainly the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem temple where God was thought by the Jewish people from OT times to dwell. [greek]naon[/greek] is made definite by the article and the possessive genitive [greek]tou qeou[/greek] ("of God"), indicating that a specific building was intended. Although it is true that in 1 Cor. 3:16f. Paul employs [greek]naoV[/greek] in a metaphorical sense to refer to the Christian temple of God (cf. 1 Cor. 6:19), in the present context where no mention is made of the believer and the indwelling of the Spirit of God as in 1 Corinthians, such an interpretation is highly unlikely. Jewish Christians as well as Gentile Christians undoubtedly would have understood it as a reference to the one true temple of God in Jerusalem, especially since the verse contains an allusion to Dn. 11:31-36 and the desecration of the temple at Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes (see Townsend, "II Thessalonians 2:3-12," 235-237 for this and further evidence concerning the identification of the "temple of God" in verse 4 with the temple at Jerusalem).

The definite nature of this reference makes it impossible to believe that either the creator of the scenario, whether Paul or another, or the original readers of the letter would have understood the reference metaphorically, as Marshall (190-192) and Bruce (169) seem to favor. Marshall wishes to preserve the passage as a genuine piece of early Christian prophecy in spite of the destruction of the temple in AD 70. To do so he interprets the statement about the figure taking his seat in the temple sanctuary as a metaphor "to express the opposition of evil to God." While this explanation provides us with a way to maintain the abiding relevance of the passage today, it can hardly be taken as definitive for its interpretation during the lifetime of Paul. The apostle, after all, expected a relatively imminent end to the existing world order and had undoubtedly imbibed enough of the apocalyptic tradition of first-century Judaism to know that the defilement of the temple was part of eschatological expectation (cf. Dn. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; Mk. 13:14). Bruce accepts that the reference is to the temple at Jerusalem but then claims that Paul and his companions meant it "in a metaphorical sense" on the grounds that the language was intended to denote the usurpation of divine authority. Bruce here confuses the symbolic meaning of the act of usurpation in the temple at Jerusalem with the language used to describe it, seeing a metaphor in the language instead of referring to the symbolic nature of the deed committed by the person of lawlessness.

While I'm no theologian, it seems like the commentary is making an assumption. And when there is lack of information, that may be justified. But I guess I couldn't make the assumption that this is referring to a physical temple - partly because Paul has already said "God dwelleth in temples not made with hands" and even Jesus spoke of not worshipping in this mountain or in that (but of a more spiritual locale). So the basis of the faith seems to me to point to a less concrete temple. It should be noticed that Paul has already talked to the Thessalonians in person. And his reluctance to be absolutely specific is a hint that he knew his letters might wind up in hands of those antithetical to the gospel. So I find little to say that Paul would have started speaking about a physical temple when (as far as I can recollect), he always spoke of the temple of God in a spiritual sense.

While it is true that Daniel is here referred to, I see less compelling evidence to believe that a physical temple is being talked about than a spiritual body. And with the seeming ambiguity of the text, if the verse is read as translated in the KJV, it also seems to me that it supports a spiritual temple. The text says that he exalts himself above all that is worshipped or called God so that he SITS in the temple. Were it a physical temple and were that the critical matter, it seems to me that the more correct rendition would be he sits in the temple so that he is exalted above all that is called God or worshipped. And since Paul says that it isn't in such physical temples that God dwells, this verse would be empty.

Rather, and to provide some more positive support, it seems to me that the deception that would deceive even the elect (were it possible) is directly connected with this. Revelation speaks of the spirits of devils working miracles to draw the kings of the earth to the battle of the great day of God Almighty. This deception must (to my understanding) be closely connected with the deception of the man of sin. For the man of sin actually seems to surreptitiously replace God with himself (and exalt himself). This replacement is something which requires the discernment of the Spirit of God - which is only by those who know God. Those that know God will not follow a fake. Those that know the Savior's voice will not follow another. Those that don't, will be deceived And since, then this deception (in my mind) is linked with the man of sin, it also is linked with "false miracles".

Taking a step back, it doesn't require much discernment to say that someone who enters a physical temple somewhere in Jerusalem isn't God. So I can't see this being a deception. But since the man of sin is linked with a falling away (apostasy), and God gives men over to deception when they persist in unbelief, it seems to be more confirmation that it is a spiritual temple. Since the people persist in unbelief, the Lord allows a foreign influence in the church. As we see in Revelation 15, this sort of thing results in God's judgment upon the church. Revelation 15:8 leads into the judgment of the church (the smoke in the temple) as seen by the 7 plagues (one of which references the miracles of the spirits of devils from the mouth of the beast and the false prophet).

