Son of Perdition

“Whom seek ye?” he asked, now that the hour was come, directing their attention to himself, and thus ensuring that his disciples were not the subject of a sudden attack. They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth”. Briefly he replied, “I am he”. Before telling the effect of the approach and answer of Jesus, John notes the presence of the betrayer. It marks his debasement that he should join the Lord’s enemies. The “son of perdition” was a symbol, as it were, of that power of darkness of which Jesus had spoken. The effect of the words of Jesus was almost symbolic also. Judas and his associates fell prostrate at the feet of Jesus. His innocence and majesty had even then a disabling power: but there was no effort to take advantage of it.

(2001). The Christadelphian, 77(electronic ed.), 210.

Such was the ICONIC MAN in the noonday of his existence, the number of whose name is 666. Is not this the Antichrist? Could any power arise in the world more deserving of the name? Is not this Image-power, Anomos, THE LAWLESS ONE, whose coming Paul predicted would be “after the working of the Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish?” It can be no other than “the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called god, or Sebasma, an object of veneration; so that he in the temple of the god sits as a god, publicly exhibiting himself that he is a god.” And yet in view of all the record extant concerning this ICONIC MAN OF SIN, there are protestors who affirm that the papal dynasty is not the Antichrist, and that his revelation is still in the future! Can blindness be more complete than that which cannot see the Lawless One in him whose worshippers declare to be superior to law and above right? If the Antichrist have not been in full manifestation before the world for the past six hundred years, there need be no apprehension of his future advent. But, as we have seen elsewhere, Antichrist and vicar of Christ, or Vice-Christ, are synonymous expressions; so that in this vainglorious title of the papal power it stands confessed as Antichrist, the Image Man of Sin, for the worship or reprobation of mankind.

Thomas, J. (1997). Eureka: an exposition of the Apocalypse (electronic ed., p. 1). West Beach, South Australia: Logos Publications.

see elpis israel

THE MAN OF SIN.

“The Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition.”


Thomas, D. J. (1990). Elpis Israel: an exposition of the Kingdom of God (electronic ed., p. 104). Birmingham, UK: The Christadelphian.

the son of the woman

This king, or Imperial Power, and its foreign god, are presented in Dan. 7:8, 20, 24, 25, under the symbol of a Little Horn, in which were EYES like the eyes of man, and a MOUTH speaking very great things. In this, the Eyes and the Mouth are representative of the foreign god; while the Little Horn itself is significative of “the king,” or power, that glorifies him. This remarkable constitution of Church and State did not obtain in the days of Paul and John. The former in 2 Thess. 2 predicted its manifestation as the result of apostasy from the faith; and that when that apostasy was well developed, the power would be revealed. Not, however, in full manifestation at the beginning. The power had to receive its birth, and to grow to manhood, or maturity; so that when it had fully established itself above all, it might be in a position to set up its foreign god. Paul styles the power, “the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition:” and foreseeing the extraordinary arrogance of the spiritual element of the power, he speaks of it as one “who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called a god, or an object of reverence; so that he as a god sitteth in the temple of the god, showing himself that he is a god.” This is the god Daniel styles “a foreign god;” and by John in Apoc. 13:2, 5, “the Mouth of the Beast as the mouth of a lion, and speaking great things and blasphemies;” and in verses 14, 15, “the Image of the Beast,” which received life and ability to speak from the Civil Power.
Now, the Pagan Imperial Roman Power existed before the Woman; and so did Jesus Christ. Neither of them, therefore, could be the son to be born of her. But in the days of Constantine, there was a great revolution in the State, the effects of which are felt in all Europe and America to this day. When he became Emperor of Rome, the constitution of the empire was modified in Church and State. He assumed supremacy in both; and became the Chief Bishop—“the Bishop of the bishops”—of “the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church,” so called. He established the Catholic Apostasy as the most favored religion of the Roman State; but, according to Labanius, “made no alteration in the legal worship; the temples indeed were impoverished, but the sacred rites were performed there.” Though the Court was transferred to Constantinople, the Senate continued to hold its sessions in Rome, where by solemn decrees it still presumed to consecrate the divine memory of their sovereigns; and Constantine himself was associated, after his death, to those gods of his predecessors whom he had renounced and insulted during his life. “The titles, the ensigns, the prerogatives, of SOVEREIGN PONTIFF,” says Gibbon, “which had been instituted by Numa, and assumed by Augustus, were accepted without hesitation, by seven christian emperors, who were invested with more absolute authority over the religion which they had deserted, than over that which they professed.” Hence, this Son of the Woman, styled by historians “the first christian emperor,” was at once Sovereign Pontiff of paganism, and Chief Bishop of the Catholic Church! Such a child born and son given could be no other than “THE MAN OF SIN.” The historical testimony of Gibbon concerning this personage is demonstrative of the true character of the Woman’s Son. “The first of the christian emperors,” says he, “was unworthy of that name till the moment of his death.” This he clearly proves in his great work. In the days of the apostles they only were christians who believed “the gospel of the kingdom,” and were immersed; but Constantine was ignorant of it, and therefore could not believe it, and was not immersed until three days before his death, A.D. 337. During many previous years he was reputed a christian by the Catholic Church. He assumed the character of a bishop, presided at ecclesiastical councils, gave judgment against christians reputed “heretical” by his party, enjoined the solemn observance of the first day of the week, which he called the day of the sun, Die Solis, after his once favorite god, and in the same year, A.D. 321, directed the regular consultation of AURUSPICES.§ He was permitted by the Catholic Woman to enjoy most of the privileges of her communion. Instead of retiring from the congregation, when the voice of the deacon dismissed the profane multitude, he prayed with the faithful, disputed with the bishops, preached on the most sublime and intricate subjects of theology, celebrated with “sacred rites” the vigil of Easter, and publicly declared himself, not only a partaker, but, in some measure, a priest and hierophant of the “christian mysteries”. In view of such premises as these, what shall we say of such a church, and of such a religion, whose professors could permit, and even applaud, such flagrant violation of the first principles of the doctrine of Christ? The only conclusion attainable is that such a community is the CHURCH OF ANTI-CHRIST, and her imperial protector and chief, THE MAN of SIN..


Thomas, J. (1997). Eureka: an exposition of the Apocalypse (electronic ed., p. 1). West Beach, South Australia: Logos Publications.