The

Man of Sin

By

Kurt Simmons

Futurists have long believed that II Thessalonians “man of sin” is an arch-evil world leader who will appear before the world’s end.  Preterists maintain that this individual appeared once for all on the world scene centuries ago.  In this article we want to solve the riddle of the “man of sin” and the events described by St. Paul. 

Four issues rise from this passage:  1) What is the “falling away;” 2) who is the “man of sin;” 3) who and/or what restrained him; and 4) who would be destroyed?  Examination of these will show that St. Paul’s man of sin was Nero Caesar and the events he described culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.  We will take these in reverse order in which they appear.

 The Objects of Christ’s Wrath

 The first thing we should note is that the coming of Christ and day of the Lord would result in the destruction of those who “received not a love of the truth.” Thus, the coming of Christ in wrath was not of a universal nature, but upon a specific people.  This is an unmistakable reference to the Jews.   

In his first epistle, Paul mentions that the Thessalonians had “received the word in much affliction.”  (I Thess. 1:6)  He says that they had “become followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.”  (I Thess. 2:14-16)  Here is specific reference to the wrath that was to come upon the Jews for crucifying the Lord and persecuting the church.  This is the same wrath described in Paul’s second epistle.  Although Paul indicates the Thessalonians had suffered from their own countrymen, it is clear the Jews were ultimately responsible. 

In Acts, we learn that the Jews of Thessalonica set the whole city in an uproar, assaulted the house of Jason, and brought him and others forcibly before the city rulers.   (Acts 17:1-9) The brethren then sent Paul and Silas by night unto Berea, but the Jews of Thessalonica were so strident in their opposition to the gospel that they followed Paul there and stirred up the people of Berea also.  (Acts 17:10-13)  Paul was thus forced to depart to Athens, and it is from there that he wrote his epistles to the Thessalonians by the hand of Timothy.  It is in this context that Paul thus writes “it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”  (II Thess. 1:6-8)  The gospels also make abundantly clear that the day of the Lord would come upon the Jews and was not of universal application.  (Matt. 3:11, 12; 8:12; 10:23; 16:27, 28; 21:33-46; 22:7; 23:34-39; 24; Mk. 13; 14:62; Lk. 19:41-44; 20:16; 21; etc.)  Luke sums it up well when he says, “For there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.”  (Lk. 21:23) 

He Who Lets 

The time for fulfillment of these things was definitely fixed by the Lord, saying, “This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.”  (Lk. 21:32; cf. Matt. 24:34)  However, as St. Paul indicates, the “falling away” and “man of sin” had first to come upon the scene.  This could not occur until “what withholdeth” and “he who now letteth” was taken “out of the way.”  (II Thess. 2:6, 7)  This has long been recognized as referring to Claudius Caesar and the restraining power of the religio licita.  Tertullian (A.D. 145-220) was among the earliest to comment that the restraining power of the Roman state is alluded to by Paul in these verses, saying “What obstacle is there but the Roman state.”[1]  This is echoed by several patristic writers.  Victorinus, in his commentary on the Apocalypse, states:   

Victorinus here connects the “beast” from the abyss with the Roman empire and the “Wicked One” with the one who was prince when Paul wrote (Nero), and would follow his father (Claudius) to the throne. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) is even more explicit:

 The late Canon of Westminster, F.W. Farrar, wrote:  

J. Stuart Russell, in his classic work on the Parousia of Christ, states  

Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. is among modern writers reaching the same conclusion:  

A final consideration worth noting is that the Greek “ha katechon” (“he who lets”) may be rendered in Latin “qui claudit.”  The similarity of claudit and Claudius has led many to conclude that Paul cryptically referred to Claudius Caesar by this allusion in a manner similar to St. John’s reference to Nero by the number six hundred threescore and six.[7] 

Beginning with Tiberius, the Jews were under intense imperial disfavor, which continued through the reigns of Caligula and Claudius.  Claudius restrained the Jews from persecuting the church, extending it the protection of law under the religio licita, even banishing the Jews from Rome for rioting because of “Chrestus.”[8]   As long as Claudius was at the head of Rome, the Jews were prevented to openly persecute the church.  However, Claudius was taken out of the way when he was poisoned by his wife, Agrippina, Nero’s mother.  This brought Nero to the throne, opening the way for the Jews back into imperial favor; Nero’s wife, Poppaea, was a Jewish proselyte.  The antichristian movement (“mystery of iniquity”) that had thus been hidden and repressed under Claudius was loosed and revealed under Nero.[9] 

 Man of Sin 

Tradition among primitive Christians identified St. Paul’s “man of sin” with St. John’s “antichrist” and Revelation’s “beast,” many holding that these were references to Nero.  Victorinus and Augustine we already heard from, above.  In his fourth homily on II Thessalonians, St. Chrysostom (A.D. 347 to 407) states,  

Lactantius (A.D. 260-330) writes: 

Reference to Nero as a “noxious, wild beast” is generally understood to be an allusion to the beast of Revelation; reference to Nero’s attempt to raze the temple of God (the church), to Thessalonians’ “man of sin” taking his seat in the temple of God.  Sulpicius Severus (A.D. 360-420) makes similar comments: 

Although Sulpicius Severus erroneously concludes that Nero’s life was somehow wondrously preserved and would appear again at the world’s end, he correctly identified Nero with the “beast” and “man of sin.”  (Cf. Rev. 13:3; II Thess. 2:7)  Other evidence that Nero was the “man of sin” will be discussed below. 