I guess I also wonder if scholars can put more emphasis on things like "imbibing apocalyptic tradition" than on the judgment of the apostles by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. While we may sometimes have to stumble along with texts and muddle things out (debatable, but acceptable), to put much stock in cultural influence when the apostles were counter many of the longstanding traditions of Israel of the day seems to me to be at least setting the stage for overlooking what is a little more obvious. That is, that the apostles were self-consistent but not "culturally consistent".

I know I said I wouldn't get into the theology, but since the linguistic analysis didn'tt seem to shed much light, I figured I'd add my thoughts based partly on responding to the commentators quoted above.

EDIT : I hope that is at least somewhat clear. Also, I'd be curious to know what references 190-192 (Marshall) and 169 (Bruce) are. I don't know the literature well enough to know where to find detailed thoughts on the matter.

[John Reece]

I'd be curious to know what references 190-192 (Marshall) and 169 (Bruce) are.

1 and 2 Thessalonians (New Century Bible Commentary), by I. Howard Marshall, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Word Biblical Commentary), by F. F. Bruce.

I do not have the former; here is the comment in the latter:

[greek]wste auton eiV ton naon tou qeou kaqisai[/greek], "so that he takes his seat in the sanctuary of God." Elsewhere Paul speaks of the believer's body (1 Cor 6:19) or (more often) of the believing community as the sanctuary ([greek]naoV[/greek]) of God (1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21), but the picture here is of a material shrine. The [greek]naoV[/greek] is the sanctuary proper, the holiest part of the temple complex, the dwelling place of the deity. The inner sanctuary of the Jerusalem temple, the Holy of Holies, was the throne room of the invisible presence of the God of Israel: there, in the house which Solomon built for him, as earlier at Shiloh (1 Sam 4:4), he was worshiped as "Yahweh of hosts, who is enthroned on the cherubim" (cf. Pss 80:1; 99:1). Although no ark surmounted by cherubim was to be found in the postexilic Holy of Holies, the God of Israel was still believed to have his dwelling there. The man of lawlessness is pictured as enthroning himself there in the place of God, in the spirit of the king of Babylon who is portrayed in Isa 14:13-14. as aspiring to "ascend to heaven" in rivalry to the Most High. The attempt of the Emperor Gaius (Caligula) in A.D. 40 to have his statue set up in the Jerusalem temple, in assertion of his claims to divinity which the Jews refused to acknowledge (Philo, Leg. 203-346; Josephus, Antiq. 18. 261-301), provided a foretaste of what the final Antichrist was expected to do. But what sanctuary is actually meant here? The late idea that it is in the Christian church, "God's dwelling place in the Spirit" (Eph 2:22), that Antichrist is to manifest himself and establish his power base, is inapplicable at this early stage, when there was no united church organization which could provide such a power base. A local church, such as the church in Thessalonica, scarcely comes into consideration in this regard. One might think of the Jerusalem church, which (by some of its members at least) was viewed as the new and living sanctuary of God, with James the Just and his successors as the new high priesthood; but there is no evidence that a manifestation of Antichrist was expected within it and no hint that it is referred to in the present context.

The material temple has much to be said in its favor. Not all early Christians took the negative attitude toward it that Stephen did (Acts 6:13-14; 7:44-50) — not even Paul, if the evidence of Acts is accepted — and Jesus' words in the Olivet discourse about "the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not" (Mark 13:14,. [greek]esthkota opou ou dei[/greek]) are reproduced by Matthew in the form ". . . standing in the holy place" (Matt 24:15). It may be best to conclude that the Jerusalem sanctuary is meant here by Paul and his companions, but meant in a metaphorical sense. Had they said, "so that he takes his seat on the throne of God," few would have thought it necessary to think of a literal throne; it would usurp the authority of God. This is what is meant by the language actually used here, although the sacral associations of [greek]naoV[/greek] imply that he demands not only the obedience but also the worship due to God alone. — F. F. Bruce 1 and 2 Thessalonians (WBC).

[nikolai_42]

1 and 2 Thessalonians (New Century Bible Commentary), by I. Howard Marshall, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Word Biblical Commentary), by F. F. Bruce.

