My PhD Dissertation Intro.

Title: Come, Gather Together for the Great Supper of God

: Christian Identity-Making Through Alimentary Images in
Revelation In the Context of Roman Imperialism

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION

1. Preliminary to Issues
The present study is continuous and discontinuous with current scholarship on
Revelation in several parts. First, one of significant topics in the studies of Revelation
has been the purpose for which the book was written. As Elisabeth Schssler Fiorenza
points out, traditionally the historical background of Revelation was regarded as
Domitians megalomaniac demand for his deification and worship, which Christians

fiercely resisted, thus causing them to suffer persecution/martyrdom. 1[1] On the

assumption of the historical context, the purpose of the book was regarded as providing
the saints with the hope for the future kingdom in the context of persecution. However,
recent scholarship seriously doubts the very existence of Domitians persecution of
Christians.2[2]
Scholars have attempted to solve this problem. For instance, Elisabeth Schssler
Fiorenza argues that the principal aim of Revelation was to enable the audience to
transcend, by creating a symbolic universe in the context of social ostracization, not
Domitians persecution; Adela Yarbro Collins claims that John and his churches only
felt oppressed by Romans, Jews, and other Christian rivals and, thus, John wanted to
deliver catharsis to his audience by the peculiar narrative of his book; on the other
hand, Leonard T. Thompson argues that the author of the Apocalypse attempted to
establish boundaries between his churches and the pagan majority, that did not exist in
the harmonious, urban setting of Asia Minor; more recently, scholars such as Robert
Royalty and Paul Duff argued that the fundamental motivation behind the writing of
Revelation was sectarian rivalry between Christians such as Jezebel (Rev. 2:20) and
John within the Christian circles., and thus the purpose of the book was to enhance
Johns authority by enhancing the sense of crisis. 3[3]
1[1] Elisabeth Schssler Fiorenza, Apocalyptic and Gnosis in the Book of Revelation

and

Paul,

Journal

of

Biblical

Literature

92

(1973):

565.

2[2] For example, John A. T. Robinson,

Redating the New Testament

(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 233, n. 64; Brian W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian
(London and New York: Routledge, 1992), 114-117; Leonard Thompson, The Book of
Revelation (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 95-116.
3[3] Elisabeth Schssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1998);Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis (Philadelphia: Westminster,

1984), 84-106, 141; Leonard L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1990); Robert M. Royalty, The Streets of Heaven (Macon, Ga.: Mercer
University Press, 1998); Paul Duff, Who Rides the Beast? (New York: Oxford University
Press,
2001).

Possibly, all the attempts above to understand a purpose of Revelation are

plausible in their own way. Particularly, the position this dissertation takes is that
Revelation was composed in the face of identity crisis: L. L. Thompsons approach that
the intention of Revelation was to establish boundaries between us and them, and R.
Royaltys and P. Duffs perspectives that John was battling against Christians such as
Jezebel insisting on accommodating to Roman culture, too much. Especially, R.
Royaltys research result on Revelations rhetoric of wealth and P. Duffs analysis of
alimentary images as a symptom of boundaries-blurring illuminate our topics.
However, this dissertation distinguishes itself from the scholars arguments
above, in that the Roman Empire is emphasized as the object against which John
attempts to define the identity of the Christian community and that postcolonial theory is
consistently applied. R. Royalty and P. Duff focus on internal enemies blurring the
boundaries of the churches; and Royalty, Duff, and Thompson all do not even mention
postcolonial theory in their works. With the differences, this dissertation is situated in a
group of works applying postcolonial theory to Revelation. 4[4]
The application of post-colonial theories to Revelation is justified in consideration
of the fact that apocalypse as a genre or a similar form of literary work was written, not
only in the circle of Judaism but in other areas of the Hellenized East such as Egypt and
Persia, as an intellectual resistance to Hellenistic imperialism and later continued to be
used as a means of attack on Roman imperialism. 5[5] That is, Revelation retains the
4[4] A group of scholars already attempted to apply postcolonial theories to Revelation:

e.g., Jean J. Kim, Uncovering Her Wickedness, Journal for the Study of the New
Testament 73 (1999), 83-112; Kim, Woman and Nation (Leiden: Brill, 2004); Steven J.
Friesen, Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2001); Christopher A. Frilingos, Spectacles of Empire (Divinations: Rereading Late
Ancient Religion; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004); Catherine
Keller, God and Power (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005) Vitor Westhelle, Revelation
13, in David Rhoads (ed.), From Every People and Nation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2005); Stephen D. Moore, Empire and Apocalypse (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press,
2006),
97-122.
5[5] John J. Collins, Jewish Apocalyptic against its Hellenistic Near Eastern

vestige of the characteristics of the apocalyptic literature, although nationalistic zeal

observed in the genre is replaced by concern and passion for a more universal concept
of Gods people: the church.
Notwithstanding the establishment of the theoretical framework above, one
question lingers on: what postcolonial theories should be used to analyze the colonial
identity of the Church in relation to the Empire? This issue could be reduced to a choice
between dualistically-oriented-theory or non-dualistically-oriented. Friesen employs
Saids contrapuntal reading, by which he reads the Roman imperial cult as a discourse
to justify their imperial rule and Revelation as a literature resistant to it 6[6]. On the while,
Moore reads the Bhabhaian ambivalence in Revelation, i.e., Johns being attracted,
albeit hatefully, toward and thus mimicry of Roman imperialism 7[7]. Frilingos rather
combines Saidianism and Bhabhaianism in his approach to Revelation 8[8]. Could the
Saidian dualism be reconciled with non-dualistic Bhabhaianism? Could they be applied
to the interpretation of Revelation without causing contradiction and inconsistency?
In his original, theoretical framework, Homi Bhabha opposed his theory to
Fanons non-dialectical Manichaeanism, another dualistic, post-colonial theory, which
focuses on mutual violence and conflict between colonizers and colonized, as Bhabha

Environment Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research num. 220 (1975):
27-36; John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (Grand Rapids, Michigan and
Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 33-37; Samuel K.
Eddy, King is Dead (Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1961), passim.; Wes HowardBrook and Anthony Gwyther, Unveiling Empire (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2002), 46-86.
.
Friesen,

6[6]

7[7] Moore, Empire and Apocalypse, 97-122.

8[8] Frilingos, 9-13.

15-22.

expresses it up front, himself.9[9] Bhabha takes away from Saids theories as well by
opposing Fanon, for Said positions himself along the line of Fanon 10[10] in that they both
base their theories mainly on the confrontational/conflictual relation between colonizers
and colonized; although Said emphasizes the strategic aspect on the side of the
colonizers while Fanon the conflictual interrelationship between ruler and ruled.
However, those two lines of thoughts (Bhabha vs. Fanon/Said) complement
rather than undermine each other. In the study of Mark, a similar paradox emerges in
terms of the application of the two mutually contradictory theories. 11[11] Tat-siong Benny
Liews acknowledgment of Marks pro-imperialism despite its evident sentiment of antiimperialism may be equally applicable here: While Marks Gospel may contain critiques
of the existing colonial (dis)order, it also contains traces of colonial mimicry that
reinscribe colonial domination.12[12]
Taking ones cue from Liew in the study of Mark, one may reach a similar
conclusion in the application of postcolonial theories to Revelation. On the one hand,
9[9] Homi K. Bhabha, Interrogating Identity, in The Location of Culture (London,
New York: Routledge, 1994), 40-65.

10[10] However, Saids binary us-vs.-them tendency of Orientalism is a bit

weakened and, instead, the interdependency between us and them is stressed more in
his later works such as Culture and Imperialism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993), 9, 12,
18-19, etc.; Bart Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory (London, New York: Verso, 1997),
63-72.

11[11] That is, Richard A. Horsley contends that the agenda of Mark may be regarded as

anti-imperialistic, i.e., critical of the imperial Rome and renewing the Israelite community
destroyed by the Empire. On the other hand, Tat-siong Benny Liew and Stephen D.
Moore emphasize Marks ambivalent internalization of Roman imperial elements.
Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 72-128; id.,
Hearing the Whole Story (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 121-149,
177-203; Moore, 24-45; Tat-siong Benny Liew, Tyranny, Boundary and Might, Journal
for
the
Study
of
the
New
Testament
73
(1999):
7-31.
12[12] Liew, 26-27.

Revelation is a document of protesting against the existing disarray caused by Rome. Its
main agenda is to restore the blurred identity of the Church in relation to Rome. On the
other hand, it absorbs some imperial elements from Rome and attempts to build its own
imperial identity retaining the traces of Rome.

2. Concern for Boundaries-Blurring/Expanding

For John, it may have been especially urgent and imperative to reshape the true
identity of the Church in the face of Roman imperial hegemony. Stephen Moore borrows
the concept of hegemony13[13] from Antonio Gramsci to explain the situation of Roman
Asia in Johns time. For Gramsci, hegemony means domination by consent-in effect,
the active participation of a dominated groupin its own subjugation. 14[14] The
colonized peoples desire of self-determination is dominated by the temptation of a
notion of the greater good such as social stability and economic/cultural advancement.
As a result, the imperial administration has less recourse to material forces than
hegemonic acquiescence. As Moore concludes, in light of the fact that the Asian cities
engaged in fierce competition for gaining the important title of temple warden in the
imperial cult, and that Asia was one of the ungarrisoned provinces, where no full legion
was stationed there, this area was definitely ruled by hegemonic power. 15[15]
Just as the general populace in Asia Minor was in implicit consent and
acquiescence to the political rule of Rome, so at least from Johns perspective, the
churches in Asia Minor assented and were accommodating to the general Roman life,
13[13] Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed. and trans. Quintin

Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1971), 12.
14[14] Moore, Empire and Apocalypse, 101.

15[15] Ibid., 101-102.

too much. For example, as scholars pinpoint, Johns criticism of Jezebel, Balaam, and
the Nicolaitans, who were the proponents of eating food sacrificed to idols among the
churches (Rev. 2: 14, 15, 20), could reflect his condemnation of involvement in the
Roman commercial, social, and political life, for the meat sacrificed to idols could not be
avoided, being served at almost every meeting such as private banquets, trade guilds,
and business associations.16[16] At this point, John departs from the viewpoint of other
many contemporary Christians, because specifically eating the meat sacrificed to idols
and generally leading a quiet and peaceable life in conformity with the Roman rule was a
wide-spread attitude among them (1 Cor. 8: 4 ff.; Rom. 13: 1-7; 1 Tim. 2:2-3; 1 Peter 2:
17).17[17]
Johns criticism of eating the meat and being involved in the Roman
social/economic life corresponds well with his condemnation of economic wealth which
would have been possible only after sufficiently accommodating to the Roman economic
life, as Richard Bauckham and J. Nelson Kraybill suggest and Philip A. Harlan agrees
with them: his criticism of the Laodicean Christians who are wealthy, probably also due
to involvement in commercial activities (3: 15-18); his futuristic portrayal of a society
where only those who have the mark of the beast (i.e., those who associate with Rome
or worship the emperor) will be able to buy and sell (13: 16-18); and, of course, his
depiction of the mourning merchants, shippers and craftsmen (ch. 18), which likely
included Christians and Jews in their number.18[18]
16[16] Schssler Fiorenza, 195; R. H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids:

Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977), 102-104; Steven J. Friesen, Imperial Cults and the
Apocalypse of John (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 192-193.
17[17] Cf., Schssler Fiorenza, 195.

18[18] R. Bauckham, The Economic Critique of Rome in Revelation 18, in L.

Alexander ed., Images of Empire (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 84; J. Nelson Kraybill,
Imperial Cult and Commerce in Johns Apocalypse (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1996), 100-101; Philip A. Harland, Honoring the Emperor or Assailing the Beast,
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 77 (2000): 199-120.

As its symbolic name the Whore felicitously implies it, Rome had an enormous
power of seduction and temptation (ch. 17). In reality, many kings and merchants
depended on her power and wealth (ch. 18). From Johns perspective, the churches
were also in hegemonic captivity to this seductive Rome and thus, John cries out to the
churches, Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins (18: 4)

[19].

19

However, Johns obsession with the maintenance of the boundary of the Church
does not exclude from his community all the peoples and nations that are currently
opposed to his faith. As Richard Bauckham points out, John envisages the conversion of
all the nations.20[20] Thus, for instance, after the two witnesses are martyred, some
converts (11: 13) or the New Jerusalem includes all the converted peoples and nations
(21:2, 24-26). By positioning the New Jerusalem as a counterpoint to Babylon (ch. 1718), John reinforces his intention that the Church as the Empire of God should replace

19[19] Cf. Wes Howard-Brook and Anthony Gwyther, Unveiling Empire, xxii-xxiii.
20[20] Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy (Edinburgh: T & T Clark,

1993), 239-337; cf., James Du Preez, Mission Perspective in the Book of Revelation
Evangelical Quarterly 42 (1970): 152-167.

the Roman Empire.21[21] Here the boundary of the Church is not only guarded but also
expanded to the parameters of the Empire.
Here, a clash between two mutually-opposed agendas occurs. On the one hand,
John has to be cautious about what contaminates his communities. On the other hand,
he wants to incorporate the Roman society into his community. These mutually
contradictory agendas keep appearing all the way to the end of the Book of Revelation.
For ensuring a true identity, the Christians body should be nurtured with pure/spiritual
foods such as the little Lamb or the fruit/leaves/water of life, while it also consumes the
flesh of the enemies bodies, the symbol of incorporating Rome into the Church.

3. Identity-Expressing through Body-Related Language

As for John, accommodating to the Roman society too much, the churches were
losing their grips on their genuine identity. His concern about the identity of the Church is
above all shown through the body-related expressions such as the suffering body.
Possibly, in this regard, Judith Perkinss view of the emphasis of second-century
21[21] Christian proselytism, itself, contains a factor or trace of anti-imperialism,

for it originated in the background of the Judaic resistance against worldly imperialism.
According to Samuel K. Eddy, proselytism, or a spiritualized imperialism, was one of the
ways that served as resistance against Hellenistic imperialism. The King is Dead
(Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1961), 335-340; proselytism, especially as a way of
resistance is found in two societies only, the Persian and the Jewish. The Persian magoi
missionaries sought to convey the teachings of Zoroastrianism to other peoples, while
the Jewish mission of conversion was launched after the experience of the Maccabees.
Ibid., 67-68, 251-252, 339; cf., Seth Schwartzs Imperialism and Jewish Society
(Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 2001), 36-38, 42. This spiritualizing of earthly
imperialism is a significant instance of what the postcolonialist, Gayatri Spivak, dubbed
as catachresis. Spivak defines catachresis as the process by which the colonized
appropriate and reinscribe/retool some specific elements that exist in imperial culture,
thereby using them against its original owners. For instance, originally, the concept or
institution of parliamentary democracy or nation emerged from a European history and
nation, but the natives appropriated the terms (e.g., the Zulu nation) for empowering of
their own self-determination and self-definition. For the notion of catachresis, Gayatri
Chakravorty Spivak, Identity and Alterity (with Nikos Papastergiadis), Arena 97 (1991):
70; Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, Key Concepts in Post-Colonial Studies
(London and New York: Routledge, 1998), 34.

Christian texts on the suffering of the body may be beneficial. She points out a similar
problem to the historical backdrop of Revelation: why do the early Christian writings
emphasize suffering and torture so much when modern scholarship points out that in this
period Christian persecution was only random, local and sporadic? 22[22] She finds the
answer in a widespread focus on the suffering and health of the body during this
period23[23] and in Michel Foucaults interpretation of the phenomenon 24[24] that in the
late Hellenistic period and the early Roman empire, people developed a notion of the
self through emphasis on the suffering of the body and the need for its care. Here,
Perkins pinpoints a creation of a new subjectivity: the self as sufferer. That is, the
emphasis of the Christian writings on the suffering and pain of the body was an
expression of the Christian self.25[25]
Similarly, the strong themes of persecution and martyrdom of Revelation could be
an expression of the Christian self through the medium of the body. What could be a
stronger expression of their collective self than the emphasis on proclaiming themselves
as Christians at the cost of their pain and death? This is the surest way of constructing
their Christian identity, for their identity is inscribed in their bodies once and for all.
Additional evidence that Duff presents for Johns intense concern over the
boundary-blurring is the sexual imagery, such as Jezebel or Babylon the Whore, in
Revelation. He follows Douglass hypothesis that the body is a symbol of a society and
22[22] Judith Perkins, The Suffering Self (London and New York: Routledge,

1995), 15-16.
23[23] Ibid., 1-4.

24[24] Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality trans. R. Hurley. Vol 1 of The
History of Sexuality. 3 vols. (New York: Vintage Books, 1980), 11, 42, 56-57.

25[25] Perkins, 15-40.

interprets the sexual imagery related to a female body as the breaking of the boundary
of a social body, for the female bodily boundary is penetrated in the course of the sexual
act.26[26]
The boundaries of the body are not penetrated only in a sexual act but also in an
ingestive act, i.e., by food. Thus, the theme of boundaries/identity-making in Revelation
is expressed with food/ingestion-related tropes as well, which is the principal topic of this
dissertation. The close relationship between food consumption and identity formation
has been pointed out by numerous scholars.27[27] Whereas the old maxim you are what
you eat evinces a physiological fact, it also encompasses a wider sociological reality.
What kinds of foods you eat decides to what society you belong. How you eat those
foods also becomes a major factor in determining your social identity. You are what you
eat not only physiologically but also sociologically.
Johns concern over the boundary-blurring of the Church or the blurring of its
identity is similarly manifested in many alimentary images. Paul B. Duff adopts Mary
Douglass theories that if a society is obsessed with the maintenance of its community, it
is obsessed with the notion of the right act of eating and drinking for the body symbolizes
the social body in unconscious mind. Applying the theories of Douglas to numerous

26[26] Ibid., 107.

27[27] For example, Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction (London: Routledge, 1984); Jonathan

Friedman, Consumption and Identity (New York: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1994);
Michael Dietler, Feasts and Commensal Politics in the Political Economy, in Food and
the Status Quest, edited by P. Wiessner and W. Shieffenhovel (Providence: Berghahn
Books, 1997); John Germov and Lauren Williams eds., A Sociology of Food and
Nutrition
(Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press,
2004),
239-335.

images related directly or indirectly with food, drink, 28[28] and mouths29[29] in
Revelation, Duff argues that Johns obsession with those images stemmed from his
concern about the maintenance of the boundaries of the churches in Asia Minor.30[30]
In relation to the images of humans-eating among the alimentary images, at this point, it
would be helpful to mention Andrew McGowans theory of cannibalistic rumors. Andrew
McGowan also adopts Mary Douglass hypothesis that the human body represents the
social body, and convincingly explains that the rumors of cannibalism, emerging
frequently and everywhere in human history, specifically in the ancient times, is a result
of the anxiety about the assimilation/accommodation of their social body into another
society. For instance, according to him, the rumor of Christians cannibalistic rituals in the
ancient Roman age stems from the Romans fear about the other, i.e., Christians taking

28[28] According to him, those images divide into two categories: alimentary
imagery related with life are the fruit of the tree of life (2:7, 22: 2, 22:19), and the water of
life (7: 17, 21: 6, 22: 1-2, 22: 17); the elected who will neither hunger nor thirst (7:16),
and various references to nourishment by God (12: 6, 14); food imagery suggesting
death is the references to the consumption of the messianic child by Satan (12: 4), the
cup of wine full of Gods wrath (14:10), the depiction of the harvesting earth as the
vintage thrown into the great wine press (14:14-20), the consumption of the human
blood (16:6, 17: 6), and the portrayal of the scavenging birds consuming the flesh of the
damned (19: 17-18). Duff, 99.

29[29] Duff again notes a great number of mouth-related images: the sword of the
mouth of the Son of Man (1: 16, 2: 16, 19:15, 21), the locusts mouths that have lions
teeth (9:8), the mouths of the horses pouring forth fire and smoke (9:17, 9:19), the
mouths of the witnesses issuing fire (11:5), the mouth of the dragon pouring forth water
(12:15), the mouth of the Beast of the Sea, which is like a lions mouth (13:2) and the
mouth of the Dragon, the Beast from the Sea, and False Prophets from which emanate
foul spirits (16:13). Ibid., 100.

30[30] Ibid., 98.

over their society.31[31] Along a similar line, the images of humans-eating in Revelation
could be an expression of the struggle of social assimilation between Church and Rome.
McGowan complements Duffs argument in many ways. First of all, Duff pays
attention to only Johns intention of protecting the boundaries of the Church, but Johns
other agenda was to expand the boundaries of the Church and thus establish his version
of Christian Empire. The latter vision is expressed in the images of humans-eating.
Second, Duff only collectively points out numerous alimentary images as symbolic
expressions of concern over the boundaries-blurring, applying Douglass theory only.
Nevertheless, McGowans theory shows that there could be other kinds of theoretical
application and even more other ingestion theories which can be helpful for explaining
the various alimentary images in Revelation, in a more appropriate way for each food
item or ingestion image. Especially, the theories of cannibalism feature prominently in
the present research, for the exploration of the humanity-ingesting images in Revelation.

4. Vision Language of Revelation

As Ian Boxall points out, in scholarly discussion on apocalypses including
Revelation, the issue of the possibility that John really did see a vision has been so often
downplayed and overlooked, although several scholars 32[32] tackle this problem
seriously33[33]. For instance, Christopher Rowland argues that apocalyptic visions may
originate in real religious experiences, pinpointing the fact that apocalypticists and St.
31[31] Andrew McGowan, Eating People, Journal of Early Christian Studies 2
winter (1994): 423-433, 436-437.

32[32] J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963); I.

Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (Leiden: E. J. Brill: 1980); C. Rowland,

The Open Heaven (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002).
33[33] Ian Boxall, Revelation: Vision and Insight (London: SPCK, 2002), 30.

Teresa all share extreme emotional upheavals or similar physical sensations, such as
the inability of deciding whether it is hot or cold during the experiences. He argues that
these kinds of brief comments of the sensory experiences are irrelevant to their
message and may, in reality, be a report of their real experience. 34[34]
Rowland also argues that the imagery reported by the apocalypticists is so
bizarre and extravagant that it seemingly lacks any labored effort to make it as relevant
as possible to their messages.35[35] That is, if those images were designed to instruct
the readers or hearers in what the apocalypticists wished to say, why did it have to
contain those images irrelevant or only indirectly related to their messages? Other
indicators that they saw real visions are the similar preparations ordered for visionary
experience: before receiving the visions, they are told to fast (4 Ezra 5:13; Apoc. Abr. 12:
1) or pray intensely (4 Ezra 9: 25; cf. Dan. 9: 3); John sees his vision on the Lords day,
(Rev. 1: 10) which implies a context of prayer and worship. 36[36]
Possibly, the fact that Revelation is steeped in biblical and apocalyptic language
may lead to the argument that the book was written through a complex literary process
rather than his real experience of vision. However, Boxall cites how the prophetic
utterances in Pentecostal churches are delivered in the phraseology of the King James
Bible or how the visions of Bernadette at Lourdes stand in a long tradition of the Marian

34[34] C. Rowland, 232-234.

35[35]

Ibid.,
36[36] Boxall, 32; C. Rowland, 215, ff.

238-239.

apparitions in that region.37[37] That is, real visionary experience can be delivered with
the language of oral/literary tradition.
However, even the scholars who consider the possibility of Johns having seen
real visions do not seem to consider how that possibility might affect the interpretation of
Revelation. For most, whether or not it was a real vision, the important issue is what the
symbols in the original sources that the seer borrowed mean, or how they combine and
create new meanings conforming to the seers moral standards. 38[38] Leonard L.
Thompson only points out that the ambivalence and multivalence of Revelation stems
from the fact that John wrote it after seeing it in a state of spirit-possession. 39[39]
It is very deplorable that they do not attempt to explore how the vision-like quality
of Revelation might affect the method of the approach to the enigmatic book. Possibly,
whether John really saw the vision could remain contentious, depending on the persons
perspective on religious experiences per se. Nonetheless, it may be very helpful to view
Revelation as if it were a vision or other parallels, and interpret it accordingly. One could
list the parallels: altered states of consciousness including visions and dreams, myths,
the unconscious, etc.
Arnold M. Ludwig argues, in one of articles collected in the book, Altered States
of Consciousness, a text regarded as a classic in the psychology of consciousness, 40[40]
37[37] Boxall, 43-44; S. Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 40; R. Harris, Lourdes (Harmondsworth:
Penguin, 1999).

