A Revelation Special Feature: Monsters

Produced by TheMediaDesk, © 2025
Posted on CCPC's website 2025

The study Index page.

      It came up during the work to update the earlier study that perhaps a look at the "monsters" in Revelation was called for. Well, it's uncalled for, or at least our look at them is, or rather we're not calling for the monsters, but a study of them is called... never mind. Let's just take a quick look and move on. OK?

      The question was something along the lines of: "Are all the monsters... the giant scorpions, the ten headed beast, the dragon, the things with snakes... all of them, real? They'll appear on the Earth, and walk around talking, and then kill people, and all that?"
      Well... yes. And no. And that is maybe more 'no' than 'yes'. And we'll explain that here as we go, and we'll try to make it clear in the study as well.
      And here, later, we'll look at the more credible interpretations of two of them being the "Anti-Christ" and the "False Prophet", and what that might mean to their appearance.
      Wish us luck.

      First off we'll take the big one. That Old Dragon.
      Earlier in the Book of Books, namely Genesis 3, Satan speaks to Eve through a Serpent. Which is why in Revelation 12 he is described as 'deceiving the whole world'. Except now, he's a Dragon, and while there some description of that reptile here, namely that he has seven heads and so on, the myth of the dragon is world wide, and we go into some detail elsewhere on that subject. See links below.

      In Revelation 13 we meet a creature that is simply described as a beast that rises from the sea. It has multiple heads, and horns and crowns, and has been wounded... but we don't know a lot about him. Does he have feet with claws, or hoofs? Wings? A tail? We don't know.
      The same is true with the beast that rises from the Earth. It has the horns of a sheep, and talks like the dragon. But what about the rest of it? Fur or scales? We don't know. Compared to the locusts that appeared in the middle of chapter nine, the ones with the tails of scorpions, the description is sorely lacking.

      So let's think about it. And to do so, we're going to take...
".... the Devil, I'm talking about Satan, Beelzebub, Lucifer, Mephistopheles, the Angel of the Bottomless Pit! None of those bad guys had a damned thing to do with this next song."
- James Young, from the band Styx, intro to live version of song Snowblind

...off the table, so to speak. His serpent from the garden got a promotion to dragon, and that's good enough, for now.
      So are all these other, things, and for right now we're not discussing the individual Mr. Young was talking about in our quote, in any of his various forms... are the other 'things' real, flesh and blood, creatures, that might need to be registered as an "exotic pet" in some cities?
      - OR -
      Are they totally metaphorical and instead of being something that needs a litter box the size of a county park, are they more likely to be, say, a really cheesy looking human spokes-model for some media outlet or political party or even a new startup religion that uses the media and politics, and who has a monstrous ego? We'll look at a couple of the usual suspects in a few minutes.

      As we mention in the Revelation study, some of these monsters are known characters from other myths and legends. Some have attributes of various Egyptian or Mesopotamian gods, such as Hathor or Tiamat, and others are almost universal, such as the Dragon we're not talking about.
      Other writers have gone into ecstatic detail about the various features of one or the other of the beasts. How the 'wounded head' was a certain leader that that particular writer didn't like. Or that the first one to speak was somebody else. And they preach their sermons, and sell their books, and later they got on the radio, or TV, and a few went on tour. Speaking proudly, and gathering followers, and then somebody comes along and points out that they have become what they are preaching against.
      And that has been going on since John wrote the book. And it will probably continue until the real Beast shows up and tells them to go sit in the corner while he shows them how it's done.

      Let's change gears for a minute.

      Could the "beast from the sea", be a real Beast from the Sea, that rises up out of the harbor, like Godzilla in the classic movie, to roar at a city, and proceed to cause mayhem and destruction?

      Could they be real scorpion / locust 'things' the size of horses? Yes.
      Do they have to be? No.

      Remember, in the Exodus HE used local creatures.... flies, frogs, and 'germs', to accomplish His purpose. And that was a local event, done to impress both the Children of Israel, and the Pharaoh and his court. In the Apocalypse, the show is world wide, for those who do Believe, and those that do not.
      The Beasts have to be notable. They're competing against the attractions, and 'leaders', of the rest of the world. If they can't do better than some Las Vegas magicians or an NBA superstar who, according to the sports commentators, can fly, they might not even be noticed.
      Not only are these 'things', whatever / who-ever they are, noticed, they attract people who willingly cling to their every word and do what they say. Even when what they are saying leads directly to their followers being harmed or killed.... or worse.
      So while it is NOT required that the beast, or the other beast, or any of the chimera (a creature composed of parts of different animals, such as a lion, a bird, and a snake) type monsters be a living, card-carrying, dues-paying, certified member of the Monsters Union, and instead be, or at least mostly be, or perhaps 'used to be', a human being, it is possible that they are.

