PANA Institute for Leadership Development

Jeanelle Ablola wrote this paper during her first year for the course "Interpreting Sacred Texts" at Pacific School of Religion, Spring semester 2008, taught by Dr. Benny Liew and Dr. Kah-Jin Jeffrey Kuan. Jeanelle is in the M.Div. program and is a second generation Filipino American with roots in Southern California and a background in graphic design. She aspires to be a force for social justice and reconciling ministries in the UMC. She is interested in postcolonial theology and issues concerning racial, ethnic, and cultural identity. She can be contacted at jablola@ses.psr.edu.

The Book of Revelation, shrouded in mysterious, coded language, has fallen into the hands of many in ways of interpretation and exegesis to support numerous agendas and theological viewpoints. In my own personal experience, I have heard it used to promote fundamentalist Christian theologies. I have seen it used by conspiracy theorists to analyze recent political events and predict future ones. There was some point in my life where I fell into both of these categories, although not simultaneously. I myself have used the Book of Revelation to “prove” my thoughts on the Rapture and to “prove” that history of foreign policy and politicians are making way for the destruction of the earth, calling the U.S. the modern-day Babylon. Most recently, I have read the text being interpreted as being about a far-away land in a far-away time (referring to both the far-past or the far-future) that is difficult to make it relevant in today’s society and many have avoided or ignored exploring Revelation in liturgy. The way the text strikes me now reveals to me how much my social location and current context has moved and affected the way I view the world and sacred text. I now interpret Revelation 13:11-18 as a text that describes certain aspects of the relationship and exchange between colonized and colonizer. In this exegesis, I will explore how Revelation 13:11-18 describes how the colonized people perpetuate the economic imperialism of the colonizer and how the “mark of the beast” describes, not so much the denial of Christ, but the sacrifice and the level of assimilation into dominant culture that is required for some in order to survive in the global market.

I will be using Reader-Response Criticism through a postcolonial lens to explore this pericope and show how it addresses issues of global economic and cultural powers, allegiance and loyalty, and citizenship. The lens through which I view the text is that of a 2nd generation Filipino American whose parents immigrated to the United States from the Philippines during the early 1970’s for economic reasons. Through this lens and the use of the criticism mentioned above, I will explore key elements in the text: the second beast under supervision and guidance of the first beast, the deceptive miracles the beast will perform, the worship of the beast, and the infamous mark of the beast.

Many scholars have attempted to identify who or what the beast in Revelations 13 is or represents. Verse 12 states, “It exercises all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and it makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound had been healed.”[1] This verse has been interpreted as describing the beast’s reincarnation, which is a characteristic that has been used to decipher the identity of the beast. According to Gregory H. Harris, most modern scholars agree with the Nero Redivivus (“the revived Nero”) view. This view is based on a legend that said that “Nero committed suicide with the help of a freedman,” but not everyone believed that Nero was truly dead. According to the writings of Tacitus, there were many who did not believe that Nero was dead and would return to defeat his enemies. Other writings such as the Sibylline Oracles and writings by Commodianus also allude to the seeming “resurrection” of Nero.[2] William Barclay stated that “the number of the beast stands for Nero; and that John in it is forecasting the coming of Antichrist in the form of Nero, the incarnation of all evil, returning to this world.”[3]

However, Barclay also stated that the beast was “the organization which was set up to propagate Caesar worship, and to enforce it throughout the empire” based on his analysis of how the civilization was organized at the time. [4] In using the book of Daniel as a basis for interpreting who or what the beasts are, Arthur S. Peake stated that the beasts are representative of empires and not representative of an individual emperor “but inasmuch as the authority of the institution was concentrated in the man who was emperor for the time being, we must not be surprised if language is used of the Beast which strictly was applicable only to the man.”[5] Daniel K. K. Wong was in agreement that the beast is representative of both a man and an empire because verse 18 states that “his number is that of a man” and the use of masculine pronouns in reference to the beast. He also listed the parallels between the beast and the Lamb (referring to Jesus), such as they both had followers, were both conquerors, and both were worshipped. He then stated, “At the same time the beast is an empire over which the man reigns,” also attributing this to the representation of the beasts in Daniel.[6]