38[38] R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St.

John vol. I (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1920), cv, ff; G. R. Beasley-Murray, The
Book
of
Revelation
(London:
Oliphants,
1974),
16-17.
39[39] Leonard L. Thompson Spirit Possession, in Reading the Book of
Revelation, ed. David L. Barr (Atlanta: SBL,2003), 148-149.

40[40] According to Imants Baruss Alterations of Consciousness (Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association, 2003), 8; the term altered states of
consciousness was coined by Arnold M. Ludwig-- the term and its basic definitions still

that the state of dreaming and the mystical, transcendental or revelatory states belong
to the category of the altered states of consciousness. 41[41] In this altered state of
consciousness, primary-process thought predominates. 42[42] As J. Laplanche and J.-B.
Pontalis point out, primary-process thought is typical of the workings of dreams, as
shown in displacement, condensation, or overdetermination. 43[43] That is, the state of
vision-receiving is similar to that of dreaming, the operational method in which thinking
and feeling are different from that when waking. Therefore, one may gain insights from
approaching the text of Revelation through a method used in the study of dreams.
The range of parallels for the study of Revelation may be widened, 44[44] for
scholars argue that there are parallels between dreams, myths, the primitives (or the
unconsciously-oriented tribe)45[45] way of thinking and the infantile psyche. Both Freud
seem widely accepted by psychologists. Encyclopedia of Psychology (2000), s.v.
Altered States of Consciousness.
41[41] Arnold M. Ludwig, Altered States of Consciousness in Altered States of
Consciousness (Garden City: Anchor Books, 1972), 13, 14.

42[42]

Ibid.,

15.

43[43] J. Laplanche and J.-B. Pontalis, The Language of Psycho-Analysis (New

York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1973), 339; Michael Winkelman also argues
that there is a remarkable parallel between trance states and that of dreaming in terms
of the changes of the body operations such as a shift to parasympathetic dominance,
cortical and visceral arousal, etc. Id., Trance States Ethos, vol. 14, No. 2 (1986): 180.

44[44] For instance, Schssler Fiorenza identifies the language of Rev. as

mythopoeic. Schssler Fiorenza, 22.

45[45] The term, primitive, may sound biased and jaundiced. However, according to

Jung, the fact that the primitive tribes live in a mythological world only means that they
stand more in line with the unconscious all humans share. For instance, strong religiosity
resides in the primitives unconscious and others alike, but the former peoples follow
that irrational instinct more. Carl Jung, Symbols of Transformation (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1967), 24-25. Therefore, the primitive tribes can be referred to as
unconsciously-oriented peoples, and this term will be used, henceforth.

and Jung argue that dreams and myths are the manifestation of the unconscious,
although the former is based on the personal one and the latter the collective. 46[46] This
mythical mentality can be found also in the infantile psyche 47[47] and primitive
mentality48[48] alike.
When those parallels above are compared with the peculiarities of the language
of Revelation, it becomes evident how fruitful it would be to take the comparative
approach toward reading Revelation. For instance, some N.T. scholars argument to
treat the sequence of events in this text synchronically, not chronologically becomes
corroborated,49[49] for each event can be a repetition of the same theme in a different
form, like the structure of myths or dreams. 50[50] Therefore, one would need to
46[46] S. Freud, Writers and Day-Dreaming, in Delusions and Dreams in
Jensens Grandiva, vol. 9 of The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works
of Sigmund Freud (London: The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis,
1981), 152; Carl Jung, Symbols of Transformation, 24; similarly, according to G. S. Kirk,
since Otto Rank (the Myth of the Birth of the Hero (1909, Eng. tr. 1913, 72), scholars
have noted the similarities between dreams and myths, such as a fantastic mlange of
subjects, places, sequences, styles; the sudden change of emotional tone; the
unpredictable change of mode of expression; visual brilliance, etc. G. S. Kirk, Myth
(Cambridge, Berkeley, Los Angeles: Cambridge University Press, University of California
Press, 1970), 270.

47[47] Freud, Writers and Day-Dreaming, 152; Jung, Symbols of Transformation,

24-25; cf., Karl Abraham, Dreams and Myths, trans. William Alanson White (New York:
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Pub., 1913), 36, 72.
48[48] Carl Jung, Jung on Mythology, ed., Robert A. Segal (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1998), 70, 175-177.

49[49] M.E. Boring, Revelation (Louisville: John Knox, 1989), 58-59; G. K. Beale,
The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, Cambridge: Wm B. Eerdmans, Paternoster,
1999), 67.

50[50] Adela Yarbro Collins draws a structural similarity (i.e. recapitulation)

between myth and Revelation. The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation (Missoula:
Scholars Press, 1976), 5-57, esp. 43-44. For the structure of dreams similar to that of
myth, i.e., recapitulation, see Adam Kuper, The Structure of Dream Sequences,
Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 7 (1983): 153-175. Here, Kuper discusses how the
repetition of the same themes or narrative is observed in dreams and similar to the

recognize the similarity of themes or material/images, for exploration of this similarity

may lead to the discovery of a repeated message. 51[51]
Second, one needs to note that there may be a parallel between the polyvalence
of Revelation and that of dream states. As some New Testament scholars have pointed
out, the language of Revelation is evocative rather than defining, 52[52] which effects the
polyvalence of Revelation.53[53] Possibly, this could be compared with the state of
dream: in the interpretation of dreams54[54], associative thoughts and images arising
from an object or narrative is regarded as important. That is, one needs to take note of
every possible association which can arise from each element of each image. For
instance, the image of the Lamb could evoke many images and feelings, not only one. In
this web of associations, through the tying and separation of each one, a significance
structure of myth Levy-Strauss discovered. This repetition feature is also observed even
within the Bible, e.g., in Pharaohs dream (Gen. 41:1-7), or Peters vision (Acts 10: 9-16).
51[51] This fits with Freuds second point about the relationships between dream
scenes: if a dream scene is followed by another dream scene, their relationship can be
1) that one is a cause and the other is an effect, or 2) that the same material is viewed
from different perspectives, or 3) that the two dreams, overlapping in content in such
a way that what is the center of one dream may play a part in the other as an allusion,
or the other way round. Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams, 240-241.

52[52] Boring, 56-57; Beale, 68; Schssler Fiorenza, 183, 186.

53[53] Boring, 54-55; Beale, 68; Schssler Fiorenza, 186.

54[54] Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams, 50-51; this method of dreaminterpretation had been used even in late antiquity. For instance, Artemidorus, who lived
in the second century, names the method as parathesis. He instances it by one of his
dream examples: a former perfume-dealers dream of losing his nose can mean his
losing his shop when he no longer continued the career, because he smelled the
perfume with his nose in his career, or can signify his losing his reputation, when he was
forging a signature and fleeing his country, for losing the nose can be a symbol of losing
the face in this context. Artemidorus, Oneirocritica, 4. 27; Patricia Cox Miller, Dreams in
Late Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 90-91.

can be produced but it could be only one interpretation from a myriad of possible
explanations.
Thirdly, the ambivalence/illogicalness/contradiction of Revelations language
could be attributed to the powerful functioning of emotion in the state of altered
consciousness. The ambivalence as a feature of Revelations language is already
included in its polyvalence, among which sometimes even contradictions between
significances are found. Boring phrases this feature of Revelations language as nonlogical and non-inferential.55[55]
The cause of the features could be found in comparison with the altered states of
consciousness. One of the characteristics of the state is:
Subject disturbances in concentration, attention, memory, and judgment represent
common findings. Archaic modes of thought (primary-process thought) predominate, and
reality testing seems impaired to varying degrees. The distinction between cause and
effect becomes blurred, and ambivalence may be pronounced whereby incongruities or
opposites may coexist without (psycho)logical conflict. 56[56]
Ludwig does not directly connect it with the functioning of powerful emotion in
the state, yet, according to him, another feature of the state is:
With the diminution of conscious control or inhibitions, there is often a marked change in
emotional expression. There may appear sudden and unexpected displays of emotion,
more primitive and intense than displays of emotion occurring during normal, waking
consciousness. Emotional extremes, from ecstasy and orgiastic equivalents to profound
fear and depression, commonly occur.57[57]

55[55] Boring, 57-58; cf., Schssler Fiorenza, 186.

56[56]

Ludwig,

Altered

States

of

Consciousness,

15.

57[57] Altered States of Consciousness, 16; also similarly G. William Farthing,

The Psychology of Consciousness (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1992), 211;
Michael Winkelman, too, argues that in trance states, which may be a close parallel to
the state of receiving a vision, operates more actively the area of the brains to control
basic drives such as hunger, thirst, sex, fight/flight, and emotions. Winkelman, Trance
States, 176.

That is, while rational reasoning and conscious control recede, the mechanism of
emotions operates more strongly in the state of altered consciousness. This could partly
explain the cause of the ambivalence/illogicalness/contradiction. As noted above, in this
mode of thinking, emotions work very powerfully. Basically, emotions are sometimes
irrational, spasmodic, and contradictory, which is opposed to linear and rational
thinking58[58]. In the altered states of consciousness, the strengthened mechanism of
emotions may cause ambivalence and contradictions. From this view, one should note
the emotions that are working behind every word or move in visions, and the emotions
and feelings that some images or scenes evoke for John. This awareness may be
important in that it can be connected with the ambivalence/illogicalness/contradiction
observed in Revelation.
In summary, there are some evident parallels between the language of
Revelation and dreams, vision, myths, etc.: first, frequently, the repetitions of themes or
narratives occur; second, the polyvalence of the language demands associative thinking
in which to connect and re-connect all the associative meanings arising from an element
and find an appropriate meaning in a specific context; third, ambivalence/contradiction
may be caused by the emotion overwhelming the logical/linear thinking. Throughout this
dissertation, the commentaries such as G. K. Beales that admits the features of the
Revelations language will be employed the most frequently.

58[58] Scholars have pointed out a similar blurring between emotion and logic in myths,

e.g., Jung on Mythology, 114, 116-117, 120; Eleazar M. Meletinsky, The Poetics of Myth
(New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc., 1998), 153, or in an unconsciouslyoriented mentality, e.g., Lucien Lvy-Bruhl, How Natives Think, trans. Lilian A. Clare
(Salem: Ayer Company, 1984), 106, 109; cf. Lvy-Bruhl, The Notes on Primitive
Mentality, trans., Peter Rivire (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975), 125127.http://www.drew.edu/theo

5. Theoretical Resources
Certain theoretical resources inform and shape the exegetical strategies
employed in this dissertation. Principal among them are postcolonial theory;
psychoanalytic theory; and theories of general ingestion, especially among them,
cannibalism. This dissertation situates Johns main concern in constructing the genuine
identity of the churches in relation to the Roman Empire. The theories are employed for
the illumination of the topic from three perspectives.
The post-colonial theorist Frantz Fanon emphasizes the conflictual relation
between colonizer and colonized, which engenders mutual hostility and violence against
each other, and thus forges their identity, based on the demonization/annihilation of the
other. In line with the overtone of Fanons theory, Edward Said also focuses on the
mutual hostility but pays more attention to the colonizers demonization of the colonized
for the justification of colonial rule. On the other hand, Homi Bhabha applies Freuds and
Lacans psychoanalytic theories to colonial relations and argues that there are mutual
attractions toward each other, which creates the elements of mimicry and ambivalence,
as well as the conflicts and hostility in colonial relations.
Interestingly, some similar configuration of theories is found in the studies of
ingestion/cannibalism. An anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday argues that cannibalism
is the apotheosis of violence and hostility against the other, which is in line with Fanons
description of colonial relation. As for theorists in line with Saidianism, Arens and Hulme
argue that all or most of the colonizers depiction of the colonized as cannibals is only a
fabrication or exaggeration for the justification of the colonial rule. A version of
Bhabhaianism is located in the theories of an anthropologist Mary Douglas, and
psychologists Freud and Lacan: they argue that the ingestion of something symbolizes
the desire for and incorporation of the elements in the eaten, which adds to the identity

of the eater of it. In a similar vein, yet engaging in the theorization of cannibalism more
directly, Eli Sagan and Obeyesekere both argue that there is a symbolism of
ambivalence in cannibalism, for the act expresses an extreme hatred and also a desire
toward the eaten.
The theories of postcolonial thinkers and cannibalism/ingestion theories can
combine to help one understand the images of humanity-consumption in Revelation.
Those theories are beneficial in illuminating the themes of the identity formation of the
Church in Revelation in a colonial context. Post-colonial theories can provide an
insightful viewpoint on the Churchs relationship to the Empire and her identity formation
in relation to Rome, while ingestion/cannibalism theories teach one how to extricate
symbolic meanings of identity formation from the ingestion-related images in Revelation.
Chapter 2
Colonialism, Identity, and Ingestion: Theoretical Resources
Post-colonial theorists have investigated how the identities of the colonized as
well as the colonizers are created in the colonial environment. In their view, the contact
zone between the two entities affects each side in forging their identities. Some theories
regarding ingestion are also concerned with the construction of identity in a variety of
ways, which can be aligned with the post-colonial theories.
In this chapter, the two camps of theories, i.e., the postcolonial theories and the
ingestion/cannibalism theories, are merged and then divided into three categories: 1.
denigrating the other: Said; 2. evading/annihilating the other: Fanon; 3. internalizing the
other: Bhabha. In each sub-chapter, a post-colonial theorists theories are briefly
introduced and then the ingestion/cannibalism theories, which can fit with the mode of
the post-colonial theory, are spelled out.

1.

Denigrating the Other: Said

Edward Said probes how colonizers construct the identity of the colonized by the
power of knowledge. He bases his postcolonial ideas on Foucaults two significant
concepts: power and discourse. Said rejects the traditional conception of power, i.e., a
force based on simple oppression or juridical approval or something trickling down from
the apex of a pyramid. As Bart Moore-Gilbert sums it up, Foucaults conception of power
is the repressive hypothesis as an impersonal force operating through a multiplicity
of sites and channels, constructing what he calls a pastoral regime, through which it
seeks to control its subjects by re(-)forming them, and in so doing, making them
conform to their place in the social system as objects of power. The major factor in the
operation of power is knowledge, which is invented to install the Other in its place. Said
adopts Foucaults argument and claims that Foucaults system of the disciplinary power
underlying Orientalism converts the real East into a discursive Orient. 59[1] That is, the
colonizers construct the identity of the colonized as inferior to the colonizers through an
invented knowledge and thereby justify the colonial relationship.
A group of scholars attempted to approach the phenomenon of cannibalism from
the Saidian perspective. According to them, cannibalistic rites had been exaggerated for
the justification of the colonists rule over the colonized, and some of them even go as
far as to say that it was a sheer fabrication. This Saidian approach dates back to W.
Arenss The Man-Eating Myth,60[2] before postmodern suspicions and even postcolonial
discourse. In this book, Arens questions whether cannibalistic customs were even
existent among pre-literate tribes. His suspicion about the very existence of cannibalism
59[1] Bart Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory (London, New York: Verso, 2000), 36-37;

Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), 3, 7, etc.; cf., Robert J.
C. Young, Postcolonialism. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2001), 386-387.
60[2] W. Arens, The Man-Eating Myth (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979).

among these tribes is predicated on two points. First, in his view, the pattern of
cannibalism studies is that this ignoble custom existed once among the primitive tribes,
and that cannibals abandoned the custom, because of the civilizing mission by
explorers, missionaries, colonizers, etc., which is in turn the reason why we cannot
observe this practice any more. However, how could one be so sure of its having existed
if we have a dearth of current evidence?61[3]
The second problem, Arens claims, is the anthropologists biased attitude. He
indicates that the pre-Christian Scots, Picts, and Irish were once denigrated as cannibals
by Christian writers, just as Jews were accused of anthropophagy by Christians in
Medieval Europe and Christians by Romans in ancient Rome. If scholars no longer
seriously contemplate the possibility of these groundless rumors, then why admit a priori
the long vanished cannibal customs of primitive tribes without current evidence? 62[4]
Arens again holds that this flawed line of reasoning is based on nineteenthcentury evolutionary social theory, which becomes systematized into a schema
discussed by American anthropologist, Edwin Meyer Loeb, in The Blood Sacrifice
Complex (1927). In this historical outline, in the prehistoric stage of humankind and still
in the most primitive groups, human flesh is used in religious rituals; in the next stage,
animals are substituted for humans; in the last stage, this act of consuming animals is
transformed into the most abstract and symbolic form: consumption of a spiritual
essence.63[5]
61[3] Ibid., 18-19.

62[4]

Ibid.,

14,

19.

63[5] Ibid., 16; notwithstanding many criticisms on his theory, Arens sticks to the
basic tenor of what he believes is true, even after nineteen years have passed since he
first argued for it. William Arens, Rethinking Anthropophagy, in Cannibalism and the
Colonial World, ed. Peter Hulme, et. al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998),
39-63.

Similar to Saids framework, Peter Hulme explains how the discourse of

cannibalism was used to justify colonial rule. For him, the term cannibal, itself, is a result
of the colonizers jaundiced viewpoint of the primitives. The eponym of cannibal, the
Carib, was never cannibalistic, but Columbus concludes the Caribs are cannibals, based
on an appearance uglier than the natives already encountered and on hearsay from
the Arawak Indians.64[6] In consideration of Columbuss prior suspicions about the
rumors of cannibalism relayed by the Arawak Indians, 65[7] his sudden prejudiced
judgment is surprising. This sloppy association between Caribs and cannibals is
reproduced over and over, and finally makes an inroad into the Old English Dictionary:
In 16th c. pl. Canibales, a. Sp. Canibales, originally one of the forms of the ethnic name
Carib or Caribes, a fierce nation of the West Indies, who are recorded to have been
anthropophagi66[8]
This cannibal discourse of less human than the genuine, according to Hulme,
leads to the two options regarding the treatment of Caribs, as can be shown in the novel,
Robinson Crusoe: educating the Carib cannibal, Friday, to wean him off of human flesh,
or destroying cannibals when it is proven that they feed on Europeans flesh. 67[9] The
cannibal as less than human becomes the object of taming and exploitation, or
annihilation with justice.
This cannibal discourse for separating self and other can be used more subtly, as
in the case of the novel of Tarzan of the Apes, as Hulme points out. Tarzan, raised
64[6] Peter Hulme, Colonial Encounters (London and New York: Methuen, 1986), 40.
65[7] Ibid., 19.

66[8] Ibid., 16.

67[9] Ibid., 210-211.

among apes, in revenge for the killing of his ape mother, kills the African Kulonga.
Tarzan was hungry and ready to eat the meat of the dead man, Kulonga, but hereditary
instinct prevents him from tasting his flesh. In the next chapter, Tarzan enters a lowthatched building, and finds human skulls and a cooking pot, which, Hulme believes,
obviously implies cannibalism. Here the practice of cannibalism is used as a standard by
which to separate human from less than human. 68[10]
The civilized worlds denigrating of the uncivilized peoples as cannibals, and
thereby, implicitly or explicitly, justifying colonial rule did not occur only at the dawn of
modern times, but in the Greco-Roman context, too. McGowan lists the Greco-Roman
writers tendency to attribute cannibalistic behaviors to the peoples living at the margins.
For instance, Herodotus records no fewer than six cannibalistic peoples on the fringes of
the Greek world such as the Indian Issedones (4. 26), the Massagetae (1. 216), Scythian
warriors (4. 64); Strabo records the cannibal stories of the people of the Caucasus
(15.1.56); Aristotle (Pol. 8.3.4), Pomponius Mela (Chronographia 2.1.2) and Pliny the
Elder (N. H. 7.9-10) share the account of cannibalistic Scythians: In the accounts of the
journeys of Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus speaks of some cannibalistic Ethiopian
tribes (Vita. Apoll. 6.25).69[11]
This tendency of denigration of the other as cannibals originates in their general
inclination to reduce to bestiality the nature of those living in the non-civilized world, an
example of which Aristotle evinces well (Pol. 1.1.9). According to Susan P. Mattern, from
the Greeks, the Romans inherited the tradition of regarding all other peoples as
barbarian, and the term, barbarian, denoting non-Greeks, itself was invented by the

68[10] Peter Hulme, Introduction, in Cannibalism and the Colonial World, 1-2.
69[11] McGowan, Eating People, 426.

Greeks. She also claims that the stereotypical, ethnographical conceptions about
barbarians was kept alive even into nineteenth-century European imperialism. 70[12]
Michel de Certeau explains the discourse of cannibalism in psychological terms.
He argues, drawing on Paul Smiths structure of paranoia 71[13], that paranoia as the
mechanism of separation of self and other operates in the discourse of cannibalism.
Paranoid perceptions of the other world comprise the internal economy. Consequently,
anything noxious within the ego for the paranoiac is projected onto external objects. The
effort to maintain the wholeness of I demands the expulsion of all the internal bad
characteristics, among which cannibalistic ferocity features conspicuously. The cannibal
illusion is a production of this process. 72[14]
This psychological insight illuminates the symbolism of cannibalism, especially in
colonial situations. Here, it may be beneficial to recall McGowans theory, which will be
dealt with later73[15], that the cannibalistic images are summoned up when a society is in
danger of being devoured by other societies, for the body symbolizes the society. If this
symbolism is applied to de Certeaus theory of cannibalistic illusions as paranoia, the
tendency of colonizers reducing the colonized to cannibals may come from the
colonizers paranoiac projection of their own intentions of colonization onto the
70[12] Susan P. Mattern, Rome and the Enemy (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London:

University of California Press, 1999), 70; Balsdon describes the Romans jaundiced
views of other peoples. Even the Greeks could not evade the Romans unfavorable
outlook on the outsiders. J.P.V.D. Balsdon, Romans and Aliens (Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina Press, 1979), 30-77.
71[13] Paul Smith, Discerning the Subject (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1988), 95-96.

72[14] Stephen Slemon, Bones of Contention, in Literature and the Body, ed.
Anthony Purdy (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1992), 167.

73[15] Below, 35.

colonized. That is, here the real cannibals are in the colonizers minds for they attempt to
devour other societies, but this is projected onto those to be colonized.
In sum, Arens and Hulme generally emphasize the imperial discourse of
cannibalism74[16] rather than the practice itself. The colonists attribute cannibalism to the
colonized to justify their moral superiority and thereby colonial rule. Here cannibalistic
discourse is used to define self against the Other: by demonizing the Other, the
colonizers establish their identity.75[17] In contrast to what has been scrutinized,
cannibalism can stem from more ambivalent feelings: simultaneous hatred and affection
toward the other. In the colonial context, the Other is identified mostly as the colonizers.

74[16] Here a significant question is raised: was cannibalism never existent

among some tribes? Arens and Hulme both resort to the attitude of we dont know,
(Peter Hulme, Making No Bones Critical Inquiry vol. 20 num. 1, (1993): 182; William
Arens, Rethinking Anthropophagy in Cannibalism and the Colonial World, 41; The
Man-Eating Myth, 180-181), which constitutes their major problem notwithstanding the
merit they deserve for highlighting the cannibal discourse. Perhaps the sheer rumors of
cannibalism can be dismissed as arising from the deep anxiety about the other, and the
imperialists could have used the discourse of cannibalism to justify their superiority and
colonial rule. But if one regards all the professional reports and accounts of missionaries
and anthropologists as biased and dishonest, this can be more problematic.
In addition, more and more evidence seems to point to the direction of prior
existence of the custom, as Lewis Petrinovich points out in his book, The Cannibal
Within (New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 2000), 151-152:
In a research news article in Science (Gibbons, 1997, 635) he (i.e., Arens)
admitted that the case for cannibalism has become stronger: I think the
procedures are sounder, and there is more evidence for cannibalism than
before.
Yet he permits the book (the Man-Eating Myth, parenthesis mine)to go through several
paperback editions without adding any material acknowledging that his case is being
weakened or suggesting that it is probably wrong.