      And now we'll deal with a popular topic for the identity of the First Beast if is isn't an actual monstrosity that is really upset because it missed the casting call to star in a Late, Late Movie on some cable TV network.
      There are those that still maintain that the Beast from the Sea is the Roman Empire. And one of the heads is identifiable as the Emperor Nero, infamous for his persecution of Christians, killing his own mother, and thinking that he was a better poet than he actually was:

      That last date on our quote means that the raving lunatic Nero had been dead for about thirty years before John set pen to paper, and it may have been Nero that sent John there just before he 'left office'. The year (or so) after Nero "lost his job" (after being declared an enemy of the state by the Senate) is known as the Year of Four Emperors, and was a period of revolt and intrigue that was just short of a full blown civil war. The matter was eventually sorted out and Vespasian ended up on the throne. And yes, this is the Vespasian that led the Roman army in its destruction of Jerusalem and the squashing of anything that could be called an identifiable Jewish State, and the dispersal of anybody that survived. So if John were on Patmos then, he may have been better off.
      Vespasian ruled until about the year 80. He was followed by Titus, then Domitian, and, if John had been writing in the late 90s, either Nerva or Trajan was in charge in Rome. But nobody writes a sermon claiming Nerva is one of the heads of the Beast.

      Let's look at some other Roman dates and then think about all that for a minute.
      The Empire was divided into basically the Latin West and the Greek speaking East just before 300 AD which was solidified in the following century. But by 480 any residual of the Western Empire was gone, and Rome itself was being ruled by Gauls, and various Germanic strong men, and, essentially, whoever else wanted to sack the city and rule for awhile.
      The Eastern Empire hung on being governed from Constantinople until 1453, and was later transitioned into other Empires, which could be considered a derivative of Rome until the final dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War One.
      Some may point at the Holy Roman Empire as the successor of Augustus's realm (in the west) from its establishment in 800 under Charlemagne (even though it wasn't called the "holy..." until 1254), until its ending during that little mess with Napoleon in 1806. But there's a problem with that, namely, the "Holy Roman Empire" wasn't really any of those three terms... It wasn't "holy" as it was purely a political entity given a thin whitewash through Papal recognition so the Emperor would send tribute to Rome to keep the Vatican afloat. It wasn't "Roman" as it was based in the Germanic territories with the main administrative centers in cities like Aachen, Frankfurt, and Vienna. Which also explains why, except for a handful of small 'Papal states' in Italy, it wasn't an 'empire'. And also, the legitimate claimant to the secular title of "Roman Emperor" was whoever was on the big chair in Constantinople.

      In any case, there is nothing left of the political entity known as the Roman Empire. And if you think the Roman Catholic Church is a fancy dress version of the Roman Empire, there's even more problems with that, including that while many Popes (and a few historic Anti-Popes, and, perhaps, one female named Joan! (see links below)) were Italian, or at least European, many recent ones have not been, and the political influence for the institution has, of late, come from everywhere but Rome. With that in hand, if you only focus on the non-scriptural teachings that the Roman church has not only expounded, but forced its members to accept, then you might be onto something, see 'the teaching authority of the church' in Part Two of the article called "Questions you're not supposed to ask your Sunday School Teacher", and then especially in the "Objections" section for some other issues, link below.
      But. Given the scale and topic of the vision. It isn't impossible that The Beast from the Sea is the continuation of some form of the Roman Empire, as depicted in the usual interpretation of the vision of the statue with 'feet of clay' from Daniel 2, and, of course, Daniel's own beast from his chapter 7. Or... again, that it is a real ten headed monster! Perhaps a cousin to the nine-headed monster, the Hydra, featured in the legend of Herakles / Hercules. See link below.
      It is also somewhat unlikely that the Beast from the Sea, or his friend on land, is anything that is identifiable now with any certainty. But that hasn't stopped anybody over the years from pointing to the United Nations, or the European Union, or, today, Artificial Intelligence for the Beast from the Land. Or, it is something, or some-body, we can't even imagine today.

      One of those is the antichrist.... Let's change that real quick.....
      In John's First general letter, 1 John, we are told that "many antichrists have come" and are coming, see 2:18. Those are individuals who simply downplay the importance of Jesus, who scoff at believers, who stand in the way of the Gospel message in some way, and so on. There have been, and are, a LOT of them. There's even some of those in local churches today, shifting the focus away from reaching lost souls for Christ to constantly bring up minor, dumb, stuff. That's not who we're talking about here.
      This is The Anti-Christ. A singular figure of unmistakable prominence on the scene. Instead of just being annoying, this one puts those who try to do the Lord's work to death. He has power to do signs and wonders, except everything he does is to bring attention to himself and to "The Dragon".
      Most academics and theologians, and other dry mouthed types, say Revelation's Beast from the Sea is The Anti-Christ. And that the Beast from the Land that does a lot of the labor for him is The False Prophet. Again, there's been a lot of those around as well ever since the time of John, but this one is special. And, again, everything he does, is to; One: discredit / blaspheme / turn people away from / etc GOD, and TWO: enhance the Dragon's position, and those that work for him.
      Are those two designations accurate? Well, from up here in the press box covering the event, they seem to be. And while those titles are handy for us in our discussion now, they're not really all that important if you happen to find yourself in the middle of all that watching The Beast do his thing. We run into them in chapter 13 and following.

