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”
Thank you for your effort to bring important historical events to the light. I often need this kind of support, since mass-preaching is so distant from the reality.
Unfortunately I can not comment on your research as I’m not competent enough. I have a question thought: from another brother (who deceased less then a month ago) I heard that the Gospel of John was not written by John but Lazarus. For majority of christians it wouldn’t matter, but when I saw your reference to the chronology of NT writings I thought that this might be interesting to you (in case you don’t hold the same position already).
Brother I mentioned is John Anderson, the host of “The Voice of Reason” on GCN. As far as I can see he held the same position on most (if not all) topics as you do.
Hi Vlad, it is good to hear from you once more. I am sorry to hear that John Anderson has passed on. I know it was your hunger for truth that led you to him and that you enjoyed listening to so many of his lectures.
Concerning the Gospel of John, I have not heard of the idea that Lazarus was the author. To my knowledge all of what has been written in the early centuries concerning authorship of the NT books reveals what the present authorship indicates. I know of no challenges in the early centuries that would point to Lazarus writing John or any other book. For the challenge to be important it would have to be early, otherwise it is just an opinion of a person expressed hundreds or even a thousand years later. We may all guess this or that about how the books came to be known as they are today, but unless our guesses are based upon evidence, they remain guesses. Perhaps there is evidence behind this opinion, but I am unaware of anything that would challenge John’s authorship of the Gospel.
Thank you for your kind words about me, but you should know that it is God who grows us. You have a wonderful endless yearning to ‘know’ and God will bless this with your heart’s desire. Keep on looking; keep on asking; keep on knocking and everything will one day be open to you, found by you and your heart’s desires will be satisfied.
Lord bless,
Eddie
I’ve been reading Josephus and trying to figure out which Annas/ Ananus / Ananius is which. The index of my copy only makes it more confusing as they seem to make assumptions. I take it that you think the Annas who died in Wars 2.17.6-9 is the one to which you refer when you wrote : “He was killed on the 6th day of the 6th month in the year 66 CE.” Other sources I read consider the date of death of Annas son of Seth to be unknown.
I read to find what the last Ananias was that is mentioned before Wars 2.17 . In Wars 2.12.6 Josephus wrote about Ananias son of Nebedius, High Priest appointed by Herod King of Chalsis c.47 A.D.(Ant. 20.8.5) who was sent with his son Ananias in fetters to Rome after a dispute with the Samaritans. Caesar ruled in favor of the Jews, but no mention of what happened to Ananias. So I suppose as he is the last one mentioned, it is assumed the High Priest who died in 66 A.D. is him, even though the two events are almost 20 years apart.
How do you conclude that the mention in Josephus of his death is indeed the High Priest who tried Jesus? Do you agree with a birth date of about 23 B.C. ?
You are correct in believing “Annas who died in Wars 2.17.6-9 is the one to which you refer…” This is the Annas of the Gospel accounts, in as much as I am able to tell.
Josephus’ accounts of the conflict between the Samaritans and the Jews don’t quite agree. The parts we are concerned with I’ve quoted below:
From Antiquities we find that Ananias, the high priest and son of Nebedaius was sent to Rome in chains. However, Wars isn’t clear if the reigning high priest was sent to Rome. If one reads Wars at this point, it appears only the Annas family of high priests were sent to Rome. Nevertheless, a study of Josephus reveals that the only other Ananias, who was a high priest before Ananias (son of Nebedaius), was Annas (son of Seth). I point this out because Wars tells us that three high priests were sent to Rome in chains—two of whom were named Ananias or a form of that name (Annas; Ananas & Ananias are all the same name—like Ed, Eddie and Edward). Obviously, Wars is either mistranslated or is in error.
The reigning high priest, Ananias (son of Nebedaius) and Ananus (son of Seth) were sent to Rome in chains. Ananus in Josephus’ accounts is Annas of the Gospels, and he was the governor of the Temple or the one in charge of the temple guard. Antiquities makes no mention of Jonathan being sent to Rome, but in Antiquities 20.8.5 we have Jonathan seemingly acting as the reigning high priest, and Felix had him killed. Herod of Chalcis appointed Ananias (son of Nebedaius) to his office, but Josephus claims Agrippa appointed Ishmael (son of Phiabi – Antiquities 20.8.1), so sometime between Ananias and Ishmael Herod of Chalcis died (Wikipedia has it at 48 AD, but I think it is closer to 52 AD or around the appointment of Felix to governor of Judea), and Agrippa inherited not only his territories but also the responsibility of appointing high priests. Agrippa was in Rome at the time when Josephus says Jonathan, Ananias, and Ananus were in Rome to appear before Caesar (Antiquities 20.7.3), and it was through his influence that they were set free and the Samaritans punished.
Agrippa may have taken the high priesthood from Ananias (son of Nebedaius) at that time and gave it to Jonathan, because Josephus seems to indicate that Ishmael received the high priesthood “about this time” i.e. about the time of Jonathan’s murder.
Antiquities makes no mention of Ananias (son of Nebedaius), after he is sent to Rome, but in 20.9.1 Josephus mentions that the younger Ananus was made high priest, and it was he who killed James the brother of Jesus. Annas is still alive at this point (cir. 62 AD), because he is mentioned just after his son was removed from office by Agrippa:
[Antiquities 20.9.3-4]
This high priest was a very evil man, as even Josephus shows, despite the fact he was his grandfather. At the time of the breakout of the war, he would have been 88 years old, if 23 BC is an accurate date for his birth.
You said: 243 Two others of the most prominent of them he sent to Caesar, along with the high priests Jonathan and Ananias, and Ananus his son and some other Jewish notables… [Wars 2.12.6]
From Antiquities we find that Ananias, the high priest and son of Nebedaius was sent to Rome in chains. However, Wars isn’t clear if the reigning high priest was sent to Rome. If one reads Wars at this point, it appears only the Annas family of high priests were sent to Rome. Nevertheless, a study of Josephus reveals that the only other Ananias, who was a high priest before Ananias (son of Nebedaius), was Annas (son of Seth). I point this out because Wars tells us that three high priests were sent to Rome in chains—two of whom were named Ananias or a form of that name (Annas; Ananas & Ananias are all the same name—like Ed, Eddie and Edward). Obviously, Wars is either mistranslated or is in error.”
My version reads “both Jonathan and Ananias, the High Priests, as also Ananus the son of this Ananias… ” ( Wars 2. 12.6 ) So this version sounds more in agreement with Ant. – 1 high priest Ananias and a 2nd Ananias who could be both the priest’s son and the commander of the Temple. But in that case the 2nd Ananias couldn’t be Ananias son of Seth and Ant. says the first one is the son Nebedeus. It seems reasonable to think it was the reigning High Priest who would be sent to Rome as all the other leaders like the Roman procurator, were also sent. And it wouldn’t be that odd that both high priests named Ananias would each have a son by the same name.
You said “Annas is still alive at this point (cir. 62 AD), because he is mentioned just after his son was removed from office by Agrippa:
205 The former high priest, Ananias, became ever more prominent and was much liked and esteemed by the citizens, and with his great hoard of money he constantly showered gifts on Albinus and the high priest. [Antiquities 20.9.3-4]”
The editor of my version agrees with you in thinking this Ananias is the elder, but I think it reads more like his son as all the preceding paragraph is about the younger being H.P. only for three months because he of ticking off Albinius by executing James before he arrived to replace Festus. Either the elder or younger Ananias could be the one who tried to pacify Albinius with bribes.
I can’t feel positive of the identity of Ananias in any of these passages.