75[17] However, this strategy was not used only by the powerful such as the
imperialists. According to Dan Beaver, in both the genocides of the Tutsi tribe by the
Hutu in 1972 and that of the Hutu by the Tutsi tribe in 1994, the tribe spearheading the
genocide was rumored among the victim tribe to force captive parents to eat the flesh of
their children. Dan Beaver, Flesh or Fantasy, Ethnohistory 49.3 (2002): 681-682. The
tribe, victimized by the enormous violence of the other, exaggerates the violence by
spreading the rumor that the enemy is cannibalistic. In this way, they establish their
identity by labeling the other as cannibals.

2.

Annihilating the Other: Fanon

Whereas Said focuses on the method by which the colonizers construct the
identity of the colonized, Franz Fanon emphasizes the interactive relation between
colonizer and colonized. That is, both parties forge their identities by denigrating each
other. Fanon is the representative post-colonial theorist who argues for the dualistic
relation between colonizing and colonized. In his words,
The colonial world is a Manichean world. It is not enough for the settler to delimit
physically, that is to say with the help of the army and the police force, the place
of the native. As if to show the totalitarian character of colonial exploitation the
settler paints the native as a sort of quintessence of evilHe isthe enemy of
values, and in this sense he is the absolute evil. 76[18]
In response to the colonizers negation of the native, the colonized breeds a
counter negation: On the logical plane, the Manicheism of the settler produces a
Manicheism of the native. To the theory of the absolute evil of the native the theory of
the absolute evil of the settler replies. 77[19] Thus, the Manichean relation in colonial
society is characterized as mutually negating and denigrating.
Fanon continues to argue that this conflictual/hostile relationship naturally
engenders a state rife with violence for both parties. First, the settler inflicts violence on
the native by instituting a police system or army, which is countered by the natives use
of violence for decolonization. When it is impossible for the colonized to actualize the
desire for violence in reality, the native channels that into dreams, possession states, or
inter-tribal wars. However, this channeling disappears when they begin to act out the
hatred and aggression toward the colonizers by using real, physical violence for
decolonization.78[20] To a degree, Fanons theory includes Saids postcolonial discourse
theory. For instance, according to A. R. JanMohammed who developed Fanons theory
76[18] Franz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (New York: Grove Press, 1968), 41.
77[19] Ibid., 93.

78[20]

Ibid.,

35,

40-41,

52,

57-58.

of the binary structure of imperial ideology, much colonial literature, instead of being an
exploration of the racial Otheraffirms its own ethno-centric assumptions; instead of
actually depicting the outer limits of civilization, it simply codifies and preserves the
structures of its own mentality. 79[21]
Fanons defining the relationship between colonizers and colonized as dualistic
and violent might fit in with aggressive dualistic attitude rather than passive dualistic
attitude. That is, when one party determines that it is impossible to communicate and
mix with the other, it could keep as large a distance as possible from the Other only
passively, with rage simmering inside. Alternatively, it could rush forward to the Other
and attempt to annihilate it with all its energy and willingness, aggressively.
Perhaps, Mary Douglass theory represents the passive dualistic attitude. Her
theory of body symbolism suggests that symbolically, consuming something is a serious
act of constructing or transforming social identity. That is, she argues that the body
symbolizes the social body and that any substance traversing the body boundary, such
as tears or saliva, evokes the penetration of the social body. That theory in turn implies
that the act of ingestion, too, can be a symbol of the boundary-blurring of the society. 80

[22] This implication is more explicitly unfolded in Douglass exploration of the

correspondence between anxiety about the body/boundary-maintenance and that about
the political and cultural unity of a minority group such as the ancient Israelites, as
illustrated in Leviticus.81[23] In other words, the ancient Israelites consumed only the
79[21] A. R. JanMohammed, The Economy of Manichaean Allegory, Critical
Inquiry 12. 1 (1985): 19; for JanMohammeds more thorough study of the phenomenon,
see his Manichean Aesthetics (Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1983).

80[22] Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger (New York, Washington: Frederick A. Praeger,

1966), 114-128; id., Natural Symbols (New York: Pantheon Books, 1982), 70.
81[23] Douglas, Purity and Danger, 41-58;cf., id., Implicit Meanings (London,
Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul), 263-273.

food that they regarded as their own, i.e., pure food, as a sub-conscious expression of
staying away from impure enemies.
Additional example of the passive dualistic attitude may stem from Christendom
in the Middle Ages. Merrall Llewelyn Price notes that beginning with the first crusade, a
proto-colonialist ideology developed in Europe, in which cannibalistic discourses began
to flourish vibrantly. These cannibalistic discourses consisted of two types: the
Eucharistic rite and the un-Christian cannibalism. As to the former case, during this
period, there was an increased concern with the meaning of the Eucharistic ritual. As a
result, Eucharistic miracles began to proliferate in sermons and collections of exempla.
Price attributes this obsession with the consumption of divine body in the protoimperialistic age to anxieties about maintaining the boundaries of community and a
resultant, unconscious desire to solidify Christian identity.82[24] That is, in the context of
a (proto-)imperialism characterized by frequent encounters occurred with the Other,
Christians needed to reify their identity by emphasizing their partaking of, thereby,
symbolically internalizing the essence of Christianity, i.e., Christ. Ironically, the Christians
felt threatened culturally, although threatening the Islamic people militarily.
On the other hand, aggressive dualistic attitude, which is more in line with the
Fanonian mode of colonial relationship, is not satisfied with passively seeking to
separate from the enemy. It pursues the Other aggressively and consume it symbolically
or literally. Its strong desire to stand alone without any Others impels it to violently
absorb all the Others into its absolute self. That attitude is well-embodied in Peggy
Reeves Sandays description of the cannibals relationship with the other implied in their
cannibalistic practices. After investigating the myths of fifteen tribes and their
82[24] Merrall Llewelyn Price, Consuming Passions (New York, London:
Routledge, 2003), 3-4, 30; in parallel, the idea of eating human flesh or the discussion of
flesh-eating in other societies was also pursued eagerly in the literary, legal, and
geopolitical texts of the late medieval and early modern periods. Ibid.

cannibalistic practices, Peggy Reeves Sanday concludes that these tribes can be
divided into two groups by their two different patterns of social bonding: conflict-oriented
and accommodation-oriented mythos. The former group practices ritual cannibalism,
while the latter group does not contain cannibalism as a major element in its mythos and
rites. Her study discusses two tribes representing each group: the Aztecs and the
Navajo.83[25]
The Aztec myth relates that historical time is accounted for in terms of sequential
suns and ages, each of which has its own characteristics and is terminated with
cataclysmic destruction. The age of the first sun was terminated by a swarm of
devouring jaguars, that of the second sun by great hurricanes, the next sun by great fiery
rain, the fourth sun by a great deluge. In the age of the present sun, the two gods
transformed themselves into great serpents and, battling, split in half a horrendous earth
monster swimming in the primeval waters. This division generated the two worlds: earth
and the heavens. This angered other gods, so that they decreed that, from the split
body, issue all the necessary fruits to sustain the life of humans. But the earth monster
cried in the night, refusing to generate those fruits unless it was soaked with humans
blood and hearts.84[26]
Unlike the Aztec world, domination, control, and mastery are antithetical to the
worldview of the Navajo. This is reflected in their myths of synthesis represented by the
major Navajo deity, Changing Woman. She is the perfect model for integration and
accommodation; she is a product of the darkness and dawn, static and active, male and
female; she is animated by a small White Wind in her right ear and a small Dark Wind in
her left ear. The Changing Woman was born to become the mother of the twin heroes,
83[25] Peggy Reeves Sanday, Divine Hunger (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge

University
84[26]

Press,

1986),
Ibid.,

226.
179-180.

who were also a union of opposites (sun and moon, or opposing cosmic elements,
depending on the versions), and destined to conquer monsters. Navajo cosmogony
lacks any conflictual element: the Holy People who walked like sheep transformed the
unordered into the ordered condition without a cosmic war.85[27]
Sanday reports that the tribes practicing cannibalism tend to turn inward. They
thus conduct intratribal marriages rather than intertribal marriages, as in the case of the
Bimin-Kuskusmin. The non-cannibal tribes, the Toribriand or the Melpa tribes, do not
display this exclusive inward orientation.86[28] Sanday does not present any reason for
this close relation between cannibalism and exclusivity. However, the relationship
between the two factors seems to reside in a general attitude toward the Other.
Basically, exclusivity is predicated on hostility and aggression toward the Other, which
can express itself, physically, in the form of violence. Cannibalism is the apex of violent
activities and, therefore, it is not surprising that extreme exclusivity is expressed in the
act of cannibalism.
The close relation between boundary/identity-making and violence is evidenced
in a study on ethnic massacres. According to this study, the common factor involved in
ethnic massacres is the ambiguity and permeability of the boundaries of the ethnic
groups. That is, terrible carnage is caused by their preventive act against potential
defections to the other group, which is so similar to them in all aspects, such as customs
or languages.87[29] Similarly, it is well-known in the history of religions, as Georg Simmel
notes, that the degeneration of a difference in convictions into hatred and fight ordinarily
85[27] Ibid., 219-220, 223.

86[28] Ibid., 23-25.

87[29] James D. Fearson and David D. Laitin, Violence and the Social
Construction of Ethnic Identity, International Organization 54, 4 (2000): 857-864.

occurs only when there were essential, original similarities between the parties. 88[30] In
all these, violence is used to define the Other who is similar to the self, and to establish
identity.
In summary, Fanons post-colonial theory is characterized as dualistic, which can
divide into passive dualistic and aggressive dualistic attitude. Fanons theory can
converge with ingestion/cannibalism theories. Mary Douglass ingestion theory
represents the passive dualistic attitude in that she argues that one symbolically
maintains his/her identity by staying away from the enemys impure food. However,
aggressive dualistic attitude does not stop at it. Sandays analysis of cannibalism well
illustrates the point: cannibalism is the acme of violence and hatred toward the Other,
and this act implies that the Other is not acknowledged and should be absorbed into the
absolute self, so that the identity of the one and only is established.

3.

Internalizing the Other: Bhabha

On the other hand, Homi Bhabha explores a blurry part between binary
opposites. He sums up the complexities of this type of situation, employing three main
concepts: ambivalence, mimicry, and hybridity.89[31] The relationship of the colonized
toward the colonizers is characterized as not only violently resistant and hateful but also
as attractive and affectionate. They long for the colonizers power and sophistication in
every manner, the result of which is ambivalent feelings of simultaneous attraction and
hatred toward their oppressors.90[32] Bhabha draws this concept, augmented by
88[30] Georg Simmel, Conflict and the Web of Group-Affiliations, trans., Kurt H. Wolff and

Reinhard Bendix (New York: Free Press, 1955), 48; cf. Jonathan Z. Smith, What a
Difference a Difference Makes, in To See Ourselves as Others See Us, ed. Jacob
Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs (Chicago: Scholars Press, 1985), 44-48.
89[31] Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London, New York: Routledge, 1994),

85-93,

102-123.

90[32] Bill Ashcroft, et al., Post-Colonial Studies (London, New York: Routledge,
2000), 12-14; Bhabha, 86.

Lacanian thought, from Freuds psychoanalytic observation that affective ambivalence is

ubiquitous, in that a human beings hatred toward enemies is always overlapped with
affection.91[33]
This affectionate feeling of the colonized toward the colonizers causes the former
to mimic the practices or way of existence of the latter. At first, the colonizers may
expect the inferior colonized peoples to regard their values, culture, behavior, etc. as
superior. However, this superior/inferior dualism reproduces a colonizing subject in the
colonized as almost the same, but not quite. 92[34]
This hybridized, monstrous being plagues the colonizers and threatens their
authority, for this syncretism and transculturation demolishes the colonizers claim for
their difference functioning as their imperial discourse. There is no dualism any more.
Instead, the ludicrous, syncretized creature makes a mockery of the ideology sacralized
by the colonizers. Parody, travesty, and caricature embedded in the hybridization laughs
out loud in the face of the colonizers.93[35]
Bhabhas theories about the colonial relation jibe well with a group of scholars
theories illuminating the relationship with the other through the images/themes of
ingestion/cannibalism. After discussing the anthropological observation of cannibalism
among some tribes, Freud contends that in the deepest human mind, consumption of
something means incorporation of the features of the eaten. He argues that the higher
motivation for cannibalism among some races is to gain the qualities possessed by the

91[33] J. Laplanche, et al., The Language of Psycho-Analysis, trans. Donald

Nicholson-Smith (New York, London: W.W.Norton & Company, 1973), 26-29; Bhabha,
85, 90.
92[34]

Ashcroft,

et

al.,

93[35] Ashcroft, et al., 118-121; Bhabha, 91.

139-142;

Bhabha,

86.

victim. In the imaginary world of cannibals, to incorporate the parts of an object means to
possess its characteristics. So they are careful about what kind of animal or food they
eat. For instance, if that animal symbolizes cowardice, they would avoid consuming it,
for that cowardice will be assimilated. On the other hand, if the person was a
courageous warrior, he would be a very popular target for cannibals for the benefit of
acquirement of his valor. Freud holds that this way of thinking behind the cannibalistic
custom flows from the more widespread way of thinking that the part contains all the
properties of the whole, and proves it with various examples ranging from the
superstitions of a Pacific Islander and an ancient Roman writer, Pliny, to those of English
country people.94[36]
Freud seems to hint that the cannibalistic tendency can be traced back to the
period of the infantile, pregenital sexual organization in which the infantile sexual activity
is not differentiated from incorporating the object. He claims that the widely observed
connection between cruelty and the sexual instinct can be in reality a relic of this earlier
cannibalistic desire.95[37] Thus, according to Laplanche and Pontalis, psychoanalysts
since Freud have often spoken of the oral stage as a cannibalistic stage. 96[38]
Freud develops a theory of identity-making in conjunction with ambivalence and
cannibalism: identification is the first way the infantile subject chooses to simultaneously
love and hate an object. At the oral stage, the ego wants to incorporate and identify itself
with the loved object with a feeling of jealousy/hatred, in accordance with the oral or
94[36] Sigmund Freud, Totem and Taboo and Other Works, vol. 13 of The Standard

Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, ed. and trans. James
Strachey (London: The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1981), 82.
95[37] Sigmund Freud, Three Essays On the Theory of Sexuality, trans. James
Strachey (London: Imago Publishing Company, 1949), 37, 75.

96[38] Laplanche and Pontalis, The Language of Psycho-Analysis, trans. Donald

Nicholson-Smith (New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1973), 55.

cannibalistic phase of libidinal development. This is ambivalent, for it can achieve its aim
only by eliminating the separate object through the act of eating, though the motive of
this act of ingestion is desire/love.97[39]
Freud continues to argue that identification with the object transforms the ego, as
if the ego sets up the object inside itself. The formation of the ego results from choosing
whether to conserve or resist this identified object inside itself. The first identified object
is the father and mother at the oral stage. 98[40] In this mode, the metaphor of
cannibalism materializes in the form of identification. Literally, the object is devoured and
its characteristics become part of the eater, transforming ones identity.
Freud seems to argue that in the human mind, the body represents identity. This
observation is found also in Jacques Lacans theory. Lacan argues that the infant
undergoes the first period of ego-forming at approximately six months, when it sees its
image in the mirror. It identifies itself with the specular image and thereby forms the ego.
However, in contrast to the specular, whole image, the infant still lacks a complete ability
of coordinating its body, which is experienced as a fragmented body. This discrepancy
between the whole image and its real, incomplete self-image produces a tension and
aggressiveness.99[41]
According to Lacan, the image of this fragmented body appears again in the
analysands dreams or associations at the moment that he or she experiences the
97[39] Sigmund Freud, On the History of the Psycho-Analytic Movement Papers
on Metapsychology and Other Works, vol. 14 of The Standard Edition, 138, 249-250.

98[40] Sigmund Freud, The Ego and the Id and Other Works, vol. 19 of The Standard

Edition,

29-31.

99[41] Dylan Evans, An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis

(Hove, New York: Brunner-Routledge, 1996), 6-7, 67, 114-116; Jacques Lacan, Some
Reflections of the Ego, The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 34 (1953): 15, 16;
Jacques Lacan, crits (New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1977), 1-7.

disintegration of the ego. So the imago of the fragmented body returns with aggression
in the form of disjointed limbs, or of those organs represented in exoscopy, growing
wings, taking up arms for intestinal persecutions, castration, mutilation, dismemberment,
dislocation, evisceration, devouring, bursting open of the body. 100[42] That is, the body
symbolizes the ego or identity.
However, Freuds and Lacans theories need translation for them to be applied to
the situation of Revelation. Freud and Lacan both focus on personal identity formation in
the acts of consumption on a symbolic plane, for they are psychologists. However, when
one speaks of a personal identity, it also includes group identities, whether it be a
church, a family, or friends. Revelation is a book for sending messages to church
communities, not to individuals. In the book, the symbols of eating cannot be translated
as forming personal identity but rather a group identity.
Eli Sagan refines and develops a Freudian approach to the phenomenon of
cannibalism by focusing on ambivalence. He applies Freudian ambivalence to
aggressive cannibalism occurring in the context of war and affectionate cannibalism set
in the funeral context. In both cases, the simultaneous love/hate mechanism operates.
He also develops a theory of sublimation of cannibalistic acts.
First, Sagan divides the practices of cannibalism into two groups: aggressive
cannibalism and affectionate cannibalism. He pays attention to the fact that the former
cannibalism occurs in the context of war. After defining aggression as the desire to
dominate or tyrannize another person or other people, he argues that warfare, unlike
private aggression, is a function of society as a whole; it is an institutionalized form of
aggression; it is an attempt of one whole society to dominate or tyrannize another
society.101[43]
100[42]

Lacan,

crits,

4,

11;

id.,

Some

Reflections,

13.

101[43] Eli Sagan, Cannibalism (New York, Evanston, San Francisco, London:
Harper & Row, 1974), 5.

However, the cannibalistic tribes attitude toward cannibalism, as an expression of

their collective aggression, abounds in ambivalence. The first ambivalence is that
whereas they seem to enjoy the revengeful cannibalism, they also fear the very act.
Thus, they attempt to conduct several ruses as if to mollify their conscience. Sometimes
they spread the liability, distributing the tasks of cannibalism. For instance, the people
who captured or killed the war captives do not participate in the consumption in order to
be protected from supernatural forces.102[44] Alternatively, a specific group is reserved to
practice cannibalism on behalf of the whole tribe, and that group which was involved in
cannibalism is expected to undergo complicated taboos and restrictions after
cannibalistic rites, as if the group had committed a horrendous sin. 103[45]
The way the cannibals act after ritual cannibalism suggests that a mechanism in
their unconscious works against the act. The outright and full throttle expression of their
revulsion and hatred toward their enemies, i.e., cannibalism, does not sit well with
something inside them. Though they have no conception of sin, they seem to feel
uncomfortable with the act. The reason why they feel that way is that, although they
murdered and even consumed the enemy out of hatred, they somehow felt some
affection toward the enemy, which in turn made them feel appalled at the very acts they
had committed. That ambivalent feeling is manifested more clearly in their second
ambivalence about cannibalism.
The cannibal tends to regard the consumption of the enemies as absorbing their
manly virtue, courage, or mana (spiritual power). Thus, the flesh of enemies can be

102[44] Ibid., 15-17.

103[45] Ibid., 12-15.

consumed by the warriors only, not by women or children in many cases. 104[46] This
attitude is observed also in their practice of taking the name of the victim, if he is
regarded as a brave warrior, so as to incorporate him perfectly.105[47] This second
ambivalence clearly demonstrates that whereas this type of cannibalism can be dubbed
as aggressive, the very practice contains some feeling of attraction or respect toward the
victim and his valor/mana. That is, what makes the cannibal uncomfortable about the
cannibalistic act is the mechanism of love.
This hate-love dynamic is also observable in the case of funerary cannibalism,
such as the consumption of dead relatives at mortuary rites. Here, the reason of their
cannibalistic act is not aggression but affection. However, Sagan again identifies a lovehate feeling embedded even in this act. According to him, at the stage of childhood, the
method of satisfying ones anger and desire is to incorporate orally the source of
frustration and desire. In this mode of thinking, the cannibals are in the state of
simultaneous anger and desire/affection toward the beloved dead relatives: they are
angry, for the beloved has left them forever by dying, as the infant feels when his
parent(s) disappear from sight, and yet still obviously holds affection toward them. The
cannibals satisfy both their anger and desire/affection toward the dead relative, by
literally incorporating their bodies.106[48] The cannibals also believe that the virtue of the
dead kinsmen is transferred to the eater, as in the case of aggressive cannibalism. 107[49]
Gananath Obeyesekeres observation of the phenomena of cannibalism in
colonial situations demonstrates how Bhabhas theories can relate to the study of
104[46]

Ibid.,

8-9.

Ibid.,

28.

105[47] Ibid., 20.

106[48]
107[49] Ibid., 26.

cannibalistic practices. He observes that the evolving discourse on cannibalism impinges

on the cannibal custom of the Maori by including the Europeans in the tribes list of
consumption. This new practice, he argues, is caused by symbolic-affective reasons,
i.e., the desire of identifying with the Europeans and of introjecting their power. That is
illustrated by other changes of customs. They already had a custom of greeting each
other with kissing and caressing, but they changed it when greeting the Europeans by
sucking the flesh with a surprising greediness, as if to show their desire for the
Europeans flesh. Likewise, the examples of the Maoris wearing the clothes and
weapons of dead Frenchmen and brandishing the pistols conspicuously are other
instances of their aspiration for symbolic identification. 108[50] Bhabhas theory of the
colonizeds ambivalent feelings toward the colonizers can be useful. They hate the
colonizers and yet desire their power and wealth simultaneously.
Sagan illustrates how in the image of man-eating, the factor of affection can be
pushed to the extreme. To expound this issue, he introduces the concept of sublimation
in his theory. According to him, another horrid institutionalized custom, head-hunting, is a
sublimated form of cannibalism. The basic mechanism is again the expression of
aggression and collecting of the enemies energy, but eating is given up here. Ingesting
of enemies values is done in a more symbolic way, that is, by collecting his head, not
eating him literally.109[51]
Sublimation sometimes takes on a form of substitution: for example, one can
refer to the sacrifice and then the eating of animals, or the symbolic ingestion of Jesus
body, the Eucharist, instead of eating literally a living man. The more symbolic and
abstract, the more sublimated. Particularly, sublimation operates as a mechanism to
108[50] Gananath Obeyeskere, British Cannibals, Critical Inquiry 18 (1992): 652.

109[51]

Ibid.,

35-47.

increase affection and decrease aggression. Thus, the aggressive side almost
disappears in the most symbolic and sublimated form of cannibalism the Eucharist. 110

[52]
In summary, the act of man-eating is indicative of both the hatred and affection of
the eater toward the victim, for the act is not only the acme of hostility and violence, but
also an expression of an unconscious desire to incorporate the features of the eaten. In
this sense, the act of cannibalism is in line with the Bhabhaian analysis that there are
always some ambivalent feelings, i.e., simultaneous hatred and affection operating
between colonizing and colonized.