      We've said 'he' a lot, in terms of the Anti-Christ and False Prophet, and even the Dragon... ... Question: do they have to be male?
      Many of terms used in the original Greek text are either male, or possibly neutral. Another word used is "autos", in Greek that is a general pronoun and can be taken as "he / she / it / they / etc". Many translations do use the word "it" when referring to the beasts, but some do use "he". There is nothing in the text to determine the sex of either creature.
      When talking about the Dragon, who is now playing the role of Satan, or is that the other way round? anyway, the pronoun is male.

      Then if the conversation turns to the work of the Anti-Christ and the False Prophet as humans, the male pronouns are back in play.
      But they don't have to be.
      In another feature we look at the women that play a role in Revelation, and who they are, and who they might be. But they may not be the only women in the book. There is no Earthly reason the Anti-Christ cannot be female (pun? Ok, maybe), and in some ways, that would be the logical extreme to the character of the Anti-Christ. And the same goes with the False Prophet. As well as the frogs (chapter 16), and whatever else is sitting on the sidelines waiting to make an entrance.
      Such an entity would give a whole new layer of meaning to the term "Femme Fatale".
      A female Anti-Christ would also have an instant alliance with certain elements of human culture as the ultimate symbol of female empowerment. She would also have the advantage to accuse everybody that had a problem with what she was saying or doing of hating her and her message because she was a woman. Which would find traction and be endlessly repeated by the mainstream media, as well as national level politicians in several countries, and give her a free platform to spread more of the message of the Anti-Christ.
      And, of course, the False Prophet and the 'image of the beast' would be right there contributing to everything as well.
      And perhaps the 'image' (ch 13) is endlessly shared and forwarded videos of the female Anti-Christ accusing Christians of hating women.
      But with that, we are way off track for this essay. So we'll head back in the direction of the point.

      As for some of the other creatures, the various 'foot soldiers' and the others in "also starring" roles as minor players. Say, those somewhat nasty locusts, there's no reason that cannot be exactly what John describes. And so it is with everything else we come across.
      With one exception, the frogs of chapter 16. Somehow it doesn't seem likely that anything that looks like a frog would get in to see "the king" and convince him to go to war. Which is why it is mentioned that they were demons that were also able to perform signs and wonders as frogs.
      So they're magic frogs. But still...
      A note about magic frogs. Heket (Heqet) is one of the more than 2000 known and named ancient Egyptian gods. She had the starring role in the second plague during the Exodus, see chapter 8, which is just after the Nile River, which is home to a lot of frogs, was turned to blood. Heket was also the goddess of for fertility of people and cattle, and frogs, and was also associated with the resurrection of the dead into the Egyptian afterlife. Now as to whether the demons from Revelation that were going around to high level meetings with government officials were Egyptian frogs or not is beyond the scope of this study.
      OK, we've hit the big ones, and the numerous ones....

      Time for a monstrous conclusion.
            or not
      The odd thing is that we've already stated the only reasonable conclusion to the basic question that was asked, "will the monsters from the Apocalypse be real?"
      And the answer can be stated as, "some probably will be, some won't be, some might be, and there's nothing we can do about it. And it doesn't matter, because all of this is 'a GOD thing'."

      And a followup question: "should we, as believers, be frightened of these things?"
      The answer is "of course". 'Frightened'? Yes, some of these creatures are INTENTIONALLY frightening. The events they unleash on humanity are horrendous, and yes, that is the right word. This IS about the End of the World. And that subject alone is enough to make your stomach a bit upset.

      "Afraid?" Yes, that is part of the human condition, and John's APOCALYPSE was written to do precisely that. But there is a limit to that fear. Believers should not be paralyzed by it.
      Let's go back to near the end of Chapter One when Christ tells his old friend John: "don't fear," see verse 17, when John falls flat on the ground as if he were dead. But then John is instead told to do something for the Lord.
      That's the message: Yes, it is OK to have a bit of unease with the ideas and images, but they should give us the motivation to Do Something for the Lord. Now
      Because, when those locusts the size of horses appear... it's a bit too late.

      Ahh, yes, a final question...

"how do we get those that need to hear that to listen?"

      Christ preached on the hillside, and 'they' didn't listen. Paul traveled throughout the Roman east, and 'they' didn't listen. John wrote what we call Revelation... and they still didn't listen.
      What makes you think that those that are doing what they've always done will listen to you? Or us. Or the ones we just listed?
      Perhaps it is those people, the ones who have ears but refuse to hear (see chapters 2 and 3 of The Apocalypse) are the church members that some of the creatures we talked about in this essay are coming to see. Maybe THAT will get their attention.