John of Gischala? 

There has grown up in recent years the belief that St. Paul’s “man of sin” refers to John of Gischala, a leader of the Jewish war against Rome.  Those taking this position do so based largely upon Paul’s statement that “he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”  (II Thess. 2:4)  During the war with Rome, the faction of whom John of Gischala was head occupied the Jerusalem temple, turning it into a military fortress, defiling it according to Jewish ritual purity.  From this, some conclude St. Paul’s reference must be to this individual and event. There are numerous considerations which militate against this conclusion.   

First, the defining criteria of the “man of sin” were that he be a world figure patterned after Antiochus Epiphanes, who persecuted the people of God.  Daniel thus describes the persecution under both Antiochus Ephiphanes and Nero as “little horns” (Dan. 7:8; 8:9), showing that the former was a type of the latter.  Daniel also describes Antiochus’ and Nero’s destruction of the holy land and people as an “abomination of desolation.”  (Dan. 8:12, 13; 9:27; 11:31; cf. Matt. 24:15)  Moreover, Paul’s description of the “man of sin” and John’s description of the “antichrist,” the “beast” and “false prophet” of Revelation, track closely Daniel’s description of Antiochus Epiphanes.  For example, Paul speaks of the “man of sin” as “opposing and exalting himself above God” (II Thess. 2:4), that his coming would be with “all power and signs and lying wonders” (v.9), and “deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish.”  (v. 10)  John describes the “antichrist” as one that denies Christ is come in the flesh (I Jno. 2:18, 22); the “beast” is a devourer of the saints, which opens its mouth in blasphemy against God and his tabernacle; the “false prophet” causes men to worship and obey the “beast” under penalty of death.  (Rev. 13:5, 6, 11, 15)  This accords with Daniel’s description of Antiochus Epiphanes as a king who would destroy wonderfully the mighty and holy people and tread them underfoot; as a king who would use craft and magnify himself in his heart, and stand up against the Prince of princes.  (Dan. 8:10, 13, 24, 25)  None of this in fairness can be said to apply to John of Gischala; he was not a world figure, did not persecute the saints, did not open his mouth in blasphemy against God, or bring about the desolation of Jerusalem.

John of Gischala was an obscure and petty criminal-despot who got himself into power briefly during the war with Rome, murdering and terrorizing his own people, but virtually unknown outside of Judea, possessing no world import. To characterize this opportunistic robber-bandit as the world figure - the man of sin  – who would precede Christ’s coming imparts importance to this man totally out of proportion to his actual, historical significance.  The appearance of the “man of sin” was a matter of deep anxiety to Christians in Asia and throughout the world.  This was because his appearance would entail great persecution and tribulation (Dan. 12:1; Matt. 24:12; Rev. 3:10), such that the Thessalonians were greatly "shaken in mind" anticipating his arrival.  (II Thess. 2:2)  Indeed, Revelation was written largely to alleviate the fear associated with his coming by promise of rest and consolation in Paradise pending the resurrection.  (Rev. 12:10; 14:13; 20:4-6)  John of Gischala had no interest in the church and did not persecute Christians, who had fled Jerusalem long before he came upon the scene.[13]  John of Gischala’s momentary appearance in Palestine would have been of no concern to the church in Thessalonica. Nero, on the other hand fits this description perfectly, for his arrival entailed the greatest persecution the church has ever known or will know.

Second, if John of Gischala is the "man of sin" and "son of perdition" - the “Wicked” whom the Lord would consume with the breath of his mouth and brightness of his coming - we should definitely expect him to figure prominently in the book of Revelation, which describes the persecution of the last days and the destruction of Jerusalem.  Instead we find Rome and Nero.  John makes no appearance at all, or at best, a very small, veiled reference in the allusion to the city being divided into three parts (Rev. 16:19)[14]; hardly the sort of thing we would expect of someone as important as the “man of sin.”  Are we to believe that this person whom the church was to look for before the end would come makes no appearance in the one book devoted totally to describing those events? 

Third, Josephus states that John was condemned to perpetual imprisonment and not even deemed worthy of being led and slain in triumph at Rome; a distinction reserved for Simon the son of Gioras.[15] This gives the lie to John’s being the important figure described in II Thessalonians.  Moreover, how can it be said he was “consumed” with the breath of Christ’s mouth as Paul describes if he did not even suffer death?  On the other hand, Nero died by his own hand to avoid being scourged to death under sentence of the Roman senate.