4. Summary
In human minds, the act of ingestion always relates to constructing ones social
identity. When one society feels threatened by being assimilated into a larger society, it
becomes cautious about what to eat, for the body image is always evocative of the
society. Employing this same psychological mechanism, cannibalistic images summoned
up in the mind is nothing other than a symptom of fear over social assimilation.
Ingestion theories overlap with the theories of post-colonial thinkers: Said, Fanon,
and Bhabha. Said provides a view for understanding cannibalism. That is, cannibalism
can be used as a discourse to denigrate the colonized and justify the superiority of the
colonizers and ultimately the colonial relations. Here cannibalism is not pre-existent but
invented for the cause of the colonizers. That is, the colonizers justify their imperial rule
by creating the myth that the colonized are savage cannibals.
In line with Fanons description of colonial relations, cannibalism is the apotheosis
of maximized hatred and revulsion. This act separates self and other: by annihilating the
110[52] Ibid., 61-63.

Other completely and eating it literally for that, can the self be established, thus allowing
the identity to stand. However, Fanonian dualism can be expressed in another- foodeating: it can forge pure identity by eating foods not belonging to the Other, for eating
anything belonging to the Other symbolizes to mix ones identity with the Others.
Both Said and Fanon base their theories on the conflictual/dualistic relationship
between colonizers and colonized. However, those dualistic, Manichean ways of thinking
cannot fully explain the act of cannibalism. On the deeper level, cannibalism contains
other factors: attraction and affection, which is a feature of the Bhabhaian definition of
colonial relations This act is a manifestation of a desire to obtain the features of the
Other and incorporate them into ones own system. To taste something good with ones
tongue and swallow it voraciously is the most primitive and bald expression of the desire.

Disser ch. 3
Chapter 3
Eating Jesus
This chapter consists of two parts: believers implied consumption of Jesus and
the dragons attempt to consume the infant. The first part features an effort to identify
with Jesus and thereby establish true Christian identity, while the second part
demonstrates how the image of the dragon, the symbol of Rome, attempting to swallow
the infant, the symbol of the Church, operates to illustrate the present state of the
Church in cultural captivity to Rome and the image of the cannibalistic Rome is used to
justify colonization of Rome.
.
1. Believers Consumption of Jesus
There is no scene of the believers eating Jesus in Revelation. However, the
image of Jesus as the Lamb evokes the act of consumption strongly, for the image of the

Lamb can be situated obviously in the Passover ritual or the Eucharistic rite, in which
consumption of the Lamb or Jesus is assumed. In this sense, we will examine how the
Lamb consumption functions to produce symbolic meanings.
The images of Jesus-eating are scattered here and there in Revelation. First, we
will probe how the Eucharistic theme is embedded in 3:20-21 and how by consuming
Jesus, the eaters affection toward it is expressed and the divine attributes are
transferred to the eaters. The second part of this section is concerned with the slain
Lamb in 5:6 as the Passover Lamb and consumption of it implied in 10:8ff, and the
method in which divine properties are transfused to its eaters. In the third part, we will
consider the possibility that the scene of the marriage banquet in 19:9 is correlated with
eschatological banquets and the Eucharist. Here too we will investigate the eaters love
for the Lamb and absorbing its divine properties.

i. Commensality (3:20-21)
Scholars have pointed out that liturgical elements, 111[1] especially Eucharistic
themes, stand out in Revelation. For instance, Lucetta Mowry highlights the background
of the Eucharist in Rev. ch. 4-5 by showing how the liturgical lyrics in this section are
comparable with those of the Jewish Passover; there is a massive stress on the Agnus
Dei; and Rev. 4-5 follows an allusion to participating in a meal with Christ (Rev. 3:20). 112

[2] David L. Barr enumerates the close parallels between the Eucharistic terms and
phrases in Didache 9 and those in Revelation. 113[3] A.J.P. Garrow even goes as far as to
111[1] Leonard L. Thompson, Cult and Eschatology in the Apocalypse of John,
Journal of Religion 49 (1969): 330-350; Thompson, The Book of Revelation, 53-73;
Lucetta Mowry, Revelation 4-5 and Early Christian Liturgical Usage, Journal of Biblical
Literature 71 (1952): 75-84.

112[2]

Mowry,

83.

113[3] David L. Barr, Tales of the End (Santa Rosa: Polebridge Press, 1985), 171173: e.g., in Didache 9, it is prohibited for an outsider, labeled as a dog, to participate in

say that Revelation was designed for a Sunday service accompanied by the Eucharist. 114

[4]
This close correlation between the Eucharistic rite and Revelation seems justified
in light of the symbolic meanings embedded in the Eucharist. Leonard Thompson,
emphasizing the intermixing of worship scenes and eschatological dramas in Rev.,
argues that in Rev. worship realizes the kingship of God and his just judgment; through
liturgical celebration eschatological expectations are experienced presently. 115[5] What
could be a more appropriate cultic setting than the Eucharist in proclaiming the coming
of the kingdom, considering the symbolic significance of the Eucharist, i.e., the foretaste
of the kingdom, the present realization of it, etc.? 116[6]
John the Seers frequently conducted, Eucharistic blending of present and future
occurs again in 3: 20.117[7] As Aune points out, the scene of Jesus knocking at the door
and commensality with Jesus in 3: 20 evokes the eschatological parable of a doorkeeper
the Eucharist and there is a similar, strict separation between insider and outsider and
even the labeling the outsiders as a dog in Rev. (22: 14-15); the phrase, let him come
Maran Atha, Amen occurs in Didache 9, and similarly the prayer of come, Lord Jesus
is found in Rev. 22: 20; Barr also points out that this vision is taken, on the Lords day
(1:10) when the Eucharist is observed; there are the extensive liturgical material (e.g.
1:5-6). David L. Barr, The Apocalypse as a Symbolic Transformation of the World,
Interpretation 38 (1984): 46.
114[4] A. J. P. Garrow, Revelation (London and New York: Routledge, 1997), 35 ff.

115[5]

Thompson,

The

Book

of

Revelation,

72-73.

116[6] David Edward Aune summarizes the early Christians notion of the intimate
connection between eschatology and the Eucharist with the verse of Didache 9: 4: As
this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, but was brought together and
became one, so let thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy
kingdom. David E. Aune, The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early
Christianity (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), 17.

117[7] Scholars have argued for the Eucharistic background for this verse:
Gehard A. Krodel, Revelation (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 145, etc.

(Mk. 13:33 ff., Lk. 12: 35 ff.).118[8] Several verses earlier in 3: 14, G. K. Beale takes the
Old Testament background of Christs titles as also sounding the imagery of the
eschatological scene.119[9] However, in 3: 20, all the verbs are in the present tense and
the context indicates the present urge of repentance. This contradictory co-existence of
present and future may be attributed to the setting of the Eucharist, for in the Eucharist
the end time is realized in the present. Jesus is present again in the meal.
In addition, Beale concludes rightly that here the Eucharistic setting is discerned
by the use of the verb (eat, dine) and the cognate noun of the Last Supper in
Lk. 22:20, John 13:2, 4; 21: 20 and of the Eucharist in 1 Cor. 11:20, 21, 25. 120[10] If one
assumes that in the writers mind, 3: 20 is fixed firmly in the image of the Eucharist, the
verse can be approached differently, that is, from a psychoanalytic perspective.

118[8] David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5, vol. 52 of Word Biblical Commentary

(Dallas: Word Books, 1997), 261.

119[9] For instance, as Beale argues, the Amen in 3: 20 is derived from the God
of the Amen in Isa. 65: 16 whose blessings are a new creation in v. 17 ff. Second, in Isa.
43: 12-13, 16-19, and Isa. 44:6-8, the object to which faithful witnesses witness is a
new creation. Lastly can be translated as beginning, and if so the epithet the
beginning of Gods creation is a description of Jesus, the inaugurator of the new world.
G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans,
1999), 297-301.

120[10] G. K. Beale, 309; Aune argues that the noun form of the verb
can refer to supper, dinner, and can refer to the Passover meal
(Jos. Ant. 2.312, Lk. 22:20), which corroborates the validity of correlating this verse with
the Eucharist. Aune, Revelation 1-5, 261.

According to J. Cheryl Exum, the house is frequently in literature a metonymical

symbol of woman.121[11] Elisabeth Bronfen, drawing on Jurij Lotman, 122[12] also
similarly yet in a psychoanalytic manner claims that there is a lack of boundaries
between notions such as a cave, the grave, a house, woman, which are allocated
the features of darkness, warmth, and dampness. She continues to argue that entry into
these spaces connotes the death drive, the desire of the return to a symbiotic unity, to
the peace before the difference and tension of life. 123[13]
If the house is interpreted as the female body, then the entry of Jesus into the
house metaphorically parallels the way that Jesus as a food is devoured and enters into
the human body. That is, the Eucharistic cannibalism occurs in this ostensibly innocuous
scene in the writers and readers minds alike. This imagery in turn leads to the next
image of a perfect union/peace, the stage before any individuation and culturation. The
boundary between Christ and believer is erased and a tension between them
disappears.
This image of devouring Jesus connotes another aspect: maximization of
affection. A symbolic function of cannibalism is the expression of affection in the infantile
manner, as noted in ch. 2. This expression of maximized affection can be discerned also
in the fact that the house is frequently symbolized as the womans body. In this
121[11] J. Cheryl Exum, Fragmented Women (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1993), 47; especially, the symbolic nuance of the house may have been the same
to John in light of the fact that in Johns times female space is limited to the house or
village. Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World (Louisville, Ky.: John Knox, 1981),
43.

122[12] Jurij Lotman, The Origin of Plot in the Light of Typology Poetics Today 1.

(1979): 170.
123[13] Elizabeth Bronfen, Over Her Dead Body (New York: Routledge, 1992), 65-

66.

symbolism the image of Jesus entering the womans body inescapably summons up the
imagery of sexual union as an expression of affection.
The Old Testament background of this verse, the beginning part of the Song of
Songs ch. 5., makes the sexual connotation more poignant and prominent.
Commentators have suggested that the scene of Jesus knocking at the door is derived
from the scene of the man knocking at his lovers door in Cant. 5: 2 (I slept but my heart
was awake. Listen! My lover is knocking: Open to me, my sister, my darling, my dove,
my flawless one. My head is drenched with dew, my hair with the dampness of the
night.).124[14] When one looks into Cant. 5:2, one cannot avoid seeing an image of
sexual union embedded in the verse.
For instance in v. 4, according to Duane Garrett, just means a hole (e.g.,
Ezek. 8: 7, 2 Kgs. 12: 10) or a cave (e.g., Job 30: 6), although other
commentators125[15] attempt to apply the meaning latch opening here without
evidence. Here the attempt of the man to put his hand in the hole connotes a sexual
nuance, especially considering that the hand is a well known euphemism of male
genitals in the Old Testament (e.g., Isa. 57: 8, 10). 126[16]
Garrett continues to argue that her fingers dripping with myrrh on the handles of
the bolt in v. 5 also evokes a sexual union image, in that myrrh symbolizes sexual
pleasure in the Song (1: 13, 4: 6, etc.), the bolt suggests male genitals, and fingers

124[14] G. K. Beale, 308; G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation (London:

Oliphants, 1974), 107; Grant R. Osborne, Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2002), 212, etc.

125[15] For example, M. V. Fox, The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love

Songs

(Madison:

Univ.

of

Wisconsin

Press,

1985),

144,

et.

al.

126[16] Duane Garrett, Song of Songs, vol. 23 B of Word Biblical Commentary

(Nashville: Thompson Nelson Publishers, 2004), 209-209.

suggest the female. Here Garrett does not draw the symbolic meanings of fingers and
bolts from biblical usage but from the context. 127[17]
Alternatively, applying Mary Douglass body symbolism discussed below in ch. 4.
1. ii, one could argue that the finger is the most marginal part and thereby indicates the
boundary of the body. Then her fingers dripping with the myrrh, which is a symbol of
sexual pleasure, may symbolize the fact that the source of pleasure is on the boundary
of the body. When the boundary is broken like a myrrh jar, the pleasure in it will flow out.
The part her fingers on the handles of the bolt corroborates the above interpretation,
for the boundary breaking between man and woman can be expressed by opening the
door, the boundary between the two persons spaces.
Nonetheless, it is sufficient merely to feel the imagery of sexual union flowing
from the text and it could be excessive to go further and meticulously search out an
exact significance for each item. Andr Lacocque judges felicitously the symbolic
interpretations of various scholars on v. 2 and others around it in the Song of Songs 5 as
follows: The only mistake they make isnot in seeing the obvious. Even if one takes
the scene at face value, it remains that the sexual connotation is so crystal clear that it is
not required from any reader to have read Freud beforehand. 128[18]
The cannibalistic act in the implied Eucharistic setting in 3: 20-21 symbolizes not
only maximized affection but also the incorporation of the power of the eaten, for as
noted in ch. 1, devouring someone is a symbol of devouring all the features of the
devoured. This feature can be noticed in 3:21. Christ here promises the right to sit with
him on his throne to anyone who overcomes. That is, the power and authority Christ
possesses is transferred to those overcoming. Can one be certain that this overcoming
127[17] Garrett, 210-211.

128[18] Andr Lacocque, Romance, She Wrote (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International,

1998),

117.

is correlated to the eating of Jesus flesh and blood? If so, how much power and
authority is shifted to those devouring?
First, who are those that overcome (Rev. 3:21)? The text in issue (Rev. 3:20-21)
is situated in the message to the Laodicean church. Therefore, it may be beneficial to
probe Johns view on the situation of the church, and the key word here could be being
lukewarm. Rev. 3:16 (So, because you are luckwarm -- neither hot nor cold -- I am
about to spit you put of my mouth) seems to indicate that the object the Laodiceans
should triumph over is being lukewarm. The meaning of being lukewarm can be
explained partly by the dualistic viewpoint of Revelation. As noted in ch. 1: the
introduction, from Johns perspective, the early Christians were not resisting the
temptation to gain wealth and power by conforming to the Roman system. In this view,
the famous wealth of the Laodiceans (v. 17) may have been regarded as a reward for
cooperating with the Roman imperial structure. Then being lukewarm could be taken
as having too accommodating an attitude: straddling the fence and refusing to take one
side, which extremely offends the dualistic tendency of Revelation.
In addition, if one recalls the image of sexual union completely
committed/consummated love in v. 20, the countervailing imagery of the Laodicean,
ambivalent attitude, being lukewarm, stands out. Here the desire of Christ to have
complete union with the church members is diametrically opposed to the ambivalent
attitude of the Laodiceans.
If the Laodicean church maintains that ambivalent attitude, they will be spat out of
the mouth of Christ (3:16). As noted in ch. 2, cannibalism can imply affection and/or
revulsion. If the object is in the mouth, at least that object has a possibility of being
eaten, and so being loved/respected, with some occasional revulsion. The result of
being devoured will be intermixing with those devouring one way or another. However,
being spewed out of the mouth means not having anything to do with them any more.

The possibility of a relationship vanishes. The possibility of being incorporated

disappears.
However, if the Laodiceans change their attitude, they will be provided the
opportunity of consuming Christ (3:20-21) and achieving his divine power. As noted in
ch. 2, the devouring incorporates the features of the devoured in the cannibals mindset.
This is evinced in Jesus giving his power to those overcoming, those devouring Jesus
completely. What could it have meant to sit with Christ on his throne? How much
authority can they share with Christ?
Aune enumerates various ancient examples of the image of a bisellium, a doublethrone, citing other scholars: for instance, Augustus is described as seated with Dea
Roma side by side on a single throne,129[19] or as C. Markschiess collection shows,130

[20] two deities such as Zeus and Hera, Hades and Persephone are frequently depicted
as seated on a throne. 131[21] Aune concludes from these examples that the theological
implication of a double-throne is the equality between those who share the throne.
In the Judaic tradition too, sitting side by side with God has a particular meaning.
According to Aune, In Revelation the heavenly beings are occasionally described as
standing before the throne of God (7:9, 11; 8:2). This coheres with a widespread rabbinic
notion (with roots in the Old Testament) that only God was allowed to be seated in
heaven and that all who entered the heavenly court or surrounded the throne had to

129[19] N. Hannestad, Roman Art and Imperial Policy (Aarhus: Aarhus UP, 1988), 78-82,

with

fig.

51.

C. Markschies, Sessio ad Dexteram: Bemerkungen zu einem

altchristlichen Bekenntnismotiv in der christologischen Diskussion der altkirchlichen
Theologen. in Le Trne de Dieu, ed. M. Philonenko (Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1993),
260 -265.
130[20]

131[21] Aune, Revelation 1-5, 262.

stand (1 Kgs. 22:19, Isa 6:2, 1 Enoch 14:22,). 132[22] That is, sitting with God per se
was on the verge of receiving divine power.
Rev. 3: 20-21 is situated in the Eucharistic ritual, and thereby it symbolizes the
formation of the identity of Christians. The identity is made by having union with Christ in
the (implied) ritual eating, which abounds in an affectionate sentiment. Christ promises
he will let those devouring him completely sit on his throne as he sits with his Father on
his throne. This in turn leads to the idea of deification of those overcoming, letting them
possess the same divinity as Jesus and God do. In this process, their new divine identity
is created. Behind all this is the cannibalistic way of thinking, in which the eater identifies
with the eaten and the former gains all the features of the latter.

ii. Slain Lamb (5: 6; 10: 8ff)

Beginning with Rev. 5, the figure of the Lamb plays an increasingly important role
in the unfolding drama. Many scholars view this image of the Lamb as derived from the
Passover Lamb and Isaiah 53 in the Old Testament. For instance, Beale claims that the
word (lamb), behind which could lie the Aramaic word talia with a double
meaning of lamb, and servant (or boy), might have been intentionally chosen for
expressing the double symbols of the Passover Lamb and the servant of Isaiah 53. 133

[23]
One could argue that unlike the vicarious sacrifice of Isaiah 53, the Passover
Lamb did not originally imply any meaning of a sin-offering as in Isa. 53: 8 f. To this
possible objection, J. P. M. Sweet argues that in Isa. 53: 9 f. the redemptive blood of the
Lamb still echoes the Passover Lamb in that by the first century AD it had attained
132[22] Ibid., 352.

133[23] Beale, 351; c.f. Norman Hillyer, The Lamb in the Apocalypse, Evangelical

Quarterly

39

(1967),

228;

Revelation

1-5,

353.

enormous significance: expiation of sin, atonement with God, the crossing of the Red
Sea and the covenant at Sinai all sprang from its virtue. 134[24]
Robert J. Daly similarly argues that the Lamb here is the Passover Lamb.
According to him, the Lamb as slain has a connotation of sacrifice, and from the
background of Jewish sacrifices there are two possibilities in the identification of this
lamb: a daily sacrifice and the Passover Lamb. He prefers the latter for there is massive
evidence that early Christians looked upon Jesus as the Passover Lamb (cf. esp. 1 Cor.
5: 7), while there is a lack of evidence pinpointing the daily sacrifice for a symbolic
expression of Jesus death.135[25] Elisabeth Schsler Fiorenza points out the exodus
typology (cf. Rev. 5: 9-10; 15:3-4 and the plague visions) as the grounds for taking it as
the Passover Lamb.136[26] Therefore, I concur that the Lamb in Rev. stems from the
image of the Passover Lamb invested with the redemptive power.
Projecting Jesus onto the Passover Lamb implies that he is consumed by the
believers. Thus, the cannibalistic mentality operates again. Then what features of the
Lambs are transferred to those consuming the Lamb? The seven horns and seven eyes
in 5: 6 summarize the power and authority the Lamb possesses. In the Judaic tradition
horns frequently epitomize power (Jer. 48: 25; Dan. 7-20-21; 1 Enoch 90: 37, etc.) and
eyes divine omniscience or omnipresence (2 Chr 16: 9; Sir 11: 12; 1 Pet 3: 12, etc.).

134[24] J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1979),

124; Robert J. Daly from a broader perspective relates that by the beginning of the
Christian era there was a strong Judaic tendency to attach the atoning effect to all
sacrifices. Robert J. Daly, Christian Sacrifice (Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University
of America Press, 1978), 95.

135[25] Daly, 300.

136[26] Schsler Fiorenza, 95-96.

Considering that the number seven symbolizes completeness, the seven horns and eyes
are a symbol of the Lambs complete omnipotence and omniscience. 137[27]
As noted above, the image of the Lamb evokes the believers eating of it. When
this mighty Lamb is consumed, his strengths are transferred to the consuming people.
Thus, in parallel with the Lambs power, the chosen or his eaters also are described as
invested with power in Rev. 5:10. The Lamb is slain and makes them reign on the earth
as priests and a kingdom (5:9-10). Here, the part of their eating the Lamb after slaying it
is omitted but implied. The process of transferring the power occurs in the consumption
session.
Especially in consideration of the Old Testament background of the statement
that the Lamb has made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve God (Rev. 5:10a),
this is not a sheer transferring of the properties of the eaten but the very identity in
general. Rev. 5: 10a is an allusion to Exod. 19: 6, 138[28] where God states that the
Israelites will be a kingdom and priests for him, at Mount Sinai, after they left Egypt.
Right after this scene, the covenant of the ten commandments is given to them. That is,
the statement is indicative of Gods willingness to draw them out of Egypt and to forge a
new identity for them. In Rev. 5: 10, the statement is adapted to the early Christians.

137[27] Aune, Revelation 1-5, 353- 354; Beale, 355; G. B. Caird, A Commentary

on the Revelation of St. John the Divine (New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, 1966),
75; Especially, in light of how Foucaults panopticism of viewing observing as
containing power, for watching over the acts of those observed makes the latter act
according to what the observer wants, can be applied to Gods or the Lambs all-seeing
eyes forming the standard as to how Gods people act, and thus, ultimately their identity,
in Revelation, the Lambs omnipotence and omniscience are closely connected with
each other, in terms of the power to forge identity. Cf., Michel Foucault, Discipline and
Punish (New York: Vintage, 1979), 195-228; Harry O. Maier, Apocalypse Recalled
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 64-71; Maier, Staging the Gaze, Harvard
Theological Review 90:2 (1997): 140-143; Frilingos, Spectacles of Empire, 82.
138[28] Aune, Revelation 1-5, 362.

They consume the very symbol of Church, Jesus, and thereby take on the true identity of
Christians.
The Lambs omniscience/omnipotence is transferred to the chosen later in 10: 8
ff., too. In ch. 5 the most prominent manifestation of his omniscience is his ability to open
the seals. After opening them, he reveals the revelation of what is to come in the future.
A similar pattern is repeated in 10: 8 ff. Scholars debate the relationship between ch. 5
and ch. 10, centering on whether the scroll in ch. 10 is the same scroll as ch. 5.
Aune summarizes the two opinions. Those arguing for the similarity of the two
scrolls base their claim on the fact that: 1) (5:1-9; 10:8) and ,
(10:2, 9-10) are synonymous; 2) The phrase I saw another mighty angel
(10:1) refers back to 5:2; 3) The two scrolls in ch. 5 and 10 are modeled on Ezek. 2: 910, 2:8-3:3 respectively; 4) All the seals of the scroll of ch. 5 are broken at 8:1, and
thereafter naturally appears open at 10: 2; 5) in light of Dan 12: 6-9, John regarded the
scroll of Rev 10 as the one that had been sealed and now opened; 6) the real content of
the revelation is contained in the scroll of Rev. 10, and is revealed after ch. 10. 139[29]
The weighty argument against the above is: 1) the scroll in 10: 8 has an
anaphoric article, thus referring back to the scroll in 10: 2, which is anarthrous and
therefore cannot refer back to the scroll in ch. 5; 2) the scroll in Ezekiel is open but the
scroll of Rev 5 is sealed and gradually opened (6: 1- 8: 1), and the little scroll is brought
down from heaven to the Seer already opened (10: 2a); 3) the mission of John in 10: 11
is to prophesy again against peoples, not to them.140[30]
In my view, it seems to be sufficient to notice the similarity of the structures and
contents of the chapters 5 and 10, centering on the scroll. Why are they so similar? Is it
139[29] David E. Aune, Revelation 6-16, vol. 52 B of Word Biblical Commentary

(Nashville:
140[30] Ibid.

