The Image of The Beast could be his Son

At the end of my post on Translation Issues that could be important, I showed that the Image of The Beast is not necessarily something created then, that "make" in the KJV should be translated "set up" or "established" or something like that.

In Genesis 5:3 Seth is called the Image and Likeness of Adam because he is Adam's Son.

The first reference to the concept of an Image in The Bible is Genesis 1:26-27 where Adam is created in The Image and Likeness of God.  In Luke 3:38 Adam is called a Son of God.  

Derived from that all Human Beings are also The Image of God as we see in Genesis 9:6.  All Humans are called the Offspring of God in the Sermon on Mars's Hill in Acts 17:28.  Believers specifically as Children of God is vital to John 1 and 1st John and comes up elsewhere, as an Evangelical Universalist I believe the non believers are only temporarily estranged from the family.

Paul calls Jesus The Image of God in 2 Corinthians 4:4.  And Jesus as The Son of God is vital to New Testament Theology.

So every time a living person is called the Image of someone else it's someone who they are the Son of in some sense.  So the question then is can The Image of The Beast be understood as that rather then a normal Statue or Coin or whatever most people are usually thinking of?

The main objection would be that if the Image is just a person why is it being able to speak and kill people treated as something attributed to the second beast?  And why isn't the Image also punished in the Lake of Fire?

Well both those questions could have the same answer, the Son in question isn't an adult yet, the actions legally attributed to them are really as a puppet ruler and thus they aren't actually morally culpable for any of it.

Naturally for an interpretation like this the fact that people will assume a Statue at first is intentional, this is why it takes "Wisdom" to understand what's going on here, don't jump to conclusions.  Consider how the only time the Greek word for "mark" is used elsewhere in the New Testament it's in Acts 17:9 refers to Graven Images in a way that equates it with the Hebrew word translated "Graven" throughout the Hebrew Bible, that creates a further thematic connection to idolatry but it's also a reversal, now it's the worshipers being graven.

When I first devised most of this interpretation I jumped to applying it to Titus son of Vespasian in the context of 70 AD Preterism.  But that last piece of the puzzle, it being a child ruler, wouldn't fit Titus.

Heraclius the Roman Emperor from 610-641 AD had a son named Heraclius Constantine who was born in 612.  In 622 when Heraclius left to lead his counter offensive against Persia his young son was named Regent in his place but the real power was wielded by Sergius the Patriarch of Constantinople.  He had also been formally Co-Emperor since 613 basically and thus was also proclaimed Baselios when Heraclius was in 629.  Turning 17 that year he might have been an Adult by some modern legal standards but the Brain isn't fully done developing till 25 which the author of The Pentateuch seemed to be aware of in Numbers 8:24.