Fourth, the temple in Jerusalem was associated with apostate worship of those that denied Christ. The very continuance of blood offerings there was an implicit denial of Christ and his atoning sacrifice. That is why God destroyed the city and temple in the first place! (Isa. 66:1-5; cf. Matt. 24; Acts 6:13-7:50; Heb. 8:13)  By the time John and his army took up arms in the temple, God was way past caring anything about its ceremonial cleanliness, or otherwise.  His new temple was the church.  (Eph. 2:21; I Pet. 2:5)  To make John the “man of sin” because he dared desecrate the temple is to make God concerned about the ritual purity of an edifice he himself pledged to destroy!

Fifth, pollution of the temple was not the “abomination of desolation,” nor for that matter were the Roman legions raising their standards in the temple area at the war’s conclusion.  Rather, the Roman legions themselves were the abomination of desolation; a preternatural army of locusts and scorpion-centaurs that denuded the land with fire, sword, and famine during the three-and-a-half year war.  (Cf. Rev. 9)  This is clear from Luke’s account of the Olivet Discourse where he substitutes the Roman legions for the abomination of desolation, saying, “And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.”  (Lk. 21:20; cf. Matt. 24:15)

Sixth, those who feel John of Gischala is referred to invariably do so based upon an overly literal interpretation of Paul’s statement that he would take “his seat in the temple." The language is figurative and does not refer to the Jerusalem temple. Almost identical language is used of the king of Tyrus by Ezekiel: "Thus saith the Lord God; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas." (Ezek. 28:2)  Similar usage occurs concerning the kings of Babylon and Assyria (Isa. 14:12ff; 37:23ff.) These are the sources of Paul's language in II Thess. 2:3ff and must control our interpretation. The king of Tyrus’ “sitting in the seat of God" is equal to the “man of sin’s” “taking his seat in the temple of God”- both describe a depraved world leader lifted up in the pride of his heart, exulting in his power, even to the point of thinking himself God.  (Cf. Acts 12:20-23)  The ruler’s relation to or involvement with the physical temple in Jerusalem is irrelevant and even nonexistent. When Paul says “so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God,” he means that the subject behaves with the purpose or intention of holding himself out as God, so as to usurp his throne.  The idea that the individual somehow actually takes God's seat is as alien to the text as the notion of actually locating himself in God’s temple.[16]  Indeed, as already noted, after the crucifixion of Christ, the Jerusalem temple was not God’s temple, but was the seat of apostate worship founded upon denial of Christ’s atoning sacrifice and sonship.

The notion that John of Gischala was the “man of sin” may safely be dismissed.

The Falling Away 

During the Reformation many believed that the “man of sin” was the pope and the “falling away” spoke to Catholicism’s corrupt forms of worship and doctrine.  However, few scholars can be found who take this seriously today.  The present tense of the verbs indicates that the “mystery of iniquity” was already at work, and he who “now letteth” would let until taken out of the way.  (II Thess. 2:6, 7)  This can hardly describe the papacy, which did not grow up until centuries later.  Instead, the better view is that Paul is describing the full and final rejection of Christ by the Jews through their participation in the persecution under Nero and apostasy from the church and a return to Judaism.   This is the crux of Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy prophetic weeks (viz., 490 yrs) which would end in the destruction of the city and temple.  (Dan. 9:24-27)[17]  It was also spelled out at length by the prophet Isaiah.  First, Isaiah describes God’s anger and contempt for the Jews’ idolatrous devotion to the temple: 

Then, he shows his abhorrence for the continuing temple cultus, which stood in denial of Christ’s substitutionary death and atoning sacrifice: 

Next, Isaiah speaks to the persecution of Christians by unbelieving Jews and the promise of Christ’s coming: 

And finally, Christ’s coming in wrath to destroy the city and nation: 

Here is explicit reference to the coming of the Lord to destroy his enemies in the events culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, predictions repeated by Christ in his Olivet discourse (Matt. 24, 25; Mk. 13; Lk. 21).[18]  This would come, as suggested by the Hebrew writer, after forty-years, like their fathers’ in the wilderness.  (Heb. 3:7-4:11; cf. Num. 14:34)  The church’s persecution and apostasy from the faith by a return to the temple cultus is the dominate theme of the epistle to the Hebrews and attests to the fact the apostasy Paul spoke of was then underway.  The writer is at pains to demonstrate the provisional nature of the temple service and Christ’s imminent return to put his enemies beneath is feet by destruction of the city and nation, warning his readers from apostasy by returning to Judaism:   

 Conclusion 

St. Paul’s “mystery of iniquity” and “man of sin” spoke to the apostasy of the Jewish nation by its full and final rejection of Christ and persecution of Christians under Nero.  The restraining power of Claudius was taken out of the way when he was poisoned by Nero’s mother, Agrippina.  Nero then came to the throne and was revealed as the “man of sin,” setting the stage for the final drama in God’s redemptive and eschatological purpose, which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.