While Paul was at Athens, it seems that someone had brought word about some trouble occurring in Thessalonica, which resulted in believers’ confusion about the coming of Christ. The believers at Thessalonica had been instructed what to expect (2Thessalonians 2:5), but Paul was expelled from the city due to the false accusations of his enemies there (cp. Acts 17:5-10). In other words, Paul and those with him had to leave the city before they intended to. There was work still to be done, before a move elsewhere would have been considered. In this context the minds of the Thessalonian believers were ripe to be unsettled by false prophecies, uninspired arguments or even a forged letter from Paul (2Thessalonians 2:2). Upon hearing of these troubling matters, Paul sent Timothy with this letter both to encourage and instruct the believers at Thessalonica. Additionally, Timothy was to evaluate the state of the faith of the believing community and bring word back to Paul and Silas at Athens (1Thessalonians 3:1-3, 6-7).
We need to keep in mind that verse designations and chapter divisions were implemented long after the first century AD. Therefore, Paul’s letter would have continued from the end of chapter one and into chapter two without a break in thought. Paul was already speaking of the Lord’s coming in 2Thessalonians 1:5-12, so, when he reached 2Thessalonians 2:1, his thought in chapter-two would have been a continuation of the same thought that appears at the end of chapter-one. So, in effect, Paul adds to that thought, and his telling the believers in Thessalonica that they need to consider what he had already told them about the coming of Christ on the Day of the Lord (2Thessalonians 2:1-2, 5; 1Thessalonians 5:1-2), needs to be placed in the context of 1Thessalonians 5:1-12.
Had the believers at Thessalonica fully understood and remembered what Paul told them (cp. 2Thessalonians 2:5), they would never have fallen prey for such lies or false claims about the Day of the Lord and the subsequent return of Jesus. First of all, his coming would be preceded by a great falling away of his disciples, and secondly, this would be coupled with the great revealing or unveiling of the man of sin (2Thessalonians 2:3). In other words the parousia (G3952) of the ‘man of sin’ (2Thessalonians 2:8) would occur immediately prior to the parousia (G3952) of Christ (Matthew 24:3).
Consider for a moment what Paul meant by the falling away, mentioned in 2Thessalonians 2:3. Jesus, himself, predicted that, due to the magnitude and cruelty of the coming persecution, a great many of his disciples would abdicate and walk no more with him (Matthew 24:9-12; cp. John 6:66). Therefore, the great falling away implies a great persecution in which the man of sin would be unveiled. He is also called the son of perdition (2Thessalonians 2:3), a name associated with Judas (John 17:12; cp. 6:70-71; 13:18). Judas’ identity seems to have been hidden from the other disciples until after the resurrection of Jesus (cp. Luke 24:33, 36; John 20:24). Therefore, the identity of the man of sin had to have been hidden from the understanding of at least most believers (most of whom were Jews at this point), until after the beginning of the great persecution, in which many believers would cease to follow Jesus. Then, and only then, would all the faithful know of a surety who the man of sin really was.
According to 2Thessalonians 2:4, the man of sin opposes all who are called by the name of God. In other words, he opposes all those who are understood to be the legitimate children of God (cp. Romans 2:28-29). Yet, he also exalts his own authority by claiming to be the governor of those same believers, whom he opposes. That is, he claims to be in authority over the church, despite the fact that the Apostles are the God-appointed authorities over believers. While anyone can claim authority over anyone or anything, such a claim wouldn’t be the guarantee of success. Any claim of authority or ownership needs to have at least some legitimacy, if it is expected to be at all successful. It would also help, if that figure already possessed at least some authority in the eyes of the believing community. Moreover, at least some believers might be convinced of the legitimacy of that authority, if the legitimate and recognized authoritative figures were eliminated. In other words, and assuming a first century AD return of Jesus (cp. Matthew 16:27-28; 24:30, 34), who would be the legitimate leaders of the church, immediately preceding the return of Christ, if all the Apostles, especially Peter and Paul, were dead?[1]
Both Peter and Paul were executed in Rome, just prior to the Jewish war with Rome, probably in Nero’s persecution following the great fire at Rome. The only authoritative figure who both opposed the believing community and considered himself the legitimate governor of that community, was the Jewish high priest at Jerusalem. He already possessed authoritative recognition among believers, especially when it came to the ministries of the Temple at Jerusalem. Every persecution that spilled the blood of the believing community prior to 70 AD was begun in Jerusalem, by or at the request of a high priest of the family of Annas, the high priest to whom Jesus was first brought to be questioned in John 18:13. Even Nero’s persecution could have begun at the instigation of Annas, the high priest, if Nero was aware (and why wouldn’t he be?)[2] of the persecution of the believing community throughout the Jewish state and even beyond at the command of the reigning Jewish high priest.
____________________________________________________________
[1] See my earlier study: Who Are the Two Witnesses.
[2] Josephus, whose father was Matthias, the reigning high priest when James, the Apostle, was slain by Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:1-2), was the grandson of Annas and was present in Rome, when the fire broke out. Josephus was also at the time in a friendly relationship with Nero’s wife, which could have been an impetus to be in the company of Nero, himself. If it is true that Josephus was in the company of Caesar (and there is no proof that he was), he could have suggested blaming Christians in an effort to take blame for the fire from Nero, for the family of Annas had always sought the blood of the disciples of Jesus.
Smoodock's Blog 
4 responses to “Unveiling the Man of Sin”
Do you think the Apostles knew before the great falling away who the Man of Sin was? Or was it a mystery to them as well, until his revelation? I always supposed (regardless of who I thought the Antichrist or Man of Sin was) that the Apostles used these terms in their letters because at least they and possibly their readers knew the name of the Man of Sin, but were using veiled terms lest the letters be used against them.
In reference to your 2nd note – I realize this idea of Josephus being involved in the persecution of Christians under Nero is just conjecture. But if so, Josephus seems strangely critical of Annas. I know Josephus was a bit of a politician and had to be careful of not ticking off his audience. It’s been awhile since I read him, but I already knew the theory about Josephus being a part of this priestly family when I read his comments on Annas and his family and it seemed surprisingly critical if he was a member of the clan. Do you see his criticism as a way to stand apart from whatever his own dirty deeds might have been, which were done at the behest of his family? I’m a bit surprised about Josephus’ connection with Nero’s family given that this priestly family seemed to have some connection with him and Josephus doesn’t write favorably about them. But I suppose he may have been friendly with them at the time of the persecution, but not under any worries of being punished by Nero’s family for his writings, which would have been written several Caesars later, I think?
Yes, they knew, but it would have been against the Law to bring a railing accusation against their leader. Consider Luke, for example. He never puts the Sadducees (the party of the high priest) in a bad light.
Did the recipients of Paul’s letter know? Maybe, but if they did, they probably didn’t hear it from Paul. If I can figure it out, I’m sure a first century AD Jew could understand who he was.
Josephus was in Rome while the great fire burned Rome. Yet, he doesn’t mention it in his histories. Why? To be in Rome at that time, and writing about why he was there, is tantamount to being in New York City in September of 2001 on business and writing about your experience there but never mentioning the planes crashing into the World Trade Center. I’m reading a book: “Josephus, Paul, and the Fate of Early Christianity” by F.B.A. Asiedu. The author has a very interesting take on the ‘silences’ of Josephus, the Jewish historian, of the things he should have known, and the Fire of Rome is only the tip of the iceberg.