ΝΑΟΣ in
Verse 4b
The temple (ναός, sanctuary) in v. 4b has been
interpreted as the temple of Jerusalem or in various symbolic ways as a
heavenly temple, as the Church, and simply as part of an expression depicting
the hostile figure’s attempt to arrogate to himself all divine prerogatives
(Knabenbauer, Vosté, Steinmann, Amiot) .
The first of these
interpretations is more logically associated with the view that Paul has in
mind some figure like Emperor Caligula, who attempted to have his statue set up
in the temple , or Nero. This interpretation suffers from the general weaknesses
of any theory of strictly historical interpretation of the figures in this
chapter (cf. remarks in Part One, pp. 17–19). And it suffers from still others.
For Caligula died in 41 A.D., a decade before this letter was written, and Paul
in writing 2 Thes 2:3–4 is looking ahead to the parousia, not backwards. Nero
was alive at the time Paul wrote, but became Emperor in 54. G. R.
Beasley-Murray’s remarks on the way the Caligula-episode has been used in
explaining Mk 13:14 ff. (and 2 Thes 2:4) are applicable to the Nero-hypothesis
too: “the method employed by proponents of this theory is to pin down a
prediction to a likely event and then insist that on this account the saying
must be ex eventu” . But, apart from
the method employed, such a line of interpretation misconstrues the perspective
in which the imagery is used. It assumes that the imagery is merely a disguised
form of predicting physical events. Actually, the context into which the imagery
is integrated is a pastoral admonition against deception on a point of faith.
Even apart from the
Emperor-hypothesis, the view that the earthly temple of Jerusalem is in
question does not find anything in Paul to commend itself. For, as we shall see
shortly, his references to the temple have a different scope. We can find no
grounds for supposing that in Paul’s catechesis, to which reference is made
within two lines of his reference to the temple in v. 4, the temple or earthly
city of Jerusalem figured at all. At the very least, the view that the earthly
temple is meant does not accord with the view of Jerusalem in Gal 4:25–26.
The theory that a heavenly
temple enters Paul’s ken seems a bit less gratuitous. But, again, such a
“localized” heavenly temple is mentioned nowhere else in Paul’s own works. An
interpretation based on the use of this image in Apoc would first have to explain the sense of the
texts in that unique work and then relate them to the far less visual imagery
of 2 Thes 2. Furthermore, the ἄνομος is
depicted as a human figure who is undone at the Lord’s parousia. His
pseudo-parousia is opposed to that of the Lord himself, and the temple which is
the object of his self-assertion should presumably be “located” not in heaven
but in the realm directly affected by the Lord’s coming. In a sense, this
latter “area” is not strictly earthly, for it involves men (who believe or
disbelieve) rather than place But it is difficult to see how Paul’s
representation of the anti-God figure fits with a conception of ναός as an altogether non-terrestrial temple
situated in the heavens.
The position of Knabenbauer et al is less vulnerable to specific
objections, since it is basically a refusal to designate the meaning of the
term beyond the minimum that must be inferred from other elements in the
immediate context. But this minimal position does not seem to be warranted by
Paul’s repeated use of the temple (ναός,
sanctuary) in other letters.
These other Pauline
texts solidly base the view that the
Church is meant, though further qualifications are called for. We would not say
that Paul is speaking of the Church as God’s temple in the sense that he is presenting
its organizational-juridical aspects. In Eph 2:21 and 4:16, for example, where
the image of the temple is tied closely to the image of the Church as a body,
the ‘organization’ that is directly affirmed is affirmed in function of the
idea of ordered growth. This growth is said to be according to a power (scl.,
the spirit, as coming from Christ risen) which is at work in the Church and
brings it to spiritual maturity. For Paul, the Church is largely the
dwelling-place of the Spirit; it is the sphere of sanctification conceived as God’s special possession,
something purchased through the redemption (1 Cor 6:19–20). An ecclesial
interpretation is supported by the wider context of Paul’s use of cult-imagery,
scl., in reference to the faith or sanctification of the community or in
connection with his own apostolic work . Again, the temple-image seems to have
figured in Paul’s catechesis, to which we have a reference in the text before
us (v. 5).
The principal difficulty
against taking ναός of
v. 4 as the Church is perhaps the expression αὐτὸν … καθίσαι: “to seat himself”. Does not this term
itself (καθίσαι),
in spite of its infinitive form after ὥστε
(which may easily be taken as indicating a tendency instead of an accomplished
fact), suggest establishment of the
Rebel in some way in the Church? We do not think it follows that establishment
or actual exercise of power is implied by the very term καθίσαι. In the first place, it should be noted
that, though καθίσαι is
printed in bold-face type in Nestle’s text, with a marginal reference to Ez
28:2, it does not occur in Ez 28:2 or in any of the other texts which are
considered to lie behind 2 Thes 2:3–4. In Ez 28:2, in fact, we find a far more
“local” image (κατοικίαν
θεοῦ κατῷκηκα) which Paul does not use and may even
be avoiding.
In the second place, the
term καθίζω is frequent enough
in texts which describe a form of exercising power by way of teaching or
judging so that its locative sense virtually disappears . The term itself,
then, need not suggest physical presence but may denote function. Only its
form, considered in connection with other features of the text and context,
will be able to tell us whether Paul considers the function as actually
exercised or successful. The term alone will not do so. The determining factors
are Paul’s evident confidence that God’s prerogatives will not be usurped and
that his calling men to the faith will not be substantially frustrated. The
features of the text in v. 4 can easily be explained as describing an intended,
unrealized attempt (ὥστε +
inf., conative ptc. ἀποδεικνύντα).
One may add that the preposition εἰς,
which here keeps its sense of motion or direction , would certainly be less apt
than ἐν, with which καθίσαι is usually construed, if Paul had
thought of expressing achieved result.
Lastly, if the connotation
“false prophet” be accepted for “Man of Rebellion”, it is much easier to see
the appropriateness and precise scope of the term καθίσαι: the Rebel would set himself up as
teacher or judge in the Church. It is also easier to account for the boldness
of Paul’s image (even granting that he does not say the attempt is
accomplished). For in Mk 13:22 we find it said of false Christs and false
prophets: ποιήσουσιν
σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα πρὸς τὸ ἀποπλανᾶν [Mt 24:24: ὥστε πλανῆσαι], εἰ δυνατὸν, τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς.
“If possible” indicates for Mk-Mt the gravity of the threat; ὥστε κτλ. for Paul indicates rather the gravity of
the affront to what is God’s.
In conclusion, then, we see
no cogent reason for interpreting ναός
along other lines than those indicated by Paul’s regular use of the term. The
context of 2 Thes 2 does differ from that of other texts (except for the use of
ναός in 2 Cor 6:16) on the score that 2 Thes
2 is markedly apocalyptic. But we think that the ecclesial interpretation faces
fewer difficulties than any other known interpretation and better safeguards
the theological character of Paul’s pastoral admonition. A more thorough
investigation of the temple-image, since it requires extensive examination of
extremely difficult texts on the Son of Man and related images of the heavenly
assembly (and accordingly careful study of various authors and strata in the NT
tradition). cannot be handled in this monograph. (Charles H. Giblin, The Threat
to Faith: An Exegetical and Theological Re-Examination of 2 Thessalonians 2 [Analecta
Biblical 31; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967], 76-80)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