Harris wrote about another viewpoint that touches on the reincarnation characteristic of the beast, called the Reincarnation View. He describes this view as referring “to the reincarnation of some individual such as Nero, Judas Iscariot, or some unidentified person.” He noted that it is important to remember that reincarnation “is a different embodiment of a previously existing person” and this differs from the Nero Redivivus view wherein Nero is thought to be resurrected from death.[7] Harris described another view called the Revived Roman Empire View. This view states that “the beast whose wound will be healed is the Roman Empire and its renewed worldwide dominance in the yet-future Tribulation” and that “the healing of the wounded beast refers to the future revival of a worldwide political system…”[8] Harris quoted Scofield’s statement that remnants of the ancient Roman Empire never stopped existing as separate kingdoms. What ended was the imperial form of government.[9]

Brian K. Blount stated that “the bestial false prophet” symbolizes Rome’s replacement Asia Minor officials.[10] Barclay stated that “every district was organized into something like a diocese or a presbytery with state officials and with a numerous priesthood to enforce Caesar worship on every citizen of the empire.”[11] These statements reflect the power dynamic between the Roman Empire and the power that is distributed to the leaders of the regions, as representatives of the Roman Empire, to govern the people of the newly conquered regions.

The scenario described in the preceding paragraph has happened in the colonial history of the Philippines. The Philippines has been colonized and occupied by Spain, Britain (briefly), Japan, and the US.[12] Under these colonial powers, the Filipino elite have cooperated with and helped the colonizers rule. According to The Forbidden Book, “In 1945, American forces retrieved the Philippines from Japanese rule and reinstated the Filipino elite, including those who had collaborated during the Japanese occupation.”[13] The Philippine government that emerged was modeled after the US government,[14] but it was an oligarchy, a government wherein the Filipino elite “enjoyed tariff-free access to markets in the United States and dominated national politics under US sponsorship.”[15]

Despite having gained independence from Spain and the US, the Philippine government has perpetuated the same economic and cultural oppression that was formerly imposed by the colonizers. According to Vicente L. Rafael, “While colonial rule may be a transitional stage of self-rule, the self that rules itself can only emerge by way of an intimate relationship with a colonial master who sets the standards and practices of discipline to mold the conduct of the colonial subject. In other words, the culmination of colonial rule, self-government, can be achieved only when the subject has learned to colonize itself.”[16] In this sense, the second beast mentioned in Revelation 13, given power by the first beast to rule, is reflective of the exchange of power between the colonizer and the colonized. Verse 12 states that the second beast “exercises all the authority of the first beast on its behalf…”

It is also important to note that this second beast, unlike the first beast that emerges from the sea, emerges from the earth. Robert H. Mounce stated that “a simpler solution is that as the first beast came from across the sea (hence appearing to come “out of the sea”), the second beast rose within Asia Minor itself.”[17] The beast in coming from the earth where the inhabitants live, implies that it is local, whereas the beast coming from the sea implies that it is from a more distant or foreign location. This further supports the dynamics of colonization wherein a foreign authority is no longer needed to enforce rule to the extent that it once did because it eventually can begin to rely on the elite from the colonized land to colonize their own people themselves.

In regards to the authority of the second beast, Paul Spilsbury wrote, “Its power is not restricted to the religious sphere. It has enormous financial muscle as well, so that no one can participate in the economy who does not also participate in the beast’s worship.”[18] Blount stated that John was anxious “that his people were so interested in social and economic advancement that they would pass themselves off as devotees of the idolatrous rites, like eating meat sacrificed to idols that were required to maintain good standing in trade and guild associations.”[19] Blount also recalled that in the beginning and during the Harlem Renaissance, many African American fiction writers wrote of “the phenomenon of light-skinned African Americans passing themselves off as white to reduce social ostracism and increase social opportunity. These writers…demonize[d] the societal circumstance that made it necessary” to “pass” as white. In a similar way, “[John] wants the Christians to see that they are caught up in a draconian, prostituting system,” where the only resistance to the system was in the determination of those who refused to take part for the sake of its socio-economic and political gains.[20]

