2 Thessalonians 2:4

Syntactic Analysis of ἀποδεικνύντα in 2 Thessalonians 2:4

This exegetical study of Syntactic Ambiguity in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is based on a b-greek discussion from May 7, 2004. The initial query concerned the grammatical function of the participle ἀποδεικνύντα within 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Specifically, a prior grammatical diagram had suggested that ἀποδεικνύντα directly modifies ναόν (temple), prompting an inquiry into alternative syntactic arrangements, particularly the possibility of it modifying αὐτόν (him) as an attendant circumstance participle.

The main exegetical issue at hand is the precise syntactic and semantic relationship of the accusative present active participle ἀποδεικνύντα within the ὥστε-clause of 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Understanding this relationship is crucial for accurately translating the passage, which describes the “man of lawlessness” sitting in the temple and demonstrating his divine claims. The ambiguity lies in identifying the subject of the participial action: whether it describes the temple itself, the individual taking his seat, or a co-occurring/consequential action of the individual.

Ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἐστὶν Θεός. (Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• Nestle 1904 uses Θεοῦ (capitalized) while SBLGNT (2010) uses θεοῦ (uncapitalized) for “God” in “temple of God”.
• Nestle 1904 uses ἐστὶν while SBLGNT (2010) uses ἔστιν (difference in accentuation).
• Nestle 1904 uses Θεός (capitalized) while SBLGNT (2010) uses θεός (uncapitalized) for “God” in “he is God”.

Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes

The text of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is remarkably stable across major critical editions regarding the terms central to this discussion (ἀποδεικνύντα, ναόν, αὐτόν, καθίσαι). The apparatus of NA28 shows no significant variants for ἀποδεικνύντα that would alter its form or presence in the passage. Minor variations concern the presence or absence of the definite article before ἀντικείμενος in some manuscripts, and the spelling/capitalization of `θεός`/`Θεός`, which are primarily orthographical or editorial choices rather than substantive textual divergences. Thus, the syntactic question of ἀποδεικνύντα relies entirely on grammatical interpretation rather than textual uncertainty.

Lexically, the verb ἀποδείκνυμι (from which ἀποδεικνύντα is derived) is significant. According to BDAG, it means “to show or demonstrate clearly, prove, establish.” This emphasizes a public and undeniable manifestation. KITTEL’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT, Vol. 2, pp. 31-34, s.v. `δείκνυμι`) elaborates that the compound ἀποδείκνυμι denotes a demonstration that “points out and shows clearly,” often implying authentication or proof. In this context, the participle describes an action of public attestation, where the individual openly declares or proves his divine status.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The core of the exegetical challenge lies in resolving the syntactic role of the participle ἀποδεικνύντα (accusative masculine singular present active participle) within the ὥστε-clause, which describes the consequence or result of the “man of lawlessness'” actions. The main options considered are:

1. Modification of ναόν (temple): This interpretation, suggested in the initial query as stemming from an external diagram, posits that ἀποδεικνύντα directly modifies ναόν (accusative masculine singular). Grammatically, the participle agrees in case, gender, and number with ναόν. However, semantically, this renders the phrase nonsensical, implying a “demonstrating temple.” A temple, as an inanimate object, cannot perform the action of “demonstrating itself as God.” This option is overwhelmingly rejected by grammarians due to its lack of semantic coherence and typical participial usage.
2. Modification of αὐτόν (him): This is the widely accepted and grammatically sound interpretation. αὐτόν is the accusative masculine singular subject of the infinitive καθίσαι within the ὥστε-clause. As ἀποδεικνύντα also agrees in case, gender, and number, it is perfectly positioned to describe an action performed by αὐτόν. Rhetorically, this places the act of self-proclamation directly on the “man of lawlessness,” aligning with the passage’s description of his arrogant claims.
3. Attendant Circumstance or Result Participle: When ἀποδεικνύντα modifies αὐτόν, its function can be further nuanced as an attendant circumstance or a result participle.
   • Attendant Circumstance: This implies that the action of demonstrating is simultaneous with, or closely accompanies, the action of taking a seat. The translation would often use “and” to connect the two actions (e.g., “he takes his seat… and displays himself”).
   • Result: This emphasizes that the demonstration is a direct consequence or outcome of taking a seat in the temple. The translation might use “thereby” or “with the result that” (e.g., “he takes his seat… thereby showing”).

   Both attendant circumstance and result functions are common for participles in Greek, especially when describing actions by the same agent. The `ὥστε` clause itself already expresses result, so the participle further specifies the nature of that result or the circumstances surrounding it. The rhetorical effect is to tightly link the desecration of the temple with the blasphemous self-deification.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

Based on grammatical principles and semantic coherence, the participle ἀποδεικνύντα in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 unequivocally modifies αὐτόν (him), referring to the “man of lawlessness.” Its function is best understood as an attendant circumstance or result participle, describing an action performed by the subject of the infinitive καθίσαι (to sit) that accompanies or results from his seating himself in the temple. This interpretation correctly attributes the act of demonstrating divine status to the Antichrist figure, central to the apostle’s warning.

1. …so that he sits in the temple of God, demonstrating himself to be God.

   This translation emphasizes the direct act of demonstration as an explanation of his presence in the temple.

2. …with the result that he takes his seat in the temple of God and there displays himself as God.

   This highlights the attendant circumstance, linking the act of sitting with the subsequent self-proclamation.

3. …so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, thereby showing himself to be God.

   This emphasizes the consequential nature of his action, where sitting in the temple serves as the means or occasion for his blasphemous display.