Thomas

Nelson,

1998),

571.

not a symbolic expression of incorporating the omniscience of the Lamb, 141[31] who
could open the scroll, so as to reveal the secrets? The Seer himself is ordered to reveal
the revelation himself after eating the little scroll (10:11). In ch. 11 this becomes
visualized by the image of two witnesses prophesying to people. Their powerful
revelation is symbolized by fire coming from their mouths (11: 5). 142[32]
If one presumes that the image of the Lamb evokes that of eating Jesus, this may
come to the fore in the scene that the Seer repeats the Lambs original act of revelationrevealing. That is, unconsciously the Seer could sandwich the process of eating Jesus
into the Seers actualizing the Lambs power. Then the process by which to incorporate
the omniscience of the Lamb is rendered as eating it and being endowed with the power
of the eaten. Besides, eating the little scroll could be corroborating evidence. Could
eating the little scroll be a symbol of the consumption of Jesus? There may be a link
between the two acts at least symbolically.
First, in ch. 10: 2, 9-10, and (little book) are used instead
of (book) (5:1-9), though the latter is also used in 10:8. The diminutive ending

141[31] According to Mircea Eliade, mythical mentality always highly regards the origin of

an event or act in primordial times. That original event or act can be re-created by a
return to sources. Here the mythically oriented Seer may engage in a similar act: recreating the original act with an aim of benefiting from it. Mircea Eliade, Myth and Reality
(Prospect
Heights:
Waveland
Press,
Inc.,
1963),
21-38.
142[32] According to Aune, the motif of fire emanating from a persons mouth was

used as a metaphor for speaking forth the word of God, usually in a situation of rebuke
and condemnation (Jer 5:14b, etc.). id., Revelation 6-16, 613.

- in the two words occurs in the word (Lamb) as well. Might John unconsciously
have placed this ending to the end of to link it with the Lamb somehow? 143

[33] Otherwise what could be the function of the books size?

Secondly, in 19:13 the title the Word of God is used to describe the divine
warrior Jesus dressed in a robe dipped in (Eucharistic? 144[34]) blood. The Judaic
tradition, which continued in the New Testament, had favored the metaphor that Gods
word is food.145[35] Can it then be said that in the little scroll, Jesus, Gods word of
judgment, is written and ready to be eaten as food? As Aune points out, the bitterness of
the little scroll (10: 10) could be another expression of dirges, laments, and words of
woes in Ezekiels scroll (Ezek. 2: 10). 146[36] Thus, the mission of the Seer is to prophesy
against peoples (10: 11).
Thirdly, as Aune argues, the phrase take and eat in 10: 9b has a parallel in the
eucharistic147[37] words of Jesus (Matt. 26:26; Mk. 14:22 [var. lect.]). Perhaps the Seer
143[33] In parallel, Freud points out how a petty syllable can be used as an
association in the dream. For instance, Freud breaks down the word Authodidasker he
heard in his dream into several words, among which is the name Lasker, and finds an
association between the situation around the name and his dream contents. The
Interpretation of Dreams, 229; for a similar method of juxtaposition of similarities in
Artemidoruss dream interpretations, see Artemidorus, Onir. 1. 67, 1.68, 2.12; Miller, 8688.

144[34] This scene (v. 13) comes before the eschatological war is launched (v. 19),

therefore the blood is that of the slain Lamb and cannot be others blood, as Rissi
argues. Mathias Rissi, The Future of the World (London: SCM Press LTD, 1966); In
addition, in v. 17, the order for the birds to eat the kings at the great supper of God
echoes
the
Eucharistic
setting
in
a
twisted,
parodic
way.
145[35] Gillian Feeley-Harnik, The Lords Table (Washington and New York:
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1981), 82-85.

146[36] Aune, Revelation 6-16, 572.

147[37] When one takes into consideration some early Christians effort to situate

the Lords Supper in the Passover feast, one has to note the Eucharistic setting behind
the ostensible Passover Lamb image, although the Eucharistic tone is hidden in the
Passover Lamb image: As Raymond Moloney S.J. points out, only the Synoptic Gospels

may have had the Eucharistic setting in mind in using the phrase take and eat. If one
assumes that the content of the little book is eschatological events then it is natural that
the book is situated in the Eucharistic setting, a ritual evoking eschatology.
Fourthly, eating Jesus creates Christian identity in the eaters. From a broader
view, in ch. 11 after the scene of eating the little scroll, the two witnesses follow in the
footsteps of Jesus and are murdered/resurrected (in Jerusalem) and taken up. It could
be that the story of the two witnesses is a manifestation of the result of symbolically
eating and identifying with Jesus and thereby repeating his basic life pattern. Especially,
in v. 8, it is emphasized that their suffering and death are patterned after those of Jesus
by mentioning that they suffered and died at the same city where also their Lord was
crucified. This specific focus on emulation of the suffering of their founders body may
be a symptom of the awareness of the Christian-identity-making. 148[38]
The slain Lamb in Rev. 5:6 is closely related with the Passover Lamb, which in turn
symbolizes the creation of the true identity of Christians differentiated from Rome, in that
the Passover Lamb is evocative of the creation of a new people of Israelites in the
context of the exodus. In the ritual context of the Passover, the Lamb in itself evokes the
believers consuming it. This cannibalistic implication is demonstrated in the Lambs
divine propertys being transferred to the eaters (Rev. 5:10). The similar pattern of the
consumption of the Lamb and the transferal of power is repeated in Rev. 10:8ff. In all this

assume the Last Supper was a Passover, while the Fourth Gospel implies that it is not
(18:29; 19: 31). He also points out that little use is made of the Passover in interpreting
the Eucharist in the epistles and Gospels. Raymond Moloney S.J. The Eucharist
(Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1995), 46-47. Most likely the compromise of
Raymond Brown can be useful here, i.e., that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal
in the rigid sense but had Passover characteristics. Raymond Brown, The Gospel
According to John, I-XII (New York: Doubleday/ London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966), 556.
148[38] Cf., Perkins, 13.

process, the believers identify with the Lamb, not Rome, which in turn again restores
their true identity.
iii. Marriage Banquet (19:9; 21:2, 9)
At the last scene of the eschatological drama, the Seer pictures a wedding
between the Bride and the Lamb. Ruben Zimmermann rightly argues that whereas a
final supper was associated with the eschatological celebration in Judaism, directly
associating the eschatological supper with a wedding supper was introduced in early
Christianity.149[39] Here again, as Julia Gatta points out, the Christian eucharistic motif is
apparent and the marriage can be consummated by consuming the Lamb. 150[40]
As noted above, one of the Eucharistic motifs is the union with the deity. This
union can be represented in the form of consuming the beloved out of affection (as
noted in ch. 2) and consummating the marriage with the beloved by penetrating the
body. In both metaphors, the boundary between the bodies is breached. The evident
affection evinced in these metaphors becomes more prominent, in contrast with the evil
counterparts and in comparison of God and Christ in the metaphor.
Zimmermann notes that John contrasts the whoring of the Harlot with the
wedding of the Lamb. For instance, the bride (the New Jerusalem) is given to the Lamb,
the celestial king (singular) in 19: 7-8, while the harlot (Rome) fornicates with many
earthly kings (plural); the harlot intoxicates the earthly inhabitants (17: 2) and all peoples
(18: 3), while in the good camp, the virginal 144, 000 (14:4) as brides and the wedding
guests (19:9) are given to the bridegroom, etc. 151[41]
149[39] Ruben Zimmermann, Nuptial Imagery in the Revelation of John, Biblica 84, no.

(2003):

166.

150[40] Julia Gatta, The Marriage of the Bride and the Lamb, Sewanee

Theological Review 35: 2 (1992): 178.

151[41]

Zimmermann,

180-181.

A cannibalistic motif in the above wedding-whoring theme is found in the fact that
the ten kings make the harlot naked, and eat her and burn her with fire out of hatred (17:
16). Here, a consensual consummation of the Lambs marriage is reversed in that the
whores being left naked obviously evokes a gang rape by the 10 kings. She is also
eaten and burned out of revulsion, while the Lamb is usually burned first and then eaten
out of affection.
The symbolism of cannibalism in relation to the symbol of wedding can be seen
in another way, when Christ is compared with God in the metaphor of marriage. That is,
when it comes to the direct metaphor of marriage, John carefully makes the figure of
God vanish and foregrounds the Lamb as the bridegroom as in the wedding supper of
the Lamb in 19: 9 or the bride, the wife of the Lamb in 21: 9. This comes as no
surprise in light of the symbolism of cannibalism. Already the symbol of the Lamb, the
eaten, includes radicalized affection. The convergence of this cannibalistic symbolism
and conjugal union metaphor serves to doubly enhance the effect of the symbols of
mutual love.
The intimacy and closeness pervading this chapter can be noticed also in the
metaphors of house. Right after the introduction of the Lambs bride, in 21: 3, Gods
dwelling is said to be with his people. In 21: 22 the theme of intimacy and affection goes
farther. As Eugene M. Boring suggests, it seems that the New Jerusalem in verse 2 is
the dwelling of God, because right after the scene in which the New Jerusalem
descends from heaven, the statement appears that Gods dwelling is with people. 152[42]
In addition, in 21: 22, the direct presence of God and the Lamb replaces the temple,
Gods house, in the New Jerusalem. Then the house of God becomes the New
Jerusalem, and God and the Lamb reside in the city-cum-their house.

152[42] Eugene M. Boring, Revelation, (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1989), 215.

As noted above, in psychoanalytic symbolism, the house frequently symbolizes

the human body, especially, the womans body. The relevant passages in Revelation
strengthen this insight, for in 21: 9-10, the bride is identified with the city-cum-the
deitys house. The deity resides symbolically in the brides body, which strongly evokes
the sexual union, and its attendant, extreme intimacy/affection. This deitys being in the
body of the bride also circuitously reminds one of the symbolic meanings of cannibalism.
The Eucharistic rite in itself includes a concept of eating the divinity and inviting it into
their inner heart. That is, these two symbolic acts are two sides of the same coin.
Both acts, consummation and consuming, implies the breaking of the boundary of
their bodies. When the boundary is breached, the features of one body flow into the
other body. The eater can incorporate the virtues and strengths of the eaten. This is
demonstrated by 21: 7 that the overcoming people will inherit all the new creations, for
they will be the sons of God. Gods things are inherited by, or transferred to his adopted
children.
The transfer of Gods property is visualized more dramatically in the metaphor of
the precious stones in 21: 11, 18-21 and 4: 3, 6. In 4: 3, 6 the appearance of God is
described with (semi-) precious stones: jasper, carnelian, emerald, and crystal. These
stones reappear in the description of the bride which is the community of saints and the
New Jerusalem (21: 9, 11, 18-21).153[43] How are these lists of stones connected with
each other?
Scholars have attempted to extract a specific meaning from each stone.
However, as William W. Reader points out, the result of those attempts seems beneficial
only for saving time which could be wasted in searching for the answer. 154[44] And most
153[43] The Whore and Babylon also have the similar precious stones (e.g., 17:4; 18:12).

However, John distinguishes his heavenly wealth from the earthly by stressing the
pureness
of
his
wealth.
Cf.,
below,
176.
154[44] William W. Reader, The Twelve Jewels of Revelation 21: 19-20, Journal
of Biblical Literature 100: 3 (Sep., 1981): 455-457.

likely it would be more fruitful to search for a general meaning of the stones. Especially,
in our setting, what is the meaning of the transfer of these stones?
According to Beale, in the Old Testament theophany scenes (Ezk. 1: 26, 9:
2(LXX), 10:1(LXX), Exod. 28: 17-21, etc.) precious stones are used to describe Gods
appearance in which divine glory is manifested, and the stones are directly related to
divine glory in Rev. 21: 10-11, 18-21; 21:11. 155[45] If one assumes that the symbolic
meaning of the stones is divine glory, one cannot help but think that the divine glory
expressed in 4: 3, 6 is transferred to the Lambs bride in 21: 11, 18-21. This symbolic
transfer of the divine glory seems significant against the background of the metaphor of
wedding and the Eucharist. The latter symbols, as noted above, are predicated on the
conception of the boundary-breaking. Especially in the symbol of the Eucharist, the eater
assumes the strengths of the eaten. The transfer of the divine glory is the result of the
cannibalism.
The wedding theme in Rev. 21:2ff implies the consummation of the wedding,
which can be aligned with the theme of cannibalism, in that both acts involve the
penetration of the boundary between the two parties: believers and deity. That is, both
acts symbolize total union. In this total union, the divine property flows into the believers,
which is symbolized by the transference of precious stones (4:3, 6; 21:9, 11, 18, 21).
This total union and even sharing divine features are opposed to the whoring of Rome
and the ten kings/merchants (e.g., 18:3). That is, here, it is taught that the true identity of
Christians is established in the union with Christ, as opposed to mixing with the Roman

155[45] Beale, 320-321; Una Jart conjectures that the reason precious stones are
used in theophanies is that they emit a radiance and light has often been utilized to
depict God as in Ps. Civ. 2; Midrash Rabbah, Bereshith, ch. Ii. 2 on Gen. i.2. Una Jart,
The Precious Stones in the Revelation of St. John xxi. 18-21, Studia Theologica 24
(1970): 150-151.

environment. Now we turn from the theme of the believers consumption of Christ to the
topic of the dragons attempt to devour the infant.

2. Dragons Attempt to Devour Infant

The scene of the dragon attempting to devour the not-yet born infant in Rev. 12: 4
is loaded with a significant question of church identity being threatened and
dispossessed by the Roman Empire. It has two-layered symbolic meanings. First, the
Church, symbolized by the infant, is in danger of accommodating to Rome too much.
Second, attributing of cannibalistic savagery and brutality to Rome provides a just cause
for the Church to culturally or symbolically colonize the Empire. The two symbolic
meanings can be understood more clearly from Saids and Fanons perspectives,
respectively.

i. Fanon: Not to be Consumed by Empire (12: 1-6, 13-17)

12: 1-13: 8 is commonly labeled as the heart of Revelation for it is most clearly
expressive of the main theme of the book, war between good and evil. 156[46] In this
fierce struggle between the godly forces and the satanic forces, one observes a strong

156[46]

Osborne,

454.

dualism. In this mode of thinking, the evil forces should be demolished and removed
completely.
This drama of fierce battles is composed of several scenes of conflict between a
character from the good camp and one from the bad. Among them, what captures our
attention the most is the scene of the dragon attempting to devour a child (12: 4). How
should one interpret this horrendous scene? Should one take it as an attempt of the
imperial assimilation of the Church? To reach this conclusion, one needs to identify the
dragon and the child.
According to Beale, the character of the dragon was used to signify an evil kingdom
persecuting Gods people in the Judaic tradition: frequently, the dragon was a symbol of
the evil kingdom of Egypt (Pss. 73[74]: 13-14; 89: 10; Isa. 27: 1; 30: 7; 51: 9; Ezek. 29:
3; 32: 2-3; Hab. 3: 8-15, etc.), and it is other times identified as Rome in Pss. Sol. 2: 2930 and Sib. Or. 8.88157[47]. In this tradition John stands, for his dragon is identified as an
evil kingdom, i.e., Rome, in a replay of the exodus pattern 158[48] in Rev. 12: just as the
evil Egypt chased Israel into the wilderness, so now the dragon/Rome chases the
woman/Gods new Israel/the Church. Beale also claims that Johns designation a great
dragon ( , Rev. 12: 3, 9) is based on Pharaoh the great dragon (
, Ezek. 29: 3), which is situated in the prophecy against the sea
monster159[49] Egypt in 29: 1-5, and that Johns dragon is also closely connected with

157[47] For more on the historicization of the dragons image in the Judaic tradition, see

The Anchor Bible, s.v. Dragon and Sea, Gods Conflict with, 229-230.
158[48] For more on the Exodus pattern in Rev. 12, see num. 169, below.

159[49] As Timothy K. Beal points out, Leviathan and the sea monster in Jewish

biblical tradition are consistently translated as the dragon in the LXX. Timothy K. Beal,
Religion and Its Monsters (New York: Routledge, 2001), 79.

the sea (12: 18; 13:1; 15: 2). Beale concludes that in Johns context, the dragon in ch. 12
is a symbol of Rome.160[50]
Beale continues to claim that the dragon is also Satan, the representative head of
evil kingdoms, as Revelation itself explicitly notes (12: 9; 20: 2, 10). 161[51] The apparent
contradiction is resolved in the fact that the two figures, Rome and Satan, are not
different from each other so much. That is, the dragon is closely identified with the
beast/Rome162[52] in Johns schema. First, the similarity of their appearances is
emphasized. Both the dragon/Satan and the beast/Rome have seven heads and ten
horns and diadems on their heads (12: 3; 13: 1); the color of the dragon is red (12: 3),
and similarly the beasts color is scarlet (17: 3). Secondly, the beast arises from the sea
right after the moment that the dragon stands on the shore of the sea (13: 1), which
strengthens the impression that the beast is closely related to the dragon. Most of all, to
it [the beast] the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority (13: 2; cf. 13:
4). Rome is represented by John, then, as an instrument or extension of Satans power,
as Aune argues.163[53] This could be the reason that John overlaps Rome and Satan in
the image of the dragon. For John, the two enemies, Satan and Rome, cannot be
separated.164[54]
160[50] G. Beale, 632-633.

161[51] G. Beale, 633-634.

162[52] Approximately all commentators note that the beast in 13: 1-2 has the
combined traits of the four beasts (Dan. 7:1-8), the symbols of powerful empires (Dan. 7:
17) and thus that the beast points to Rome, Johns formidable enemy Empire. For
instance, R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetica Commentary on the Revelation of St.
John, vol I (Edinburgh: T and T Clark: 1920), 345.

163[53] Aune, Revelation 6-16, 734-736.

164[54] In parallel, the condensing more than one meaning into one image is
observed frequently in dreams. Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams, 212-232.

Johns squeezing Rome and its patron, Satan, into the symbol of the dragon
corresponds well with his piling up the images of Church and its originator, Christ, in the
figure of the child. At first in 12: 4-5, the child looks like a figure of Christ. Beale argues
that it is the abbreviated description of Christs entire life: his birth, his destiny of
kingship, and his ascension after resurrection. 165[55] However, as Aune points out, there
are striking variances from the tradition: 1) unlike the ascension narrative in Lk. 24 and
Acts 1, here Christ is immediately snatched after birth; 2) the ascension of Jesus is not
described as a divine rescue from the Satan; 3) there are no references to the cross and
resurrection.166[56]
In this sense, one should say that the child image is only evocative of Jesus and
highlights only part of Jesus life: his birth, destiny, and ascension. Then why only these
selective emphases in Jesus life? Possibly, as regards this, Beale is right to claim that it
is for using the Christ figure to symbolize the general church. As he contends, Christs
representing the church, as its origin and whole, is recorded in the other New Testament
writings, too. Christ is the author of its faith (Heb. 12:2), the first fruits (1 Cor. 15:23),
the womans firstborn (1:5; 2:8; Col. 1:18), the church is his body, etc. 167[57] That is,
Jesus is regarded as the beginning/origin of the church in the New Testament, which
may be the reason that he is depicted as a child even at the ascension. John here uses
the infant figure to symbolize the Church that embodies the essence of Christianity,
Christ.

165[55] G. Beale, 639.

166[56]

Aune,
167[57] G. Beale, 639.

Revelation

6-16,

689.

Especially, when one probes the passage of his destiny of kingship (who will rule
all the nations with an iron scepter Rev. 12:5), the double symbolism of the passage
becomes clear. This is an allusion to Psalms 2: 9, and it occurs in two other verses in
Revelation (2: 27, and 19: 15). In 19: 15, the ruling is attributed to Jesus Christ, while in
2: 27 to him who overcomes is given the authority to rule nations with an iron scepter.
In light of the context of the church in Thyatira (2: 18-29), those who overcome in 2: 27
are people who resist Jezebels temptation of accommodation. That is, here the Christ
child is a symbol of the true Christians opposing the accommodating tendency.
If one considers only one side of the symbolic meanings of the dragon and the
child, the dragon is identified as the Roman Empire and the child as the true Christians.
In light of the symbolism of the body-eating, the scene of the dragon attempting to eat
the child symbolizes the threat of the Empire to accommodate the Christians and thus
eliminate its identity. This is a typical example of the Fanonian approach to the image of
humanity-consumption. Here is hidden Johns fear and anxiety over the lack of a true
identity of the Church in the Empire. This theme of conflict between Church and Empire
is repeated two more times in ch. 12.
The first is the suffering and pain of the woman in labor (12: 2). As illustrated
above in Lacans theory, the breaking or deformation of the body symbolizes a breaking
of the ego or identity. Then, since the birthing process involves a bursting open of the
womans body, it could signify an effort to remove an old identity and even implicitly a
creation of a true Christian identity.
In addition, in Old Testament metaphors, the image of the pregnant woman in
birth pangs and her deliverance are used for Israel suffering foreign captivity on the one
hand, and liberation/restoration of the Israelite nation on the other.168[58] When Lacans
168[58] For instance, Isa. 26: 17-18 LXX; 66: 7-9; Mic. 4: 9-10; 5:3; cf. Hos. 13: 13. G.

Beale,

630.

theory is applied to this traditional metaphor, the symbolic meaning of the pregnant
woman in birth pangs and her deliverance could be the grueling process of the creation
of national identity. In Revelation, that image would mean the making of the true identity
of the Church.
In Johns view, the Church is taken captive by Rome in that their identity is
blurred by accommodation to Rome. The birth of the child is comparable to the
restoration of Israel after captivity. The body of the child is the symbol of the restored
Church. In his body is involved the true identity of the Church. The creation of the child
body is nothing other than the restoration of the lost Church identity. That is, the scene of
the woman in birthing may be another expression of a fierce struggle to come out of the
zone of the blurred identity induced by other accommodationist Christians such as
Jezebel and to restore the true Church identity.
This theme of defending the identity of Christians in contrast to the Other, is
repeated once again in the Exodus theme169[59] in the womans adventures after
birthing. Collins is right to identify the background of the Exodus theme in the dragons
pursuit of the woman170[60] (12: 13-16) in the enactment of the Exodus for the
reconciliation between God and Israel in Hosea (2: 14-15). 171[61] Here God pushes the
harlot-wife to remember their first love in the wilderness, hoping to restore the
169[59] The scene of the dragon spewing out water to the woman and the earth

swallowing the water to save her (v. 16) evokes the event at the Red Sea. At that time
the Israelite was escaping from the Egyptian dragon, Pharaoh. (Caird, 152, 158.) The
three and a half years or forty-two months in v. 6 and 14 also echoes the Exodus event,
in that Israelites wandered in the desert for forty-two years or stages (Num. 33: 5-49) (G.
Beale,
647).
170[60] Beale is right to argue that the woman is a faithful community, for

describing her with the sun, the moon, and twelve stars (12: 1) evokes Josephs dream
in which the sun/moon/stars symbolize Jacob/his wife/the eleven tribes of Israel (Gen.
37: 9; Test. Naph. 5: 3ff.). G. Beale, 625.
171[61] Collins, Combat Myth, 134.

relationship. Now in Rev. 12: 13-16, God urges the Church, the new Israel, to go to the
wilderness and to rid the Church of harlotry.
The symbolism of the child in danger (12: 5) becomes more evident through this
Exodus and wilderness theme. The Exodus and the wilderness time was narratively the
beginning point of the forging of the Israelite identity. Metaphorically speaking, that time
was the childhood or infancy of Israel, which is in parallel to the child in v. 5. The Israelite
nation was at the cusp of birth and yet at risk of being swallowed by the Egyptian again.
Similarly, the restoration of the Church identity is not so simple.
In v. 13 the dragon begins to pursue her and spews out water from his mouth to
overtake the woman. The woman should defend against the attack of the dragon again.
The true character of this struggle becomes manifest in the motif of mouth. As noted in
the introduction, the mouth theme indicates a concern about the blurring of the social
boundary. Even though it is not to devour the woman directly, the dragon attempts to
devour her indirectly by wrapping her up with the water from his mouth. That is, here,
the dragons spewing water from his mouth symbolizes Romes incorporating the
churches in its system.
The theme of the wing is also connected with identity-making: first, the choice of
the the eagles wings for a means of her rescue evokes the traditional metaphor in the
Exodus: You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles
wings and brought you to myself (Exod 19:4). As Beale points out, the imagery of the
eagles wings is frequently used to depict Gods guidance of the Israelite to him in the
Exodus (Exod. 19:4; Deut. 1:31-33; Deut. 32: 10-12), and the carefully composed phrase
the two wings of the great eagle points to the tradition.172[62]

172[62] G. Beale, 669; as regards the symbolism of the bird as representative of the

spiritual sphere, see 103-104 below.

