More on the Man of Sin

By Gabor Gombor

Response to "Regarding "Annihilationism"

Please let me share my thoughts on "Man of Sin". There are different viewpoints among preterists, the most frequent explanations mention both Roman and Jewish opponents. Before we would try guess the person, let us see the passages. The Greek uses "anomos" (459) and "anomia" (458) in 2Thess. 2.7 and 8 as "lawlessness". The two meanings in the concordance:

Anomos:

destitute of (the Mosaic) law

42494. of the Gentiles

departing from the law, a violator of the law, lawless, wicked

Anomia:

the condition of without law

42495. because ignorant of it

42496. because of violating it

contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness

Notice that the "anomia" has two efficient causes: ignore the law or violate the law. Many think that the Man of Sin should be a person who has a decided target to violate the law and forget the second possibility that a person who think he keep the Law, but in reality he doesn't. The same word in the gospel:

The mentioned persons could prophesise, cast out devils and "done many wonderful works" (Mt. 7.24). These people did not acted as the destroyer of Law or even denying God, in opposite, they thought they knew the Lord! They are definitely from the last times Jews. This iniquity frequently related to the Jewish priesthood:

This iniquity is nothing more than the disappearing the essence of Law: the love. Compare the two passages:

The source of all iniquity of that age is denying Christ. Worshipping God and keeping the Law became impossible without it.

Romans were not godly guards above Israel. Neither any Roman emperors nor generals stood before the gate of heaven. They hadn't keys of it. The royal Jewish priesthood got they key but did not use it, they IGNORE it.

Iniquity is not the pure wickedness which we relate to Nero and any gentile persecutors. They driven by power, envy, fear and antipathy which changed many times to hatred. Priesthood driven by not wickedness but hypocrisy which is iniquity. This form of evil is more dangerous than the pure anger of feelings and earthy things. The feelings can be transformed, the ignorance could be abolished with reasoning. As the history signs, many Romans were hateful mostly because of their misunderstandings about the Christianity (for example they misunderstood the meaning of Lord's Supper). In time it is changed, the Roman Empire chose Christendom. The case of priesthood is different. They thought they know everything from the Scripture (or more worse, from their interpretations and traditions) and they can't be convinced. Christ was the only one who did change it and save the remnant:

What can we say about the big WHO? Because of the thoughts above, I'm tending also that Man of Sin was clearly Jewish and not Roman, as many preterists think the same. Some elements of the 2Thess 2 passages must be considered about this person:

1. sitteth in the Temple

2. shewing himself that he is God

3. Lord will consume and destroy him

4. his power and signs and lying wonders

Altough John Gischala really was in the Temple (the zealots used it as fortress) I'm not sure that it must taken only literally. The word, "Kathizo" (2523) has the meaning to "set, appoint, to confer a kingdom on one." The word frequently related with "thrones" or "seat" which express power, judgement and reign. (Acts. 2.30, Rev. 3.21, Rev. 20.4). The context is clear that it is an event, so I think search this man among zealots, idumeans or another parties seems reasonable. In this meaning, the Jewish zealots and another parties were real earthy "emperors" on the city.

Unfortunately many translations (as my hungarian) gives "stating himself God" which is not correct. Showing, Apodeiknumi means:

to point away from one's self, to point out, show forth, to expose to view, exhibit to declare, to show, to prove what kind of person anyone is, to prove by arguments, demonstrate

Peter said Jesus was approved (Apodeiknumi) by God with miracles, wonders and signs. (Acts. 2.22) Apodeiknumi can mean "prove" anything with rational arguments as the Jews tried argue against Paul but failed. (Acts. 25.7). The apostles were also set forth (Apodeiknumi) by God. No passage in the Scripture says that this person literally said "I'm God" ! As Dave Green said me "their acts spoke them". For example, they chose High Priest by lot, the priest called this act lawlessness according to Josephus (Book IV, chapter 3). The zealots and idumeans killed the priests, even the High Priest. Who had ever the right to kill a High Priest? Only God.