In this sense, assimilation is required in order to be able to survive and participate in the economy in any way, making survival nearly impossible for those who do not accept the authority of the beast. Obtaining the mark of the beast, although interpreted by Barclay as a denial of one’s faith or of Christ,[21] becomes a method of survival. Rather than regarding the acceptance of the mark as some sort of act that automatically separates one from the Christian God, it is a matter of choosing “the lesser of two evils.” Acceptance of the mark, when reading through what scholars have written, seems to be interpreted as a conscious betrayal.

Peake stated that the way the text is written “implies that there was something in the use of the mark inconsistent with the profession of Christianity. To use it in purely civil transactions would, however, have been simply to render to Caesar the things that were Caesar’s, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.”[22] Focusing on the mark rather than the actions that precede it may be an oversight. Rather than the mark itself being seen as the ultimate act and culmination of “evil,” perhaps it would be more productive to focus on the systems that made such a practice a requirement. In the case of Filipino immigrants who have to leave their homeland of the Philippines as economic refugees to take up citizenship and pledge allegiance to another country, it is not a denunciation of their history or culture, but rather an unintended consequence in order to survive.

The mark of the beast, according to verse 16, is to be placed on the right hand or forehead. Edwin A. Judge described briefly the market of Ephesus where participants in the market would first “make their sacrifice, and then receiv[e] their mark in ink on wrist or forehead, just as in Ezekiel 9:2-6. There is no evidence that such a test was actually applied at this time. But there is just enough miscellaneous information on comparable practices for us to say that this is what might have sprung to mind for those listening to Revelation, when they heard that to enter the market you had first to receive the mark of the beast.”[23] This practice as a necessary means to enter the market calls to mind new citizens placing their right hands on their hearts to enter “legality” as a citizen, to reap the benefits of being “officially” of the US. It also calls to mind soldiers of the US military raising their right hands to their foreheads (both areas of the body mentioned in relation to the mark) in salute as a symbol of reverence and allegiance to their superiors and the flag (an “image” of the US).
The second beast, according to verses 13 to 14, “performs great signs…and by the signs that it is allowed to perform on behalf of the beast, it deceives the inhabitants of earth.” Christopher C. Rowland stated, “Signs deceive in order to persuade the earth’s inhabitants to make an ‘image’ for the beast… The worship of the image of the beast has been plausibly linked with the promotion of the imperial cult.”[24] The promotion of ideas and values through the global media has influenced my parents’ choice of country to which to immigrate. They chose to immigrate to the US partly because of the ideas communicated to them through the US-influenced education system and US media. The prospect of obtaining “the American Dream,” reinforced by the media and word-of-mouth, and US influence on the education of the Philippines since August 1, 1901[25] have encouraged Filipinos to immigrate to the US since the 1920’s.[26] This indoctrination causes participation in the global market and assimilation to be a necessary and, therefore, acceptable way of life. In terms of worship, this everyday way of life becomes religion that governs values, socio-economic, and political behavior. These behaviors are enforced as the norm and seem to appear as the only options for economic survival: to be part of the elite or to immigrate. Eleazar S. Fernandez wrote,

As colonization is not only political and economic control but also mental control, the coming of Filipinos to the shores of America is not only driven by the search for “greener pastures,” though this is primary, but also by their thinking and image of America. Not only that America is for them the land of endless opportunities, but coming to America is the fulfillment of what they aspire for in life. White America represents the good and the beautiful, the noble and the laudable, while the brown Philippines represents what they despise in themselves.[27]

I have explored past theories and interpretations of the beast mentioned in Revelation 13, its rule under the authority of the first beast, its worship, and its mark. Through Reader-Response Criticism and a postcolonial lens, I have contributed my own voice and response to these theories and interpretations. I have shown how the second beast under the authority of the first beast can communicate the dynamics of the relationships involved in colonization and how ideas and values from the colonizer get picked up and perpetuated through the colonized elite. I have shown how the mark of the beast can be interpreted in such a way as to be connected with citizenship and allegiance to obtain gains within the global market as a means of survival. I have also shown how assimilation into the dominant colonial culture becomes preferable for everyday existence, shapes socio-economic behaviors, values, and political choices to the extent that it can become synonymous with religion and worship.

