1

2 Thessalonians 2:4 KJV 2 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..

.

2 Thess 2:4 ("Berean" Version) etc
He will oppose and exalt himself above every so-called god or object of worship. So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

Why use 'sit' in one version, and in another 'seat', yet in the latter verb it points to cause to be 'sat,' whereas in the former its the plain act of sitting, if not allegorical as in what ''panels'' do? Even worse, the original throws in the aspect of "appointing""

Paul
  • 153
  • 2
  • 6

2 Answers2

2

The active voice infinitive καθίσαι is conjugated from the lemma καθίζω. καθίζω can be used intransitively, that is, without a direct object. Although the infinitive καθίσαι (active voice) in 2 Thes. 2:4 is not declined in the middle voice (e.g., καθίσασθαι), it can still be translated as “he sits himself in God’s temple.” On the preposition εἰς, Alexander Buttman wrote,1

Buttman, p. 332, §147, 16

References

Buttmann, Alexander. A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. Trans. Thayer, Joseph Henry. Andover: Draper, 1873.

Footnotes

1 p. 332, §147, 16

Community
  • 1
  • 1
    apologies I am yet to do a proper sign up to so as to be able to vote, but thanks for your clarification... – Paul Feb 10 '17 at 10:16
1

The Berean version is not a literal translation of the Greek. The phrase being translated is:

εις τον ναον του θεου ως θεον καθισαι αποδεικνυντα εαυτον

which literally means "in the temple of [the] God as God to sit down, setting forth himself ..."

Another fairly literal translation can be found in The Orthodox New Testament:

who opposteth and exalteth himself above all which is called God or an object of worship, so as for him to sit in the temple of God as God, showing himself that he is God

user33515
  • 12,258
  • 1
  • 18
  • 79
  • The point is, most versions are split as to the use of both words, so why do they do that with a point that would be as plain as what you are suggesting? – Paul Feb 09 '17 at 16:38
  • One could argue that is used in the transitive, but to have been completely accurate the Berean version should also have shown "seat" as an infinitive ("to seat"), as it appears in the Greek. When Jerome translated the phrase from the Greek to Latin, he understood καθισαι to be intransitive (sedeat ostendens ...). John of Damascus and Chrysostom, both Greek Church Fathers, comment on this verse but they don't make any point about whether sitting or self-seating was occurring. If one wants to suppose that καθισαι is transitive, I don't see it adding or taking much away from the verse. – user33515 Feb 09 '17 at 17:01
  • "If one wants to suppose that καθισαι is transitive, I don't see it adding or taking much away from the verse.", it does! The greek for 'man' in that verse strongly points to 'mankind' as opposed to 'an individual,' in which case I'd understand these 'spirits' (1Jn 2:18) ''appointing'' men in the 'temple of God'' to do their dirty work, as opposed to a reincarnation of spirit! Since there's ONLY one reincarnation written about !,-Psalm 40. In addition, the ONLY instance of such ''sitting'' is in Matt 23, that affirms a kind of 'appointment,' into a capacity, simply to teach. It's why I asked. – Paul Feb 09 '17 at 17:31
  • "Man" in verse 3 does not refer to mankind. ο ανθρωπος της αμαρτιας ο υιος της απωλειας - the man of sin and son of perdition - refers to the Antichrist. See, e.g., Chrysostom's commentary (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iv.vi.iii.html). – user33515 Feb 09 '17 at 19:42
  • "There are two words in Greek which mean 'man,' anēr, which refers to a male individual of the human race, and anthrōpos, which is the racial, generic term, and which has the general idea of 'mankind' " K. Wuest,
    The LEARNED Paul uses ''anthrōpos,''not ''aner,'' Also SON is doubtful as it can go either way as a characterisation of a category of individuals, eg those that fall away, or to refer to a particular man. God has no ''temple of bricks/mortar,'' and no man can sit in all the temple of God which is spirit, as also Messiah says 'unless I go away...'' and He is far mightier than..     – Paul Feb 09 '17 at 20:40
  • I am sure there are many such interpretations outside the Church. – user33515 Feb 09 '17 at 20:45
  • @Paul—In Matt. 12:13, anthrōpos clearly refers to “a male individual of the human race” rather than “the racial, generic term...which has the general idea of ‘mankind.’” Sorry, but K. Wuest is wrong. –  Feb 10 '17 at 04:26