This interpretation is in line with Lacans analysis of the image of wings. As noted
in ch. 2, the growing wings, according to Lacan, is a variant of violent deformation of the
body such as tearing or consuming, a symbol of identity crumbling. Here in Rev. 12: 14
the woman is described as being given the two wings of the great eagle. Then this
could be another indication of the erasing of her old self, or an understood
transformation of her old identity mixed with that of the Roman world. It is a preliminary
theme which is developed to the theme of regaining right identity.
For John, the true Christian identity is obtained by right worship. As Thompson
rightly argues, the abundant scenes of worship in Revelation function to determine the
boundary between Christian community and non-Christian community. For the Seer the
right identity establishing is achieved, most of all, by true worship in opposition to the
imperial cult and other pagan liturgies.173[63]
This identity-making by right worship was not a merely religious issue, in light of
its having been imbricated with other social, political and economic boundaries in ancient
times. For instance, as noted above in the introduction, the issue of eating meat that had
been sacrificed to idols was not limited to religious identity. It meant to be involved in and
thus approve of the Roman imperial social and economic system. That is, performing
true worship was a matter of establishing right social, economic, and political identity.
This theme of identity-making through right worship can be observed in the
adventures of the child and the woman. When the woman is in extreme pain for labor,
the child is at the risk of being devoured by the dragon (12: 2, 4), both symbols of which
mean the danger of being incorporated into Roman society. The rescues of both
characters, woman and child, are put in parallel. That is, the womans flying/fleeing to a
place in the wilderness is juxtaposed with the child being snatched up to Gods throne in
heaven in 12: 5, 6. Here is not only a spatial nearness but also a semantic one.
173[63]

Thompson,

The

Book

of

Revelation,

69-71.

The divine throne to which the child was snatched is the place where right
worship is exercised, in light of the abundant worship scenes at the throne in Revelation.
It can be presumed effortlessly that the child will experience theophany and truthful
worship in heaven, which is the main mechanism by which the true Christian identity is
regulated/created. It is supposed that the child, the true Church, will save himself by
engaging in right worship.
The woman experiences something similar in the wilderness. This presupposition
becomes more concrete in light of the symbolic notion of place () (v. 6, 14). The
woman is taken to a place prepared for her in the desert. According to Beale, is
often used to refer to the temple in the Greek Old Testament, by itself or with adjectives
such as holy (used forty times to indicate the temple, ten times for the Promised Land,
and twenty times for the Promised Land in relation to the sanctuary). Twenty times it is
used to refer to the temple in 2-4 Maccabees. In the New Testament as well this word
is frequently connected with the temple (Matt. 24:15; John 4:20, 48; Acts 6: 13-14;
21: 8a, b). Especially John 14: 2-3 is analogous with Rev. 12: 6 in that the Johannine
Jesus remark to prepare a place is a similar phrase to a place prepared in
Revelation.174[64]
In chapter twelve, dualistic hostility and hatred abounds. The war and conflict
between Church and Rome is visualized with the struggle of the woman and the child on
the one hand and the dragon on the other. The humanity-consumption imagery is a
symbol of the fact that the Empire fiercely attacks the Church to swallow its true identity
and forces its own on the Church. The surest way to defend the identity is to perform
right worship.

ii. Adapted Said: Devouring Empire Soon (12: 4, 7-12)

174[64]

G.

Beale,

649.

In ch. 12, there is observed not only a concern and anxiety about the loss of the Church
identity but also a more aggressive attitude toward Rome. Johns goal does not stop at
only defending the boundary of the Church, but goes beyond: his final aim is to devour
the Roman Empire and for the Church to become an Empire itself. His strategy for this
agenda is to attribute the savageness and cruelty of a child-eating monster to Rome and
thus to justify colonizing the evil Empire in his visionary world. The strategy of
denigrating the Other as (humans-consuming) monsters for justification of colonization
has been used recurrently by colonizers, as the Saidian scholars point out in ch. 2. John,
though being a member of the colonized, appropriates this strategy and uses it against
its original users. Here Spivaks catachresis makes John adapts/adopts the Saidian
strategy.
The dragons savageness and violence is presupposed in ch. 12. At first, the
heavenly forces are savagely and violently attacked as in the case of the child. In v. 4,
the stars are swept away by the dragon. According to Beale, this verse is based on Dan.
8: 10 where the horn grows up and throws down the stars in heaven. The stars in Daniel
8 signify angels who represent saints on earth, and therefore the scene of the stars
falling down represents the angels in heaven and saints on earth, attacked
simultaneously by the evil forces.175[65]
In v. 4, the scene where the stars are swept away by the dragon is juxtaposed
with that of the child in danger of being devoured by the dragon. This juxtaposition leads
the readers to more clearly notice the enemys viciousness and vileness. Sweeping a
third of the stars indicates the quantity of its violence, while attempting to devour the
innocent infant shows the quality of its violence. In short, it is the most savage and
merciless monster.

175[65]

Ibid.,

635.

Especially, these violent acts are both related to rebellion. In Dan. 8: 10-13 to
which Rev. 12: 4 alludes, the act of sweeping some of the starry host is presented in
conjunction with the enemys rebellion, the result of which is to take the daily sacrifice for
him. In the Greek parallel of Nonnos account about Zeus battle with Typhon the dragon,
one of the major acts of rebellion of Typhon against Zeus is to attack the stars (Dion.
1.163-164, 180-181)176[66].
The dragons attempt to devour the child is also connected with the act of rebellion in a
sense. The context of Psalm 2: 9, which Rev. 12: 5 (ruling all the nations with an iron
scepter) alludes to, evokes a kings attempt at rebellion. The kings conspire and plot
against the rule of the Lord and his Anointed One (v. 1, 2). Against this setting, devouring
the child, who will be the Anointed One, means to prevent his legitimate coronation in
advance.
As a result of unmasking Rome, its true character is revealed. It is the most
vicious and vile monster, which rebels against the legitimate rule of the Lord and his
Anointed One. The scene of the dragon attempting to consume the child fits in this
profile of the enemy. When all the causes for taking down Rome and dispossessing it of
its rule over nations and peoples are set down, John is ready to wage war with the evil
Empire.
After the scene of the child-devouring dragon follows the cosmic struggle
between the dragon and Michael the Archangel in heaven (12: 7 ff.). The abrupt change
of scene from the story of the child and woman has made commentators present various
interpretations, for the Seer does not provide any connecting word or phrase between v.
6 and v. 7.177[67] How is this new scene connected with the previous narrative?
176[66]

Collins,

Combat

Myth,

78.

177[67] Beale suggests that v. 7 is a heavenly counterpart of the earthly victory of Jesus

by death and resurrection. G. Beale, 652; Beasley-Murray claims that this war was
caused by Jesus advent. G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation (London:
Oliphants, 1974), 201; Gehard A. Krodel on the other hand holds that this is not a

This intrusive scene of cosmic war may be a projection of the Churchs victory over the
Empire. As Aune points out, in the Old Testament, early Judaism, and early Christianity,
it was believed that the war on earth has a counterpart in a war between their heavenly
representatives: for instance, two patron angels are referred to as the prince of Persia
and the prince of Greece in Dan. 10: 20178[68] and Michael similarly represents Israel
(Dan. 12: 1; 1 Enoch 20: 5; Ps.-Dionysius Areopagita De caelesti hierarchia 9. 2).179[69]
Beale contends that in Daniel, Michael is closely related with the Son of God and both
fight for Israel as her heavenly representatives (cf. Dan. 12:1; 8:11 [LXX, theod.] and 7:
13-27); against this Old Testament background, Michael and his war can be interpreted
as a heavenly counterpart of the childs struggle with the dragon on earth. 180[70]
That is, Michael, the patron angel of the new Israel or the Church, now wages war with
the dragon/Satan, the patron of Rome. Why did this war have to break out? It was an
inevitable choice. In v. 7, Michael and his angels (fought?) is regarded
as a grammatically difficult sentence. According to Beale, the genitive articular infinitive
may denote the result of the initial clause: And there came about war in
heaven, so that Michael and his angels waged war in heaven. However, in the
examples of other Greek writings this usage is found only in specific idiomatic
expressions such as a bare statement of fact for information. 181[71]
chronologically narrated event but only a symbolic expression of Satans wrath against
the church. Gerhard A. Krodel, Revelation (Minneapolis: Augusburg Punlishing House,
1989),
241.
178[68] Aune, Revelation 6-16, 691-692.

179[69] Ibid, 694.

180[70]

G.
181[71] Ibid., 653.

Beale,

651-652.

Rather, Beale convincingly argues:

It is also plausible to see the construction as reflecting a Hebrew idiom in which
the subject precedes the lamed prefix (le) with the infinitive. Indeed, in these
instances the LXX reproduces the wording literally with a nominative subject
preceding a genitive articular infinitive (e.g., Hos. 9:13; Ps. 24(25):14; 1 Chron. 9:
25; Eccles. 3:15). And just as the idiom in the LXX conveys the idea of necessity,
some suggest that the same nuance is included here: Michael and his angels
had
to make war.182[72]
This translation fits in well with the pattern I have traced here. First, the dragon
sweeps away one third of the stars from heaven (v. 4) and attempts to eat the child (v.
4). It now defies the legitimate rule and divine order of the deity. As a result there came
about a war (v. 7). Michael and his angels had to fight back to establish the kingdom of
God (12:7, 10). Here the image of child-eating is used as a part of the strategy to justify
battling against and ultimately colonizing the evil Empire. There was no option other than
to demolish the earthly Empire: it is the humanity-eating monster, the savageness and
violence of which provides the cause of its total subjugation and suppression. The
colonized, John, here, takes a seat of the colonizer and then appropriates the typical
strategy of the colonizer. Saids colonial discourse operating in denigrating the colonized
as cannibals is adapted and adopted in the image of the child-eating dragon.
When John imagines de-colonizing the nations under Rome, re-colonization
follows off. Now comes the kingdom () of God and the authority( ) of
his Christ (12: 10). According to H. J. Mason, the Greek term, authority ( ), is
frequently translated as the Latin term, imperium, for supreme administrative power
exercised by Roman emperors.183[73] That is, the term was quite politically loaded.
182[72] Ibid., 654; c.f., Aune, Revelation 6-16, 654; R. H. Charles, The Revelation
of St. John vol. I (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1920), 321-322.

183[73] H. J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions (Toronto: Hakkert, 1974), 132-

134.

The term, kingdom, is also not a neutral word, for the Latin equivalent of the
Greek word, kingdom (), also is imperium.184[74] Wes-Howard Brook and
Anthony Gwyther argue,185[75] drawing on Stephen J. Patterson186[76] that the Greek
term, kingdom (), always meant the Roman Empire in the Greek-speaking
world of the first century, for there was only one Empire in the region.
Brook and Gwyther contend that the imperial term, , and associated
words occur seventeen times in Revelation and that one should not miss the antiimperial tenor in the word.187[77] Rather, it is an ambivalent anti-imperial tenor in the
Bhabhaian sense, in that here the desire to mimic the earthly Empire is revealed in the
adoption of the same term. Along the same line, the occurrence of the imperial terms,
/ / imperium, in 12: 14 should not be brushed off lightly. John, in his
visionary world, replaces the Roman Empire with the Empire of God.
For John, the replacement of the evil Empire with the good Empire takes place
soon and certainly. Marina Warner provides us with a helpful insight here. She holds that
the mythical Cronoss consumption of his descendants in Hesiods Theogony indicates
symbolically the limits of the fathers authority and power. Cronos is told that one of his
children will supplant him, thus he devours his offspring, one after another, at birth.
Nonetheless Zeus survives because of his mother Rheas trick, and dethrones his father,
184[74] Wes-Howard Brook and Anthony Gwyther, Unveiling Empire (Maryknoll:
Orbis Books, 2002), 224.

185[75] Ibid.

186[76] Stephen J. Patterson, The End of Apocalypse, Theology Today 52

(1995), 44.
187[77] Brook and Gwyther, 225; along a similar line, Stephen Moore construes Marks

redeployment of the term as an instance of Spivaks catachresis, the strategic

resistance of the colonized through an act of usurpation. Moore, Empire and
Apocalypse,
37-38.

becoming a new king. Warner views this myth as an emblematic expression of the
young generations victory over the old, which is a natural result of onward marching
time. Time is on the side of the young son, and the old father will recede in the end. 188

[78]
Similarly, prominent in Rev. ch. 12 is the theme that the future potentiality
belongs to the child, not the old. Pieter G. R. Villiers well notes that only in 12: 9 the term
ancient is added to the word serpent, while in 12: 14-15 it is simply called the
serpent.189[79] He, however, does not present any reason for the word ancient being
affixed in v. 9. The reason could lie in the context: in v. 9 the serpent is hurled down to
the ground, which implies its defeat, while in v. 14-15 the serpent attacks the woman.
Thus the adjective old190[80] is closely bound up with defeat.
In v. 12, Satan himself is aware that his time is short. He is old: the limited time
for Satan is repeatedly emphasized not only here, but all through Revelation in the
phrases such as the three and a half years (11:2-3; 12:6, 14 and 13:5) and delay (10:
6-7).191[81] And the sense of imminence is noticed in expectation of imminent parousia,
too (Rev. 22: 7, 12, 20). Satan struggles to survive, persecuting saints, but only for a
short, limited time until he is eliminated in 20:10.
188[78] Marina Warner, Fee fie fo fum, in Cannibalism and the Colonial World,
ed. Francis Baker, et. al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 168-169, 172.

189[79] Pieter G. R. Villiers, Prime Evil and its Many Faces in the Book of Revelation,

Neotestamentica

34:1

(2000):

72.

190[80] How old is the serpent? Many commentators claim that the serpent is to
be understood in the backdrop of Genesis 3 in light of the enmity between it and the
woman(s seed). e.g. Villiers, 74; J.P.M. Sweet, Revelation (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1979, 194. If the serpent is the one appearing in Genesis, the
serpent is as old as the entire period of biblical salvation history.

191[81] G. Beale, 669.

On the other hand, the male child is destined to rule the world with an iron
scepter (v. 5). Although he should face the threat of the dragon right after his birth, he is
slated to grow up and finally rule nations and peoples in the end, replacing the position
of the old dragon. The scene of the child at risk of being devoured by the dragon
should be placed in this context. At first the young is vulnerable to the old. The old is an
enormous red dragon who attempts to prevent the young from supplanting his position.
He is so powerful that he could devour and munch the insignificant infant in no time. The
image of its attempt to devour is a symbol of the discrepancy of power between them.
However, the relentless march of time is in favor of the child. The old, however mighty he
looks, will fade away ultimately.
In this section, I have concluded that the staging of the scene that the dragon attempts
to eat the infant from the view of the adapted Saidianism. Here, adopting the typical
strategy of the colonizer, John creates this scene to justify replacing the evil Empire with
the rule of the Empire of God. Through this scene John emphasizes the violence and
viciousness of the enemy and thereby justifies the cause of demolishing the evil Empire
and building the good kingdom. He also emphasizes that this will take place inevitably
soon.

3. Summary
The gruesome and savage images of humans-eating abound in Revelation.
However, when the image is applied to Jesus the Lamb, the uncompromising cruelty and
savageness nestled in those images vanishes and changes into something opposite,
evoking the completely opposite sentiments. Thus, it now oozes out the emotion of
affection and intimacy only and is used as a symbol of believers incorporating divine
attributes. As a result, as opposed to that of Rome, the right identity of Christians is

forged in the process. Here passive/defensive dualism works, and Christians right
identity is created by eating their own food, the Lamb.
On the other hand, the image of humanity-consumption in the scene of the
dragons attempt to devour the infant evinces all negative elements that image can
summon up: cruelty, hostility, etc. This scene is a symbol of the cultural war between
Church and Empire over the making of right Christian identity. This scene is also used as
a cause of replacing the Roman Empire with Gods Empire: the child-eating monster,
Rome, should be removed for its savageness and cruelty, as soon as possible.
We can now turn to the topic of eating enemies. What if the images of humanseating are used for setting up the relationship with the enemies? What kind of
relationship can be established by consuming the enemies? How can dualism be
maintained in mixing with the enemies by eating them? Those questions will be
answered in the following chapter.

Disser.ch 4
Chapter 4
Eating Enemies
This is the right moment when we should trace the images of humans-eating in
the Old Testament, for the themes of ingesting enemies in Revelation, esp., the sections
following this section [i.e., devouring the army and ingesting the woman] are closely
related to the themes of the humanity-consumption in the Old Testament. Therefore, it
would be beneficial to explore the themes of Revelation, as it seems fruitful, in
conjunction with the related Old Testament tradition.
After examining the themes of humans-eating in the Old Testament, we will
analyze the scenes of enemies-consumption in Revelation: Devouring the Army in
19:18, 21; 21:24-26, Ingesting Woman in 17:16; 18:9-10, and Human Crops in 14:14-

20. On the surface level, all of them may seem overrun with the features of Fanons
theory: hostility toward and struggles with the colonizers. However, on a deeper level,
unexpectedly, totally opposite feelings and activities are found: attraction toward and
thus even mimicry of the Empire. That is, the Fanonian and the Bhabhaian factors are
frequently intermingled with each other in those images.

1. Humans-Eating as Means of Identity-Making in OT Tradition

In the Old Testament, two kinds of humans-eating images are passed down. There
is one with the overtone of Fanons theory, in which the imagery of humanity-eating is
used to threaten would-be outsiders. It is used as a punishment for those opposed to
remaining within the boundaries of the community. The other has the undertone of
Bhabhaianism, in which extreme hatred and attraction toward the Other are nestled. We
will investigate each in order.

i. Fanon/Said: (Endo-)Cannibalism
(Isa. 9:20-21; Deut. 28: 53; Lev. 26:29, etc.)
One tradition of the humans-eating images in the Old Testament focuses on
violence and fear evoked by the images. Usually, these images are summoned up in
positioning of the ruler and the ruled. That is, the ruler create and use these images to
threaten the ruled and to stabilize the unequal power relationship between them.
In Isaiah 9, cannibalistic themes are most visible in v. 12, and v. 20, 21. In v. 12,
Arameans and Philistines devour Israel metaphorically, while in v. 20, Israelites are
cursed with so great a famine or hunger that they end up eating their own offspring, and
in v. 21, again metaphorically, Manasseh and Ephraim feed on each other.

In all these expressions, the Hebrew verb, ,, is used. Many idioms involving
this word connote destruction. Thus, in the Hebrew Bible, , signifies many variant
meanings metaphorically:

Hostile forces are said to consume (i.e., destroy) those whom they defeat
such
hostile forces as: scorching heat,famine and pestilence,the (teeth/jaws of)
oppressors,enemy lands,or treacherous forestsThe sword, whose blade is
called its mouthis said to consume its victimsFire, whose flames are called
tongues is said to consume its fuelEven Yahweh himself, a god who
jealously rages against idolators, is thus characterized as a consuming fire. 192[1]
Another lexicon of the Old Testament paraphrases the metaphorical range of ,
as hardship:

The basic meaning of consuming is used in at least six different ways. First, it
occurs frequently in the context of hardship, whether deserved or not. Drought,
fire, war, and other plagues devour the innocent as well as the guilty. Greedy
oppressorsdevour the innocent.193[2]

, connotes a negative nuance when used metaphorically, then, whether

summarized in the word destruction or hardship. Naturally, it comes as no wonder
that , is accompanied by negative emotions: anger, hatred, and repulsion toward the
object. That is, this word is nestled in the background of the Lords accumulated anger
toward his people, as shown in Isa. 9:12b, 20, 21.

192[1] Willen A. VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament

Theology and Exegesis, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 394.
193[2] R. Laird Harris, ed., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol 1 (Chicago:

Moody

Press,

1980),

39

Especially, the emotional negativity of the Hebrew word, ,, is emphasized in v.

20 and 21 in intensity and breadth. That is, in the case of consuming in v. 12, the act of
consumption occurs between self and other. On the while, the cannibalistic expression
in v. 20 and 21 is more ominous and gruesome, for this act is imposed on the self: its
own offspring and people.
Joseph Blenkinsopp aptly captures the linear moving of motifs in the text. An
image of fire devouring a land and laying it to waste sets up a background from which
another more disturbing image of turmoil and anomie, i.e., endo-cannibalistic acts,
eating ones own relatives, emerge. Again he points out that this metaphor of endocannibalism is set in the language of the covenant curses (e.g. Deut 28:53-57; Lev
26:29), which reproduce the theme and even the wording of the vassal treaties of the
ancient Near East. Thus, the descending of the Northern Kingdom is seen, in the poets
eyes, as an outcome of breaking the covenant treaty.194[3]
Jacob Milgrom rightly contends that Lev 26: 16-39 is divided into five sets of
curses/punishments, the severity of which successively increases. 195[4] Not surprisingly,
the punishment of endo-cannibalism caused by an extreme hunger and famine belongs
to the category of the most severe punishment. Cannibalism is placed at the acme of the
scale of punishment in Deut 28: 15-68, and Isaiah 9: 8 21, as well. The meaning range
of , as a metaphoric signifier of destruction/hardship associated with negative
emotions such as hatred and repulsion culminates in the motif of endo-cannibalism
forced by an extreme condition as the most atrocious punishment.
It seems noteworthy that this dreadful punishment originates in the setting of

194[3]

Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 219.

195[4] Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27 (New Tork, etc.: Doubleday, 2000), 2304.

covenant making in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. That is, the curse of cannibalism is
found in the setting of covenant-making on Mount Sinai (Exod. 34: 10; Levi. 27: 34) and
a kind of reaffirmation of it on Mount Ebal (Deut. 27: 4-9). If the covenant-making is
understood as creating identity, here identity-establishing is intermingled with the use of
violence.
This relationship between violence and covenant/identity-making is observed
even in the phrase, he made a covenant, krat brt, itself. Regina M. Schwartz notes
that Hebrew phrase for he made a covenant, krat brt, literally means he cut a
covenant, and the term cut carries loaded resonances. She continues to say that the
covenant cutting requires living animals being severed ritually, which symbolically
ensures that the inferior who breaches the covenant would face the same
consequences.196[5]
Even in the specific contents of the covenant itself, violence/threat overcomes
any sweet reward for making right identity. In the section of Deut. 28 devoted to curses
and blessings promised in the case of obedience and disobedience, only fourteen
verses are devoted to blessings (v.1-14), while fifty-four are devoted to curses (v. 1568).197[6] Identity is created, above all, through the prospect of violence and the increase
of its extent in the case of disobedience. Endo-cannibalism forced by hunger and famine
as a punishment should be situated at the culmination in the setting of violence used for
building an identity.
This form of curse develops in the context of empire. Delbert R. Hillers
enumerates many instances of endo-cannibalistic curses in ancient Near-Eastern areas.
The historical record of the occurrence of the endo-cannibalism caused by hunger or
196[5] Regina M. Schwartz, The Curse of Cain (Chicago and London: The University of

Chicago
197[6] Ibid., 29.

