We are discussing the identity of the Man of Sin, whom the Lord said he would destroy with the brightness of his coming. We left off in the previous blog with the writing of the Gospel of Luke which was presented to Theophilus, the reigning high priest, who averted war with Rome and eventual destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by repenting and stopping the persecution of the believing Hellenist Jews. Nevertheless, when another of Annas’ sons got into the high priesthood, he advised Herod Agrippa to strike out at the Apostles and he killed James, John’s brother, but Peter and the other Apostles escaped, leaving only James, Jesus’ brother, and the most conservative believing Jews to preach the Gospel in Jerusalem.
So what we have now is the liberal Hellenist believers and the moderate apostolic believers expelled from Jerusalem, leaving only James to head the church there. What was going on? Little by little Jewish believers in Jesus were not welcome in Jerusalem or in the Temple there. Later, when Jonathan, another of Annas’ sons, became the high priest for the second time, he began another persecution, but subtly. Josephus records a time during the reign of Felix, the Roman procurator of the Syrian province, when many of the poorer priests had their living taken away by robbers employed by the high priest. Some died of starvation, because they depended upon the living they should have received for their duties done in the Temple. This was the reason for Paul’s collection for the saints in Jerusalem. News of what was being done had reached Paul and the churches in Asia and Europe, and he organized the gentile churches to give an offering to the poor saints in Jerusalem.
What happened when Paul came with the offering? Was he well received? No, on the contrary, he was imprisoned and the high priesthood wanted to kill him. Nevertheless, Jonathan was killed by Felix, because Jonathan meddled too much in Felix’ affairs (according to Josephus), probably to execute Paul. Nevertheless, Felix was not of a mind to do that, so he had Jonathan killed and for a time things quieted down. Nevertheless, Paul was kept in prison, because Felix hoped for a bribe to set him free. Long-story-short, Felix was removed, but before Festus could arrive at Jerusalem, another of Annas’ sons was placed into the high priesthood, and he had James, the brother of the Lord, slain on trumped up charges.
Just previous to this time, James had written his epistle; Peter wrote his epistles shortly afterward and John and Jude wrote theirs, showing that while Paul was in prison in Jerusalem, an attack upon his churches had begun with the high point being the unjust execution of James in Jerusalem. Now, the scene is set. The liberal believers had been expelled decades earlier, as were the Apostles and the moderate Jewish believers. Now, James was killed and the most conservative believers were expelled from Jerusalem, and a worldwide effort by the authorities in Jerusalem was in place to trouble the saints in Asia and Europe. Who was doing this? Who held the greatest power in Jerusalem? Was it not Annas, the high priest? Remember, he was the power behind his sons. In the eyes of the Jews, a high priest was a high priest for life, no matter what the Romans did as far as removing and replacing the officiating high priest was concerned.
Acts was written about this time and present to Theophilus, the high priest. He was not the officiating high priest at this time, but Acts was written to him in an effort to get him to influence his son, who was the officiating high priest, and grandson of Annas! The writing of Acts was a second attempt by the believing Jews to avert the destruction of the Temple by pleading with the Jewish authorities to “repent” of their behavior against God and his people. Remember, to strike out at God’s work is to strike out at him (Acts 9:4-5). Who was sitting in the Temple of God, showing that he is God? The official acts of the Temple were supposed to be the official acts of God; were they not? Wasn’t Annas the authority of the Temple, and wasn’t he striking out at God by seeking to destroy God’s work through his people? He was the ONLY authority to strike out at God’s people before Nero struck out at those in Rome! However, since Annas also had great influence with Nero, one has to wonder if the Nero persecution was totally coincidental.
Who is the Man of Sin, the son of perdition (destruction) who opposes and exalts himself against God and all who are called by his name? Who was this, whom the Lord claimed he would destroy with the brightness of his coming? Was it not Annas, the high priest, who was murdered by the rebelling robbers when they found him hiding in an aqueduct in Jerusalem? So, just as the Jewish war against Rome broke out (Jesus’ judgment upon his rebellious people), Annas, the high priest, who was responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, the death of Stephen and the ensuing persecutions against the people of God, was himself judged by Christ, just as Jesus said he would do on the night before his crucifixion.
One man was responsible for all this evil done to the work of God. He was killed on the 6th day of the 6th month in the year 66 AD, after being in the high priesthood for 60 years! Was he the Man of Sin who brought destruction on the Temple of God and the nation of God? I think the evidence speaks for itself, but what do you think?
Smoodock's Blog 
6 responses to “Who is the Man of Sin? ~ Part 3”
Concerning Wars 2.12.6, at the very beginning of his work [Wars preface, paragraph #1] Josephus says:
Notice that what we have is a translation of the Hebrew (or Aramiac). In Antiquities preface Josephus says in paragraph two:
Therefore, it would be wise to remember that difficult and obscure passages may be the result of poor syntax (i.e. “throw the cow over the fence some hay’ sort of thing). Often we know what the person means, if he is speaking in our language, using foreign syntax. Nevertheless, where the Greeks might know what Josephus meant under such circumstances, we, who read his work in the English language, might have to dig a little to find its true sense. Josephus even admits that it was not a Jewish custom to understand a foreign language perfectly, because the Jews looked upon such a thing as “common”:
Therefore, I recommend reading a few different translations of Josephus on line when something isn’t clear. I would think that the governor of Syria would have sent first the high priest, Ananias (son of Nebedaius) to Rome, together with the high priest, Ananias (son of Seth) who was the governor of the Temple (the military leader). I don’t believe Ananias, son of Annas, was sent to Rome. I believe Josephus committed a syntax error in Wars, and the high priest, Jonathan, who was also sent to Rome, should have been seen as the son of the high priest Ananias (son of Seth). Others may read it differently, but this is how I read it.
Concerning having a son named “Ananias”, I don’t believe ancient many Jews were apt to name their children after the father. Often they named sons in honor of a great ancestor, or even a beloved father or father-in-law etc., but naming a son after themselves would be a later son, if at all. Consider Joseph’s family; there was Jesus and James before he named a son, Joseph, after himself (Matthew 13:35). Unless Simeon (Peter) and Andrew had another brother named, John, their father, Jonah (John), named no one after himself. Ananias was the fifth high priest and son of Annas of the Gospel accounts. It is reasonable to assume that he was his fifth and youngest son. Josephus points out that Ananus (Annas) had five sons who rose to the priesthood [Antiquities 20.9.1]
Admittedly, Josephus’ language is obscure. It is especially evident at this point when two high priests named Ananus (Ananias) are mentioned. However, it is easier to believe that an older man would be extremely wealthy than his fifth son. Is the father alive but his four senior sons dead, that the fifth and youngest son receives the father’s wealth? No, I think the editor is correct. This is the “senior” Ananias that Josephus writes about at this point. He is in his eighties at this point, his unscrupulous lifestyle would have made him quite wealthy in such a long time. Otherwise, we have to wonder where the younger Ananus (probably in his thirties or forties) gets his wealth.