In regards to my own parents, they were not hesitant in becoming citizens of the US. They were not wary of swearing allegiance to this country due to their economic plight and heavy indoctrination by the colonizers in cooperation with the Filipino elite. Furthermore, the missionaries brought them Eurocentric theology that reinforced ideas of fatalism and Protestantism that was anti-Catholic, causing further division among the people who were already divided by tribe and dialect. Even today, their sense of indoctrination still lingers and they are convinced of the “purity” of the US government and believe in the “justice” of the global market. These ideas are also enforced by the theology given to them by the missionaries. This complex system, in my experience, has worked on a wide scale.

The church I was brought up in is pre-dominantly composed of Filipino immigrants (most of whom immigrated through joining the military). Their theology is quite conservative, worship is “traditional” (European in style), and the members are very “patriotic:” they do not question the US government and believe the US to be superior to their country of origin. The US flag is in the front of the sanctuary. On Memorial Day and Veteran’s Day all military personnel wear their uniforms. Any kind of critique of the US government or global economy labels one as “liberal,” with all the negative connotations that go with it. Introduction of new theological ideas are not well-received and this is reflected by the youth raised in the United States that have adopted an even more literalist theology, influenced by the prevalence of new fundamentalist, non-denominational churches as well as the lack of being able to connect to an immigrant church.

In light of my experiences described above, Revelation 13:11-18 can be applicable today as a way to help explain situations and complexities of colonization and why postcolonial communities have particular outlooks, ideologies, and values. The implications this exegesis and interpretation has can be a theological attempt at “de-Europeanization.” This counters the popular concept I often run into in most politicized or activist Filipino American communities that feel the need be “post-Christian” or “post-religion” because they are unable to separate Christianity from the colonial powers. This exegesis and interpretation offers dialogue and voice to those parts of the community that are searching for Christian theology that honors their ancestors and the religion of their parents and grandparents without having to toss it to the side as being “of the colonizer.” Instead of avoiding everything deemed not “indigenous,” I feel that the politicized or activist Filipino American community, namely those who are 2nd generation, should find a way to reclaim and transform our concepts of Christianity so that it can become ours, so that we can use it to communicate our struggles and to build community rather than cause further division. Instead of abandoning the spiritual practices that got our parents and grandparents through their own struggles and sacrifices, I propose we allow this spirituality that was handed down to us to evolve.
I realize that we must move beyond “blaming the colonizer” since that would be “an inverted form of colonialism” and “absolves the Third World elite of their patriarchal and vassalizing tendencies.”[28] Fernandez stated that the complexity of colonization has helped to create “interlocking forms of oppression” where social locations of individuals can and do change. Colonized people have failed “to take account of [their] multiple locations in the interlocking structures of marginalization” and it causes them to be “oblivious of the ‘regimes of truth’ [they] help create and perpetuate that may be oppressive to others.” Also, just as “theologians of the struggle must cease from homogenizing the poor,”[29] homogenization must be avoided in colonized and postcolonial communities.

I have found this exegesis to be revealing in the research of Philippine history. Going through Philippine history and pairing it with the narrative of Revelation 13:11-18 helped bring clarity to the plight, perpetuated by the cooperation of the elite of their own people, which brought my parents to the US. The analysis of history and theology in the aspect of the colonial history of the Philippines has been important to me in the constant search to find out who my parents are and what it truly means for me and my community to be one of Diaspora and hybridity.

Footnotes