BROOKLYN, N.Y., FEBRUARY 19TH, 1940

^[p. 167] BROOKLYN, N.Y., FEBRUARY 19TH, 1940

Dear Brother, — I am thankful for the enquiry as to the man of sin in ———’s communication, also for C.A.C.’s letter regarding it.

The latter says, ‘It is evident that the two are morally identified’. This is the ground taken in the readings in question: that is, “the man of sin”, as described in 2 Thessalonians 2, is referred to as somewhat covering both beasts. The man of sin according to the description in 2 Thessalonians 2: 4 embraces more than is stated of the second beast in Revelation 13. He “opposes and exalts himself on high against all called God, or object of veneration; so that he himself sits down in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God”.

The second beast in a general way, is engaged with making the first beast all this. He exercises all the authority of the first beast before it, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to do homage to the first beast. The first beast is more anti-God than anti-Christ, and this marks the man of sin as seen in 2 Thessalonians 2.

The idea of beast in Revelation 13 includes a system or empire, and no doubt the second beast — comparing what is said of him in Daniel etc. — is the head of a kingdom in the east, subordinate to the emperor of the west, but each system is clearly identified with its head — -both men, as Revelation clearly shows, for both are cast into the lake of fire. The first beast is clearly the revived Roman Empire, but still he opens his mouth in blasphemies against God — in keeping with what is said of the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2. He is said to be the object of worship before the second beast is introduced, and then the latter is seen as operating to bring all to worship the first beast, not himself.

The person described in 2 Thessalonians is the man of sin, the son of perdition, the lawless one: he exalts himself. There is no suggestion of one greater. Thus if this is seen in the second beast, the first beast must be included. This is intelligible on the principle of the trinity of evil persons, which Revelation 13 presents. Hence if in the Divine economy the Son is said to be the true God, the Father cannot be excluded.

Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.