Press,

1997),

21-22.

famine can be found in other ancient literature too, but the forced endo-cannibalsim in a
curse form occurs only in Neo-Assyrian imperial treaties such as the Esarhaddon treaty,
although Hillers does not note this being imperial statecraft. This form of curses makes
inroads into the Old Testament (Deut. 28: 53-57; Lev. 26:29; Is. 9: 19-20; Jer. 19: 9;
Ezek. 5:10; Lam. 4:10; Zech. 11: 9; Is. 49: 26).

[7]

198

Unsurprisingly, this unutterably cruel curse type is the result of a long

development of the curse forms in the treaties. Thus, this curse form occurs at a later
phase of development, after the first millennium BCE. Dennis J. McCarthy contends that
from the first millennium BCE the curses in treaties become prominent, being more lurid
and elaborate, and that this transition is a natural development from a tendency existing
already in the previous treaties.199[8] In this historical development of stock curses, the
horrid endo-cannibalism curse occurs after the first millennium BCE. 200[9]
It is interesting that the curses of endo-cannibalism

in the Old Testament originated in

the long development of the curse treaties of imperial relationship. Fanons definition of
the relationship between the colonizer and the colonized may be applied to this curse
form. Radicalized hostility and hatred between ruling and ruled materializes in the
198[7] E.g. Delbert R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets

(Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), 62-63; cf. Simo Parpola and Kazuo Watanabe,
Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988);
Unsurprisingly, according to Gordon H. Johnston, generally the Neo-Assyrian treaty
curses were more extensive and vivid than other Near Eastern counterparts; and among
them, the treaties made by Esarhaddon were the most dramatic and colorful. Nahums
Rhetorical Allusions to Neo-Assyrian Treaty Curses Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (Oct.-Dec,
2001), 421.
199[8] Dennis J. McCarthy, S. J., Treaty and Covenant (Rome: Biblical Institute
Press, 1981), 152.

200[9] When Hillerss historical record is analyzed, the Ashuninari treaty, the
Esarhaddon treaty, and the Ashurbanipal treaty, in which endo-cannibalsim curses occur,
were drawn in 754 B.C., 672 B.C., and between 669-648 B.C. respectively. Hillers, 1011, 62-63.

treaties in such a violent language. On the other hand, if one regards the cannibalistic
treaties as an ancient discourse, which forces the ruled to believe that their unequal
relationship to the ruler was divinely built and maintained, however effective it was, the
treaty may be a good example of Saids theory.
The investigation into the humanity-consuming curses in the Old Testament
sheds some light on the similar images in Revelation. Although John uses only a limited
amount of the endo-cannibalistic language in relation to the enemies (i.e., the beasts
and ten horns consumption of the whore. 17:16), his general strategy of the use of the
images of enemies-eating is not far from the Old Testament endo-cannibalistic curses.
His primary goal is to threaten the insiders to remain within the parameters of the
community by graphically demonstrating how the enemies will end up in a miserable
situation such as eating each other or being eaten so that the insiders would not even
think of joining the camp of the enemy. In this case, effective colonization takes place
inside the community rather than outside, with the most developed language device of
threatening and menacing.
As noted above, the images of humans-eating as the acme of violence and threat
had been used to steady an unbalanced power relation between ruler and ruled.
However, sometimes the images are involved in some gray areas of ambivalence, where
hostility/separation and affection/identification are fused. These Bhabhaian factors in the
humans-eating images in the Old Testament also need to be explored.

ii. Fanon/Bhabha: Being Devoured by Animals (2 Kings 9:35-36)

In 2 Kings 9 Jehu is anointed by Elisha and thereby installed in kingship. To
actualize his kingship, Jehu starts a series of bloody murders, which culminates in the
slaughter of Jezebel and the consumption of her flesh by dogs. The train of horrific

scenes provides further material on which to test the validity of the theories concerning
identity making, violence and cannibalism introduced above.
First, one would need to step back and look at the literary and historical backdrop
in which this scene is placed. The chapter we are concerned with, claims Deborah A.
Appler, belongs to the section of 1 Kings 17 2 Kings 9, which is characterized as
containing strong food imagery, such as a duel on Mount Carmel as Gods feast contest,
the incident of Naboths vineyard vs. Ahabs vegetables, Jezebels consumption by
dogs, and other eating scenes. 201[10] If our hypothesis is correct that the obsession with
food imagery and eating themes indicates the anxiety of boundary blurring, there should
be indications that such is also the case here.
Appler continues to show that it is such a case. That is, Appler notes that in those
chapters the Phonician queen, Jezebel, and her husband, Ahab, pervert the Israelite
ideal by blurring the border between Yahwehs people and Baals people, foreigners and
Israelites, male and female, etc.,202[11] although Appler does not directly connect the
boundary blurring to the profuse food imagery in the text.
The other phenomenon indicating the anxiety of border confusion is the immense
amount of violence. Does this also feature 2 Kings 9? The answer is again affirmative.
Hannelis Schulte takes note of the immense amount of deadly violence at the end of the
dynasty of Omri: King Jehoran of Judah and his wife, Athalia, who Schulte conjectures is
the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, issue a brutal execution command. This order results
in the death of Jehorams six brothers and all the royal males of Judah (2 Chr. 21:2-4, 2
Kings 11:1ff). The violence of Elisha (2 Kings 9:22b), and Elijahs massacre of Baals

201[10] Deborah A. Appler, From Queen to Cuisine, Semeia 86 (1999): 55-70, esp. 55.
202[11]

Ibid.,

55-70.

prophets (1 Kings 18: 16-40) are also noteworthy.203[12] All these chapters are soaked in
blood.
Schulte traces this enormous amount of grisly violence to the setting of a fierce
tension and conflict of the two groups: traditionalists vs. modernists. Schulte claims
that this violence, a characteristic of the ninth century BCE, was caused by the two great
social changes: 1) the transition from tribal states to royal state, and 2) a coalition of
small states to resist the superpower Assyria. Especially, on the latter, Schulte
elaborates that the coalition between Aram, Tyre, Israel, etc. to halt the expansion of
Assyria led to military/economic cooperation, cultural exchanges and generally open
borders between them. Schulte labels the supporters of this new change as modernizers
and those opposing as traditionalists.204[13]
Schulte claims that the concrete example of the traditionalists existence is Jehus
successful putsch. Jehu, with mysteriously great facileness, could murder the two kings
of Israel and Judah. He did not even have to pull the troops away from the border to
support his coup dtat. Schulte speculates that this success derives from the support of
existing traditionalists.205[14] That is, according to Schulte, the enormous violence in this
period was caused by the Israelites concern and division over the issue of boundariesblurring.
Additionally, as we saw above in ch. 2, the studies on ethnic massacres points to
the fact that the obscuring of the perimeters tends to create a great desire to re-draw the
circumference again and people resort to cruel and deadly violence for that cause.
203[12] Hannelis Schulte, The End of the Omride Dynasty, Semeia no. 66 (1994), 135-

137,

141-144.
204[13] Ibid., 133-134.

205[14] Ibid., 137.

[15] In reflection of this, it does not come as a surprise that in the turmoil of confusion

206

and melting of perimeters in the ninth century BCE, the Israelites retreated to the most
instinctive act for identity forging extreme violence in the struggle for re-establishing
borders.
Boundary blurring does not occur only between states/religions, but also between
genders. Thus, gender roles are reversed between Jezebel and Ahab, in that Jezebel
takes active initiative in organizing all the evil schemes. Jezebel orders on her own
tracking down of Elijah after the event on mount Carmel (1 Kings 19: 2); when Ahab is
dejected after Naboth has refused Ahabs offer to purchase his vineyard, Jezebel sets a
trap and murders Naboth (1 Kings 21:1-16). Carol Smith points out that Jezebel was not
like any other queen in the Hebrew Bible in that she indeed participated in the business
of government.207[16]
The reversal of gender roles between Jezebel and Ahab infringes on the ancient
boundary between male and female. Hoffner notes that in the ancient Near East, militant
prowess in battle was conceived as a major characteristic of masculinity.

[17] Jezebel

208

is always a leading figure in battles with the godly people, while Ahab only follows her
initiative passively. She is, as claimed by Smith, portrayed by the biblical writers as
Elijahs formidable nemesis, not Ahab.209[18]
206[15]

Above,

34-35.

207[16] Carol Smith, Queenship in Israel? the Case of Bathsheba, Jezebel and
Athaliah, in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. John Day
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 154-155.

208[17] Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., Symbols for Masculinity and Femininity: Their Use in
Ancient Near Eastern Sympathetic Magic Rituals, Journal of Biblical Literature 85
(1966): 327.

209[18] Smith, Queenship in Israel? the Case of Bathsheba, Jezebel and Athaliah,

154-155.

Helena Zlotnick foregrounds how frustrated and dismayed the Deutronomist must
have been at this blurring of boundaries, especially at the infiltration of foreignness. She
compares the Roman historian, Livys description of the Roman queens, Tanaquil and
Tullia, with the Deuteronomist description of the Israelite queens, Esther and Jezebel.
The Deuteronomist brands Jezebel as a perilous foreigner in regards to her ethnicity and
proclivities alike, while the Roman writer perceives the elevation of foreigners to Romes
throne as Roman openness.210[19]
Similarly, Danna Nolan Fewell and David M. Gunn indicate how Jezebel, a
foreign woman, is treated unfairly by comparison with an Israelite male. Solomon, an
Israelite, who committed the same sin of idolatry, slept with his fathers, (1 Kgs 11:42) in
peace and tranquility, while Jezebel a foreign woman was torn and devoured. As in the
case of Ahab and the Queen of Sheba, the foreign woman can be accepted only when
she is tameable and subject to the Israelite male order. Jezebel was not. 211[20]
The consumption of dead Jezebels body by dogs should be viewed against this
historical backdrop: obscured perimeters resulting in an increase of violence. The
violence of Jezebels death arguably overwhelms any other violence in the Hebrew
Bible. The skilled crafting of the two scenes juxtaposed in the readers imagination -- the
dogs eating of dead Jezebel(2 Kings 9: 36), and Jehus going inside and drinking/eating
meanwhile (2 Kings 9: 34) -- forces the readers to splice those two scenes and to fold

210[19] Helena Zlotnick, From Jezebel to Esther, Biblica 82 (2001): 484-485; on

the motif of Jezebel as the proverbial foreign woman, J. A. Soggin, Jezabel oder die
Fremde Frau, in Melanges Bibliques et Orientaux en Lhonneur de M. Henri Cazelles
ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981), 453-459.

211[20] Danna Nolan Fewell and David M. Gum, Gender, Power & Promise
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993), 174-175.

the two into one: a picture of crouching Jehu ravenously consuming dead Jezebel, a far
more lurid scene.212[21]
From the viewpoint of border concerns, Peter R. Ackroyd may be correct 213[22]
that the figure of Jezebel at the window before her death was intentionally depicted
according to the ancient motif of the woman at the window in paintings or the marzeah
images, which represented the goddess as sacred prostitution. Jezebel, the personified
visual image of Asherah, the leading figure representing boundary-shattering, is thrown
out the window.214[23] Here the representative of the foreign goddess is thrown out of the
house of Israel symbolically.
If one takes the view that the Deuteronomist portrayed Jezebel in her last
appearance as a goddess, possibly Asherah, which was one of the pair of nemeses for
the prophets (the other was Baal), then an interesting parallel would be the episode
about the idol of Dagon. According to this tradition, the Philistines captured the ark of
God and carried it into the temple of Dagon (1 Samuel 5: 1-5). There on the second day
the image of Dagon fell down, with his head and hands broken off.
In front of the symbol of Yahweh, i.e., the ark of God, the emblem of the foreign
deity, the image of Dagon, kneels down. This encounter in the uncomfortable contact
212[21] E.g. McKinlay, Fewell and Gunn point in the direction of the subtly implied

overlapping of the two scenes. Judith E. McKinlay, Negotiating the Frame for Viewing
the Death of Jezebel, Biblical Interpretation 10, no. 3 (2002): 308; Fewell and Gum,
171-172.
213[22] Peter R. Ackroyd, Goddesses, Women and Jezebel, in Images of
Women in Antiquity, ed. Amelie Kuhrt, et al. (Detroit: Wayne State University Press,
1993), 245-259.

214[23] McKinlay distinguishes the Deuteronomists program from Jehus agenda.

Jehu left the Asherah which Ahab erected intact (2 Kgs. 13:6), which shows his
lackadaisical attitude toward religious syncretism. On the while, the portrayal of Jezebel
as Asherah and her doom is indicative of the Deuteronomists aversion to syncretism
symbolized by Asherah and its champion, Jezebel. McKinlay, 316.

zone is reproduced in the meeting of Jehu and Jezebel. The function of the name, Jehu,
is a signifier for God, for in Hebrew it means he is God. Jehu indicates Yahweh, in front
of whom, the personified image of Asherah, Jezebel, is shattered. So nobody can say
this is Jezebel as the Deuteronomist witnesses (2 Kings 9: 37). The signifier for
Jezebel, this, is interminably and irrestorably destroyed.
The parallels do not cease here. The hands and head of Dagon are thrown onto
the threshold (1 Samuel 5: 4) as if to say this disaster is caused by the confusing of the
borderland between Yahwehs space and that of Dagon. Likewise, the way of Jezebels
death being thrown from the house seems to supply the similar reason for this doom,
for she, dying, is also breaching the bounds between the different spaces: the outer
space and the inner space with the window in between.
One more thing to ask is why Jezebels skull, hands, and feet were left and not
eaten (2 Kings 9: 35). Appler suggests that Jezebels remains could be symbols of the
female power of the Canaanite goddess Anat in that in the Canaanite myth, Anat wears
two symbols of power: the necklace of heads/skulls around her neck and the hands
around her waist as a belt.215[24] On the other hand, Fewell and Gunn hint that those
remains symbolize the male power in that the term feet and hand are euphemisms for
the phallus.216[25] Whoever is right, they agree that the remains are the very symbol of
power. Then, did Jehu refuse to incorporate the symbol of power?
As Mary Douglas discusses, the marginal parts of the body such as body dirt or
nail symbolize power or danger in that the marginal part of the body evokes the most
vulnerable place of the social body, that is, the boundary of society. The vulnerable place
of society is where power can be gained, which makes it a powerful site, or where it can
be lost, which makes it a dangerous place. In parallel, the marginal parts of the body
Appler,

215[24]
216[25]

Fewell

67-68.
and

Gunn,

175.

become the symbol of power and/or danger. It is where the discourse of power is played
out.217[26]
The head, hands and feet are the most marginal parts of the body in that they are
attached at the parts most remote from the trunk. Then, these would symbolize the
boundary proper, the remotest part from the social body, and thereby power and/or
danger. Jehu could consume the body of Jezebel symbolically to incorporate the power
Jezebel symbolizes. However, the most marginal parts of Jezebels body, namely, her
skull, hands, and feet were the most powerful parts and at the same time, the most
dangerous parts. Here the symbol of syncretism intervenes and thus Jehu stops
consuming them.
One could see here Jehus ambivalent attitude toward Jezebel. On the one hand,
he aspires to the power Jezebel and her country/culture represents. On the other hand,
he feels repulsion and aggression toward her and can not swallow her, for the
borderland should be maintained. Paradoxically, Jehu throws up the most powerful
parts, her skull, hands, and feet, for they are simultaneously the very symbols of danger,
syncretism.
Notwithstanding Jehus ambivalent attitude toward the other, one still cannot fail
to notice the prominent, symbiotic relationship of violence and identity. Jezebels identity
is erased from the surface of the earth, while that of Israel is established at the expense
of the other, Jezebel. Here again, the zenith of lethal violence, dogs consumption of
Jezebels flesh, serves to define the border line of Yahwehs people. This use of violence
for delimiting its own territory, again, could have come from mimicking the imperial
statecraft of Assyria.

217[26] Douglas, Purity and Danger, 120-121.

Jezebel is consumed by dogs in the city. This form of death was a part of a fixed
curse phrase: being eaten by dogs in the city or birds in the open country was a stock
curse phrase and is observed in the Old Testament three times (1 Kgs. 14: of 11, 16: 4,
21: 24). The last one is spoken by Elijah against Ahab, 218[27] and the uttering of this
curse on Jezebel occurs at 21: 23. The use of this curse should be traced back to the
loyal treaty of Esarhaddon, i.e., the Assyrian Empire. 219[28] The Deuteronomist has thus
appropriated an imperial strategy.
In sum, as we noticed above, the cannibalistic acts in the Old Testament are
located at the pinnacle of violence and threat, the main purpose of which is to build an
identity. And not incidentally this customary form of cannibalistic curses develops in the
context of the Assyrian imperial power. The Assyrian Empire attempted to subdue the
conquered by a forced consent, i.e., through treaties. Resorting to cannibalistic curses in
the case of a breach of the treaty, they hoped to fix and continue the status of superior
versus inferior. To guarantee the status quo, they wanted to utilize not only physical
violence but also imaginary violence.
That Fanonian violence between ruling and ruled re-occurs in a different form in
the-ninth-century-BCE Israel. In this case, the fierce struggle does not occur between
ruling and ruled, but between the two parties that search for identity in a context of
blurred boundaries. It clearly shows one thing in common with the Fanonian violence in
the treaty: the actualization of hostility toward the Other through the most radicalized
218[27] Peter R. Ackroyd, The Vitality of the Word of God in the Old Testament, in

Annual of the Swedish Ttheological Institute vol. I (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962), 7-8.
219[28] Cogan argues that this curse form is attributed to a common near Eastern
area, but aside from not being properly buried, the being eaten by animals curse
occurs only in the Assyrian imperial treaty. Mordechai Cogan, 1 Kings (New York, etc.:
Doubleday, 2000), 380; Hillers, 68-69; The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the
Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 538,
lines 426-427, 451-452.

violence, i.e., eating the flesh of the Other so that identity be established. In this case,
violence is physical, not imaginary as in the treaty.
However, in the case of Jezebels story, Fanons violence is complemented by
Bhabhas ambivalence. The author of the story inflicts enormous violence on Jezebel out
of extreme hatred. However, the author also symbolically consumes the flesh of Jezebel
to incorporate her power, which illustrates his attraction toward her. The conflictual
workings of simultaneous revulsion and attraction co-exist with the assertion of the
absolute self at the expense of the other.
The themes of humans-eating defy exposing this ambivalence, and yet on the sly
reveal this embarrassing, self-contradictory part through the crack of its discourse, which
seems impenetrable at first but somewhat porous and permeable on closer inspection.
The following section is principally concerned with the ambivalent part in Revelation, in
which simultaneous hatred and attraction toward the Empire co-exist.

2. Devouring the Army

In Rev. 19: 18, 21, the kings and generals are eaten by wild birds. Whereas it
seems innocuously to follow one of the Old Testament tradition, on the deeper level, the
scene contains Johns mimicking the Roman imperial project: colonizing the Empire.
This Bhabhaian ambivalence becomes manifest in the scene of the resurrected kings
and generals offering their property to the New Jerusalem Empire in 21: 24-26.

i Said/Bhabha: Consumption of Kings and Generals (19: 18, 21)

Scholars have been puzzled by the inconsistency between 19: 18 and 21: 24-26. For
instance, as Aune points out, 19: 17- 21 and 20: 7-9 narrate the demise of the kings and
their armies. Additionally, in 21: 1, the old earth and heaven is destroyed. In contrast, 21:

24-26 records that nations and kings are still existent on earth. 220[29] Aside from it, the
atmosphere of each scene is completely different from the other: the former is suffused
with hostility and enmity, while the latter with intimacy and affection. Where does this
discrepancy originate from?
I believe that the contradictory scenes should be viewed from the viewpoint of the
Bhabhaian ambivalence. That is, the scenes show two contradictory feelings toward the
Empire: hatred and attraction. The metaphor in which these complicated emotions are
expressed is cannibalism. His hatred is expressed in the scene of eating the kings and
generals bodies (19: 18). In the mean time, in 21: 24-26, the kings who were ingested
reemerge as a part of the Jerusalem Empire. Here they bring the wealth and glory
coveted by the Seer into the Empire. To tract this metamorphosis down, one needs to
see the images of humans-consumption in 19: 18, 21.
Scholars have suspected that the invitation to the great supper of God in 19:17
where the banquet food is the enemies bodies, is a macabre parody of the invitation to
the supper of the Lambs wedding in 19:9, especially for the occurrence of to the
dinner ( ).221[30] The macabre overtone can be deeper than that
considering the flow of the narrative: after announcing the blessing of being invited to the
wedding banquet, there is no depiction of the feast. Instead, the scene of war and eating
of the defeated enemies follows. Thus the wedding banquet is replaced by the feast of
humanity-eating, which creates the picture of the wedding guests eating the dead bodies
in the readers minds.
According to Dennis E. Smith, the idea that the defeated enemy becomes the
food at the banquet after war is not a novelty. Monsters such as Leviathan and
Aune,

220[29]

Revelation

17-22,

1171.

221[30] G. Beale, 965; P. Prigent, Apocalypse et Liturgie (Paris: Delachaux et Niestle,

1964),

298;

J.

Roloff,

Revelation

(Minneapolis:

Fortress,

1993),

220.

Behemoth are frequently deemed as the end-time banquet viands in Jewish apocalyptic
tradition (2 Bar. 29: 1-4; 1 En. 60:7- 10, 24; 4 Ezra 6: 49-52).222[31] In Zech 9: 15, more
relevantly the defeated human enemies turn into the bloody-sacrifice banquet in the
mythic pattern where the enemy warriors blood restores the fertility of the earth. 223[32]
Of course, in 19: 21 (The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of
the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh),
the subject of consuming the enemies is not explicitly the believers but birds. This could
be an attempt to define the self as different from the other through the practice of
cannibalism, as seen in the Saidian perspective in ch. 2. 1. As an imperialist of Gods
Empire, in the view of adapted Saidianism in ch. 3. 2. ii, John delineates the colonized
as cannibals, and define themselves as not cannibals, he is distinguishing himself from
the Other. They are cannibals: the dragon attempts to swallow the child, the Whore is
drunk with the blood, and they even eat their allies (12: 4; 17: 6, 16). Not us. Only birds
eat them. For this difference, we deserve to be new colonizers.
This strategy is observed once again in the image of the sword from Christs
mouth. In v. 15, 21, the rider on the white horse stretches out a sword from his mouth
and kills the enemy with that sword. The sword is now drunk and dripping with the blood.
The blood on the tip of the sword right beside the tongue indirectly satisfies the desire of
consuming the victims by attaching the bloody sword on the mouth. This desire is
recognizable more concretely in v. 21 where the scene of mass-murder by the mouth
sword is juxtaposed side by side with the scene of birds devouring the dead bodies. The
similarity of the two images, i.e., the sword attached to the mouth and the beaks of the
222[31] Dennis E. Smith, Messianic Banquet, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary.

223[32] Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,

1975), 322.

birds, seems to highlight the desire of enemies-eating. 224[33] Especially, considering that
this was written in the mythical mentality in which the thing is present as a whole, as
soon as anything similar to it is given, 225[34] the sword of Christs mouth is equated with
the beak of the birds. In other words, the repetition, that characterizes mythical mentality
or dream states, is observed here. His mouth is detected once again in the birds
beaks. John is not a cannibal, yet almost is.
This disguised act of cannibalism proceeds from the deep-seated anger and
hatred. This aspect is noticeable more evidently in v. 15 showing the image of the rider
treading the winepress representing the fierce wrath of God. 226[35] When one goes back
to its allusive verse in the Old Testament (the beginning part of Isa. 63), 227[36] the
sentiment shrouding the verse is more clarified: I have trodden the winepress aloneI
trampled them in my anger and trod them down in my wrath; their blood spattered my
224[33] When one traces back the cannibalistic images to the Old Testament and

beyond, one reaches the conclusion that the original intent hidden behind these
vicarious, humans-eating images is clearer. According to Stephen L. Cook, the image of
birds and beasts eating the enemy (Ezek. 39: 19-20) and that of YHWHs sword
satiated and drunk with the blood of enemy (Isa. 34: 5-7), with which the images of
Revelation in issue are closely connected, have been influenced by the divine-warrior
myth. However, in the divine-warrior myth, the subject of eating the enemy is the gods
themselves, not his agents such as animals or the sword: for instance, in Ugaritic myth
(CTA 3.2.1-41), the warrior goddess Anat plunged herself into blood and gore until she
was satiated. Stephen L. Cook, Prophecy and Apocalypticism (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press,
1995),
89.
225[34] Thus, for instance, according to Ernst Cassirer, in the mythical
consciousness, the tobacco smoke arising from the pipe is identified with the cloud itself
only for the mere similarity of the appearances. Idem, The Philosophy of Symbolic
Forms (vol. 2: Mythical Thought), trans., Ralph Manheim (New Haven and London: Yale
Univ. Press, 1955), 68.