I do not have the former; here is the comment in the latter:

[greek]wste auton eiV ton naon tou qeou kaqisai[/greek], "so that he takes his seat in the sanctuary of God." Elsewhere Paul speaks of the believer's body (1 Cor 6:19) or (more often) of the believing community as the sanctuary ([greek]naoV[/greek]) of God (1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21), but the picture here is of a material shrine. The [greek]naoV[/greek] is the sanctuary proper, the holiest part of the temple complex, the dwelling place of the deity. The inner sanctuary of the Jerusalem temple, the Holy of Holies, was the throne room of the invisible presence of the God of Israel: there, in the house which Solomon built for him, as earlier at Shiloh (1 Sam 4:4), he was worshiped as "Yahweh of hosts, who is enthroned on the cherubim" (cf. Pss 80:1; 99:1). Although no ark surmounted by cherubim was to be found in the postexilic Holy of Holies, the God of Israel was still believed to have his dwelling there. The man of lawlessness is pictured as enthroning himself there in the place of God, in the spirit of the king of Babylon who is portrayed in Isa 14:13-14. as aspiring to "ascend to heaven" in rivalry to the Most High. The attempt of the Emperor Gaius (Caligula) in A.D. 40 to have his statue set up in the Jerusalem temple, in assertion of his claims to divinity which the Jews refused to acknowledge (Philo, Leg. 203-346; Josephus, Antiq. 18. 261-301), provided a foretaste of what the final Antichrist was expected to do. But what sanctuary is actually meant here? The late idea that it is in the Christian church, "God's dwelling place in the Spirit" (Eph 2:22), that Antichrist is to manifest himself and establish his power base, is inapplicable at this early stage, when there was no united church organization which could provide such a power base. A local church, such as the church in Thessalonica, scarcely comes into consideration in this regard. One might think of the Jerusalem church, which (by some of its members at least) was viewed as the new and living sanctuary of God, with James the Just and his successors as the new high priesthood; but there is no evidence that a manifestation of Antichrist was expected within it and no hint that it is referred to in the present context.

The material temple has much to be said in its favor. Not all early Christians took the negative attitude toward it that Stephen did (Acts 6:13-14; 7:44-50) — not even Paul, if the evidence of Acts is accepted — and Jesus' words in the Olivet discourse about "the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not" (Mark 13:14,. [greek]esthkota opou ou dei[/greek]) are reproduced by Matthew in the form ". . . standing in the holy place" (Matt 24:15). It may be best to conclude that the Jerusalem sanctuary is meant here by Paul and his companions, but meant in a metaphorical sense. Had they said, "so that he takes his seat on the throne of God," few would have thought it necessary to think of a literal throne; it would usurp the authority of God. This is what is meant by the language actually used here, although the sacral associations of [greek]naoV[/greek] imply that he demands not only the obedience but also the worship due to God alone. — F. F. Bruce 1 and 2 Thessalonians (WBC).

Thank you. Bruce's point about this being pre-70AD is certainly something that does lend some credence, I think to the argument (but then, who am I?) . But then the focus on Jewish structures, to me, is a little overdone. That is, just because Jesus was a Jew and because the Christian faith grew on and out of the Hebrew foundations, even the writer of Hebrews concedes (and he was writing to converted Jews, I believe) that the old decays and is waxing away. In Hebrews 8:10, the writer speaks of the law on the hearts. In the beginning of that chapter, Jesus is called a minister of the sanctuary and the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man. This, per verse 1, is on the right hand of the Throne of the Majesty in the heavens. And in light of the greater part of Hebrews 9, it seems inconceivable that any believer in Christ - of Israelite heritage or not - should continue to esteem a physical temple as being of high importance in the spiritual life. Certainly, they might have considered it a place of congregation, but now that the way into the holiest of all is made manifest (c.f. Hebrews 9:8), what believer would greatly esteem a building anymore seeing that God has built an heavenly tabernacle (again, Hebrews 8:2)?

Certainly, there are types and shadows and signs to be found in the significant role physical structures and externalities play in the prophetic, but, so far is 2 Thessalonians 2:4 from depicting the building as being merely a sign, that one would have to believe the building to still have the Old covenant significance and importance if one were to accept a physical temple being in view. In other words, the entire point of the New covenant would have to be lost and assumed not to be in force in this passage. That there is reference to Daniel may be significant, but when we remember that the angels in Daniel's day even earnestly desired to look into things the New Testament saints are privileged to see, it is too hard to go all the way back to a purely physical meaning in view of Christ's finished work. The temple may be rebuilt and may even be fully functional one day, but the idea that someone exalting himself inside said temple is considered to be exalting himself above all that is called God, is itself (it seems to me) a refusal to allow the very object and subject of all prophecy to play a critical part in its interpretation.

But then again...maybe that's the point. But then again...again...I can't see how a man sitting in a temple would deceive the elect (were that possible).

Just some more of my thoughts.

Thanks again for the reference!