Consume (analisko) is a rare word, occurs only three times in the NT. At he first occurence the disciples asked permission to consume the samaritanian village. (Lk. 9.54) This "consume" is clearly physically because Jesus corrected them "for the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.". The another example is the opposite, I think it is about the consume of the heart, not physical death:

The word for destroy, is katergeo which is clearly about destruction. (to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative ; to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish). John Gischala becomes doubtful if we think physical destruction in AD 70 because he did not died at the siege, he surrendered. The Romans captured him and kept in prison till death. (Josephus, book VI, chapter 9.)

But what does mean "consume with spirit of His mouth" and "destroy with the brightness of his coming"?

Exactly because of the above expressions, I think the option can be consider that it is not solely the killing of this person but destroying his works. Compare with this:

Not to mention, that Gischala, Simon of Gorias and another zealots hid away to underground corridors and caves. (Josephus, book VI, chapter 9 and book VII, chapter 2). They did not die at the siege, only later, but their movement destroyed.

I think many missed that the Greek uses here the word "Pseudos" regarding wonders. We should not search REAL miracles in the history! Notice how explained it by Paul itself:

These are cheats as in Acts:

They only THOUGHT that they can make miracles. They didn't! Despite this many futurists expect miracles from this person. Eusebius wrote about Teudas that he promised to his followers that he will divide the river. Regarding signs, a sign is not exclusively a divine sign. Altough "semeion" used frequently as miracle, wonder but not in all cases. The most sad, but fully human sign was a kiss:

A simple word can be sign, or a simple event. Signs of Satan could be the murders, massacre, plunders, tribulation, war happened in that time. We should not except divine signs from the evil. He was the prince of the world, not of heaven.

An important question remains. If the iniquity refers to the Jewish priesthood and the Man of Lawlessness was probably a leader of a rebellious Jewish party how the two are connected? According to Josephus, neither John Gischala, nor Simon of Gioras were not priests, but simply plunderers, wicked men. How the biblical ignorance of Law can be applied to criminals? I think there are many possibilities. Perhaps we should search this man among priests but I think the most probable option that see the chain of events. The priesthood was complacent and they feel themselves as power of God. Instead this, they loosed the power of ignorance and lawlessness which overgrew them. They ignore the Messiah and His prophecies, deluded the whole people who continued to trust in God, so the result was, most people missed the only one escape: Jesus Christ. The general belief, even at the siege, was that God will save the city and help to resist the Romans. Last this power destroyed themselves, even the High Priest (Anan) was killed, their desperate counteraction was too late. In my understanding the Man of Sin was a creature of this evil generation and his power born from the apostasy of the first century priesthood. The Jewish restrainer makes more sense for me, as many preterists think (for example Jordan) the restrainer was the church of Jerusalem and their leader was James.

Act. 8.1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

Any comments or corrections welcome.

cheers, Gabor

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
..Will Be Spam Filtered and Posted Shortly..

Date:

30 Jan 2003

Time:

03:25:08

Comments

<p>I made a poll in the Message Board, please vote what do you think about the person. Jordan has good points in his article "Abominations of Desolation"/ Part 2 and he think Ananias as Man of Sin. If we should get katergeo as literal killing, Ananias fits better to the picture.</p> <p>Regarding lawlessness you can read an interesting episode in Josephus' book, when the zealots "directed" a trial about Zachariah who listed all iniquites of the rebels who was here, in the Temple killed by zealots. </p>

Date:

15 Sep 2003

Time:

19:43:55

Comments

Gabor - I think you're on the right track with regard to the "Jewish" character of the "man of sin." However, I don't think there's any reason to keep searching for the identity of the "man." Ezekiel identifies him as "Gog" in Ezek 38-39. Notice that "Gog" is the one who leads the deceptive revolt in Revelation 20, and is then destroyed by fire from heaven.

Date:

09 Oct 2004

Time:

16:40:56

Comments

2 Thessalonians 2 3Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition , who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 5Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? THE MAN OF SIN IS ALSO CALLED THE SON OF PERDITION. THIS TITLE WAS GIVEN TO JUDAS BY JESUS (JOHN 17:12). SATAN ENTERED JUDAS TWICE (LUKE 22:2 AND JOHN 13:27). SATAN IS THE SON OF PERDITION!!!

Date:

17 Mar 2005

Time:

08:54:16

Comments

you dodged the question. who is the man of sin. who is the antichrist? doesnt it say he alone (Christ) will be exaulted? the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day. doesnt it say he will destroy death?