226[35] Beales translation. Genitive (the wrath) is appositional, defining the

preceding symbol: the winepress, which represents (or, is) the fierce (or severe) wrath
of God. G. Beale, 963; cf. Aune, Revelation 17-22, 1041.

227[36] G. Beale, 963; Sweet, 284; Beasley-Murray, 281.

garments, and I stained all my clothing. For the day of vengeance was in my heart,
(Isa. 63: 3-4).
However, as usual the act of cannibalism does not consist of hatred and revulsion
only. It contains contradictory emotions. The emotion of affection is shown by Johns
intention of saving/incorporating them somehow. For instance, why birds? Why does the
Seer use the birds only to eat the enemy? The invitation to the feast of the enemys flesh
and blood is an allusion to Ezek 39: 17.228[37] But there those invited to consuming the
enemy are every kind of bird and all the wild animals. This pair of bird and beast keeps
occurring together most of times, when the humans-eating curse form should be
summoned all through the Old Testament (e.g., Deut. 28: 26; Jer. 7: 33-34, 16: 3-4) and
other similar curse forms in ancient Near Eastern treaties. 229[38] Why does the Seer omit
the beast part?
The answer may be found in the spatial dualism of Revelation. As Bauckham
pinpoints, in Revelation heaven is a place for godly residents, while earth and sea are
the space for evil inhabitants. The phrase, the inhabitants of the earth, is common in
other apocalyptic literature too (1 Enoch 37:2; 2 Baruch 25:1, etc.), but only in
Revelation the term carries a negative overtone (11: 10; 13: 8, 4; 17: 8; 18: 11; cf. 13: 3,
12): for instance, they are persecutors (6: 10), or are doomed to judgments (8: 13).
Similarly, the sea has a negative connotation (12: 12; 18: 17). In contrast, Gods people
dwell in heaven or are addressed as heaven (13: 6; 18: 20; cf. 19: 1-8). 230[39]
This spatial dualism can be in line with Fanons analysis of extreme dualism
embedded in a colonial situation: the earth and sea are contaminated by the wicked rule
228[37]

Aune,

Revelation

17-22,

229[38] C.f., Hillers, 68-69.

230[39] Baukcham, The Climax of Prophecy, 239-240.

1063.

of the Roman Empire, and only heaven is intact. Along a similar line, the birds can be
rendered as belonging to a spiritual sphere, and the beasts to an earthly arena, for the
two animals are bound with the sky/heaven and the earth, respectively. When one
studies the symbolism of these birds, one realizes that the symbol of the birds eating the
enemies means incorporating them into the spiritual arena, i.e., the sphere of Gods
kingdom and making them the citizens of Gods kingdom.
It also adds to the above evidence that the birds partner of the humans-eating
feast is Christ whose mouth-sword is drunk with the blood of the enemy. Needless to
say, here the Christ can easily be rendered as a symbol of the Empire of God. In 3: 16,
Christ threatens to spit the Laodicean Church out of his mouth, which means expelling
them out of his kingdom. In 19: 15, 21, Christ conducts the opposite act, although
implicitly, that is, masticating and swallowing them. He is incorporating them into his
kingdom.
Second, the meaning of the birds is also evinced by Beales linking the verse of
19: 17 with 8:13. Beale notes that in 19: 17 the phrase flying in midheaven (
) is added to the Ezekiel imagery and the same phrase describes the
speaking eagle in 8: 13.231[40] The phrase, speaking in a loud voice, also appears in
both, which can be another sign of a link between them. The eagle in 8: 13 is
metaphorically associated with the Exodus typology evident all through the trumpet
series. In Beales words:
The placement of the eagle figure here in 8: 13 is natural, since it was part of the
exodus tradition. In Exod. 19: 4 God compares himself as the protector of his
people to an eagle, in connection with the plagues on the Egyptians: You saw
what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles wings and brought you
to myself (cf. Deut. 32: 11). Here the link with the eagles plague-like wrath
from the Exodus text is emphasized.232[41]
231[40]

G.

Beale,

232[41] G. Beale, 490-491: cf., Caird, 117.

966.

Exod 19: 4 is situated in the context of making a covenant at Mount Sinai. Then
the verse itself evokes the making of the Israelite identity. God bore them on the eagles
wings to the mountain to forge their new identity. If one assumes that the bird which ate
the enemies in 19: 21 is the eagle who had borne the Israelites at the Exodus, can one
suppose that the enemies would be borne not on the birds wings but in the birds
stomachs to a place comparable with Mount Sinai, where a new identity is created?
Stronger becomes the suspicion that John may intend to transform the kings and
lords identities, in consideration of another verse with the phrase flying in midheaven
( ). In 14: 6, an angel flying in midheaven (
) appears. In assuming that John attempts to link 14: 6 and 8: 13 with
the phrase and the phrase, speaking in a loud voice, Beale notes that in 14: 6, the
wrathful nature of the angel is suggested by the three woes in 8: 13. 233[42]
However, as Richard Bauckham argues, the angel in Rev. 14: 6 could be a
symbol of the effect of the martyrs witnesses rather than the proclamation of
judgment.234[43] 14: 6 says that the angel has the eternal gospel 235[44] to proclaim and
then in v. 7 the gospel turns out to be the command to worship God with the statement
233[42] G. Beale, 748-749.

234[43] Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993),

309.
235[44] It is not out of place that this gospel-proclamation is situated in the context
of the eschatological judgment. Friedrich Bchsel argues that one of Jesus sayings can
be the background of this verse. That is, Jesus said that after the gospel is preached to
all the nations, then the end will come (Matt. 24:14; Mk. 13:10). The preaching of the
gospel itself is closely associated with the end day. Similarly, here the angel takes
charge of conveying the message to every nation, tribe, language and people (v. 6).
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s. v. , 735. Therefore,
ironically, preaching the gospel is equated with expediting and enacting the final
judgment.

that the end day is near. Then the good news must be that you can avoid the judgment
by changing the sides and worshipping him. The good news should be literally good for
those hearing it.
However, one would be wrong to argue that the favorable sentiment thus far
explored is all that can be found in those three verses with the phrase flying in
midheaven. Rather, it would be more balanced to claim that on the surface, hatred and
punishment is prominent, yet on the deeper level, affection is observed. As always,
ambivalent feelings are observable. The kings bodies were eaten with ambivalent
emotions.
Not only from affection but also from necessity the kings and generals need to be
incorporated into the Seers system. As Beale points out, the title of King of kings and
Lord of lords of 19: 16 explains the ambiguous name in 19: 12. 236[45] The timing and
placement of the revelation of the name seems also apt for, after the rider strikes down
the nations, the title appears on his thigh. That is, his title is disclosed after showing off
of his power as King of kings and Lord of lords.
But if every king and lord is eliminated, how can he become King of kings and
Lord of lords? Without subservient kings and lords he could not attain the title. Without
them he cannot rule with an iron scepter as in v. 15. He needs his client kings for
pageantry, tributes, etc. How can the Seer overcome this irony? Probably he hints at the
solution from the allusive verse in Daniel itself.
According to Beale, the title King of kings and Lord of lords is taken from the
LXX of Dan. 4: 37.237[46] The context of 4: 37 is that the Babylon king Nebuchadnezzar
praises God, using the title King of kings and Lord of lords, in gratitude for being
236[45]

G.

Beale,

963.

237[46] Ibid.; cf. Thomas B. Slater, King of Kings and Lord of Lords Revisited,
New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 159-160.

restored to sanity, after he turned insane, thinking he is a beast, for the sin of arrogance.
The king walked in pride, thinking himself more highly than God, but after the
punishment he offers all the glory and honor to God. Here, Nebuchadnezzar admits that
he is only one of kings, while God is the King and Lord over all kings and lords. 238[47]
Does this OT context underlie the title King of kings and Lord of lords? If so,
does it mean that the kings and generals can be restored, as Nebuchadnezzar could?
Possibly, the general tenor of the text in issue may be that as Nebuchadnezzar once
identified himself with a beast and yet was restored to a right worshipper, so now the
kings are allied with the beast, but they also will be restored and become right
worshippers.
This hidden intention toward the kings of the earth operates through the image of
humans-eating. The other side of atrocious cannibalism is attraction toward the other
and desire to make the enemy as part of the self. If those symbolic meanings operate in
here, the Seer must resurrect those ingested kings/generals, and make them part of
Gods kingdom where all people glorify and worship him. This scenario becomes
actualized in 21: 24-26.

ii Bhabha: Kings Entry into the New Jerusalem (21: 24-26)

Scholars have attempted to solve the enigma of the return in the New Jerusalem
of the dead and even birds-consumed kings in 21: 24-26 in two ways. First, some
commentators view this as a theme of universal salvation occurring in temporal
progression. That is, after the kings and generals are punished and go to hell, all of them
238[47] This title recurs at another place in 17: 14, where the Lamb is called this
title. Here, too, the worldly power is compared with that of the Lamb.

will be saved in the end.239[48] This interpretation cannot stand, for many verses overtly
proclaim that false confessors or ungodly people cannot enter the New Jerusalem (21:
7-8; 22: 14-15; 22: 11; 22: 18-19), as noted by Beale. He also argues that the kings of
the earth is used with both good connotations and bad connotations in a number of LXX
passages and thus the Old Testament. background of the term does not support the
theory of universal salvation.240[49]
The alternative view is that the kings and the nations entering the New Jerusalem
are those who repented. Beale specifically compares the text with Isaiah 60, which the
text in issue is modeled on, where the kings and nations come to Jerusalem to worship,
while those in opposition will be judged. 241[50] Thus he argues that the kings entering the
city are the people who were boughtfrom every tribe and tongue and people and
nation, and were made a kingdom, and reign as kings (5:9-10; 1:5-6; 20: 4-6). 242[51]
However, this view is implausible too in that the kings in 19: 18 must be
distinguished from those in 21: 24. It is obvious in light of Isaiah 60: 3, on which 21: 2426 is closely based. Bauckham shows how John made changes to the text of Isaiah:
first, the indefinite nations and kings of Isaiah have become the definite, the nations
and the kings of the earth, and used these terms all through his book. That is, they are
the same group of nations and kings.243[52]

239[48] Mathias Rissi, The Future of the World (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1972),
75-79; Caird, 279; Sweet, 309-309; Beasley-Murray, 328.

240[49] G. Beale, 1097-1098.

Ibid.,

241[50]

1099.

242[51] G. Beale, 1097; Krodel, 365.

243[52]

Bauckham,

The

Climax

of

Prophecy,

313-314.

Then how do we have to interpret this? Bauckham again provides us with a

solution. He claims that John uses these terms in two opposing ways: they are under
Babylonian rule (nations: 17:15; 18:3, 23; cf. 14: 8; kings of the earth: 17: 2, 19; 18:3, 9)
and under the rule of God (nations: 2:8; 15: 4; 21: 24: kings of the earth: 1: 5; 21: 24). He
interprets this as a transfer of the Babylonian universal dominion to God. 244[53] Then
what does it mean that the same group of nations and kings all perish and become
Gods people at the same time?
Here, one would have to approach this contradiction from the perspective of
Johns psychological state and the metaphoric meaning of cannibalism. When the kings
and generals are eaten, the act of eating them through birds was done with contradictory
emotions: hatred and affection. On the one hand, John demolishes them all with extreme
ferocity and brutality. On the other hand, he saves them all and makes them part of the
New Jerusalem. The act of eating them was a symbol of incorporating them. At this
moment, their identity breaks down and is totally transformed. The result of this massive
surgery on their identity is demonstrated in various ways.
In 21:24, the nations will walk by the light of Gods glory and the Lamb. As Aune
points out, (walk) can mean to live too, and thereby metaphorically way of
living. Bauckham points out that Rev. 21: 24 is based on Isa. 60:3: Nations shall come
to your light, kings to the brightness of your dawn. He connects the verse with a
message to the nations in Isa. 2: 3: Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,;
that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths, and its parallel
message to Jacobs house in Isa. 2:5: O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light
of the Lord. That is, in this association of the verses, walking in the Lords light means

244[53] Ibid., 314; cf. Aune, Revelation 17-22, 1171.

that all nations will be instructed in Gods will and live according to it, like the house of
Jacob.245[54]
In 21:24 the kings will bring their glory into it, and the same point is repeated in v. 26
where people bring glory and honor into it. According to Jan Fekkes, the phrase glory
and honor or honor and glory was used as a conventional terminology for spiritual
worship. In Rev. 4: 9, 11 and 5: 12-13, those phrases are used in the liturgical situation.
The other examples are in Pss. 8: 5 (LXX); 1 Macc. 14: 21; Rom. 2: 7, 10; 1 Tim. 1: 17,
etc.246[55] The meaning of the kings and nations pilgrimage to the New Jerusalem is
revealed when it is compared with the emphasized theme of corrupt worship in ch. 13.
In ch. 13, the whole world worships the dragon and the beast out of the sea (v. 3, 4), and
the beast blasphemes God (v. 5, 6). It is again emphasized that the beast is worshipped
by all in v. 8. This theme of twisted worship is repeated: the second beast out of the
earth makes the inhabitants of the earth worship the first beast (v. 12). The second beast
even makes an image of the first beast in honor of the latter (v. 14), which implies the
worship of the image. The whole worlds worship of the dragon (i.e., Satan, 12: 9) and
the first beast is contrasted with the implied worship of God and the Lamb by kings and
nations in the New Jerusalem (21:22ff.). Here, Satan/the first beast and God/the Lamb
form a binary opposite.247[56] From those two contrastive worship themes, one can infer
245[54]

Bauckham,

The

Climax

of

Prophecy,

313-315.

246[55] Jan Fekkes, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 272.

247[56] The contrast between Satan/the first beast and God/the Lamb is actually a

consistent theme in Revelation. It is highlighted by emphasis on parallels between them.

For instance, as Thompson argues, one of the beasts head is described as as slain,
(13:3) and the same expression is used for the Lamb (5:6); the beast was wounded and
yet lived (13:3, 14), which is comparable to Jesus who died and lived (2:8), etc. As
regards to God/Satan, Both God and Satan are enthroned (2:13, 4:2); just as Satanic
locusts have golden diadems, so does the godly twenty-four elders (4:4, 9:7), etc.
Thompson continues to claim that those similarities are evidence of soft boundaries
between good and evil, but rather it could be a technique designed to highlight the
contrast through a paradoxical focus on their similarities. Thompson, The Book of

that the peoples pilgrimage to the New Jerusalem for right worship means the
conversion of the whole world in captivity to the worship of the beast.
However, it is difficult to hold that worship is the only object belonging to the Empire
that John desires. First, the combination of glory and honor can also refer to the external
splendor (Exod. 28: 2; 2 Macc. 5: 16), as Fekkes reveals. 248[57] Aune also claims that
the range of the phrases meanings can include material goods and riches as well as
reputation and adoration, and the phrases were used widely in antiquity (Ps. 8: 5 [MT 8:
6 LXX 8:6]; Philo Abr. 184; Plutarch Camillus 25.1, etc.)249[58] Within the passages of
Rev. where the term glory/honor occurs, the Lamb is said to be worthy of wealth
() as well as honor and glory (5:12), and also power (4:11, 5: 12), which is
closely related to riches. The proximity between glory/honor and wealth cannot be
ignored.
That is, the glory and honor brought into the city implicitly includes all the material
riches and goods too. This becomes more plausible in comparison with the riches the
nations and kings once brought into Babylon, in ch. 18, which is a metaphoric city
opposed to the New Jerusalem. Isaiah 60, the text in issue is based on, also indicates
more clearly that the nations will bring riches and wealth into Jerusalem at the end. 250

[59]
Probably, the reason why the material goods are not described clearly in 21:2426 is that it was already depicted right before this scene. In 21:11, 19-21, the material
riches that the Whore once possessed (17:4) are implicitly already in possession of the
Revelation,

81-82.

248[57] Fekkes, 272.

249[58] Aune, Revelation 17-22, 1173.

250[59]

G.

Beale,

1100.

New Jerusalem, as noted below.251[60] However, Johns ambivalent feelings toward the
imperial wealth is expressed by his emphasis on the pureness of his wealth (21:11, 18,
21) and commonality between the New Jerusalems jewels (21:11, 18-21) and Gods
precious stones (4:3, 6).252[61]
The interest in the imperial wealth is understandable in consideration of Johns
view on the then historical situation as noted in the introduction. For John, acquiring
wealth meant collusion with the Roman imperial system. Economic jockeying was the
most powerful temptation for Christians. This point is once again shown in Rev. 13. After
displaying the theme of the worship of the beast, John introduces a mark that the beast
forces people to have on their right hands or foreheads (13:16). 253[62] Without this mark,
nobody can sell or buy (v. 17). Economic activity itself cannot be separated with
approving of and being involved in the imperial (religious) system. The fact that this
scene closely follows the theme of the beasts worship implies that the religious arena
and the economic are closely related.
Therefore, John evinces his desire for both imperial worship and material
abundance. The whole world was captivated by imperial worship and riches, which are
related to each other. Johns desire for his enemys possessions was already shown in
the metaphorical humans-eating in 19:18. By eating them, he can obtain all they have,
i.e., worshippers and riches. However, Johns affection toward them is not limited to the
superficial scope of adoration and wealth. The desire of obtaining their adoration itself
251[60] Below, 177-178.

252[61] Below, 179-180; Above 64-65.

253[62] Receiving the brand and worshipping the beast or its image are always
juxtaposed (12:16, 17; 14:9, 11; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). In parallel, only Gods servants
receive Gods seal on their foreheads (7:3). That is, receiving the mark is related to
loyalty as a servant, which is in turn externally expressed by worship.

shows Johns desire of converting them first. The desire was directed not only to what
they had materially or politically, but also to what they are, who they are.
The use of cannibalistic images for forging an identity is common in the Old Testament,
as noted above. The violence used in those images is not the purpose of itself. It is only
a means for establishing a relationship between ruling and ruled. This message is shown
metaphorically in the account of the kings consumption and their return. After they are
eaten as a punishment in relation to the deity as it were, they re-emerge as a new
existence. Cannibalistic violence accomplishes its own purpose.

3. Ingesting the Woman

In Rev. 17: 16, the Whore is consumed by the beast and the ten horns. The beasts
eating the Whore is tinged with the hue of Fanons theory in that the beast, as opposed
to the humans-eating bird evoking heaven, is evocative of eternal damnation only, for it
is bound with the earth and leads onto the symbol of death. On the while, the ten horns
eating her has more of the sentiment of the Bhabhaian theory. It is clearly expressed in
the next scene in 18: 9-10 that the kings, equivalent with the ten horns symbolically,
mourn for the destruction of Rome, the Whore.

i. Fanon: Beasts Consumption of Whore (17: 16)

The traditional Old Testament image of animals eating the defeated enemies
features both birds and beasts. In contrast to the imagery in 19: 21, here the birds are
missing and instead only the beast is featured, aside from the ten horns. In light of
Johns spatial dualism noted above, one could interpret birds as a symbol of spiritual

soaring/salvation as in 12:14, in which the woman is saved by the wings 254[63] of an

eagle, and as in 19: 21, in which birds eating the kings and generals is a symbol of
transformation of their identities and integration of them into Gods kingdom as noted
above. Then, could one correspondingly take this scene of the beasts eating the whore
as relatively negative, for the beast belongs to the realm of earth and can be the
opposite of the bird symbol? The answer is affirmative, for the whore never appears
again after being devoured by the beast. The Whore is not included in the list of the
saved in Revelation. Here, Revelation distinguishes the Whore, i.e., Rome, from the
nations and the kings of the earth which reappear as saved entities later (21:24-25).
Thompson notes that at 12:14, the woman flees from the dragon into the wilderness and
in the next reference to wilderness, John witnesses the woman full of blasphemous
names (17:3). He argues that if we accept this literally, the good woman is transformed
into the bad woman.255[64] However, more likely, this juxtaposition of the contrasting
images can be a symbolic depiction of the contrast between the church/woman and
Rome/the Whore.
The woman in ch. 12 is not devoured by the dragon, while the Whore is eaten by the
beast. Both the dragon and the beast are bound to the earth, which evokes materialistic
pursuits, in contrast to the birds in the sky, the symbol of spiritual sphere. The churches
still hold out an opportunity of entering the spiritual sphere, while the Empire is doomed.
It is devoured by the beast once and for all.
Then, where are the birds? Where did they go, leaving the Whore to the beast
only? They appear in 18: 2 where the birds dwell in the devastated Babylon. The birds
254[63] Cf, above, 64; The other images of wings are observable in Rev. 4: 8 and 9: 9.

However, in these two cases, any indication of identity transformation is absent.

Therefore, the image of wings may emblematize salvation, only when it is related to a
conception
of
identity
transformation.
255[64]

Thompson,

The

Book

of

Revelation,

81-82.

cannot consume any slice of the Whores flesh, for all her flesh is already gone. As it
were, they come only after the beast finishes his meal. The metaphor of humans-eating
birds, symbolizing a possibility of salvation, does not exist here, but the birds only create
an atmosphere of desolation and devastation after the great fall.
This impossibility of the Whores salvation becomes clearer from Beales
observation that Babylon (which is, obviously, the Whore), the devil, the beast, and the
false prophet are all identified with one another, for they all possess unclean spirits and
demons (18: 2; 16: 13-14).256[65] Their belonging to a same category is demonstrated
by their final fates as well: the beast, the demon, and the false prophet are not eaten by
birds, which can be a symbol of incorporation in the kingdom of God. Instead, they are
thrown straight into the fiery lake (19: 20; 20: 10), while the kings and their armies are
eaten by the birds (19: 21) and revived later (21:24). Similarly, the Whore is not eaten by
birds but by the beast, and then never revived from then onward. There is no indication
whatsoever of possibilities of salvation for the Whore, the demon, the beast, and the
false prophet.
From comparison with the tradition of cannibalistic curses in the OT, one can gain
some interesting insights here. As noted above, the endo-cannibalism, cannibalism
imposed on ones own kinship, forced by hunger and famine belonged to the most
severe punishment visited by God in the Old Testament tradition. Against the tradition,
the beasts eating the Whore is the cruelest punishment: just as the kinsmen share blood
and flesh, so the beast and the Whore have in common unclean spirits and demons
(18: 2; 16: 13h-14). They are a kind of spiritual kin, and one kin attacks and eats the
other, although the motive of the Whore-eating is not hunger but sheer hatred (v. 16).
Rev. 17: 17 says that this egregious event is orchestrated by God. That is, it was
a divine act of punishment. The other atrocious acts inflicted on the whore in the same
256[65]

G.

Beale,

894.

passage, such as leaving her naked or burning her, are also prescribed as Gods
punishment in the tradition of the Old Testament 257[66]: leaving her naked is based on
the divine punishment of the spiritual prostitutes in Jer. 13: 26-27; Ezek. 16: 37-38, etc.,
and Lev. 21: 9 prescribes burning as a punishment of a priests daughter who is a
prostitute. That is, all the sufferings the Whore should go through are from the divinity,
among which being eaten is situated.
Beale enumerates a number of parallels between the Whore and Jezebel: 1) both are
adorned with jewelry and gold before death; 2) both are queens; 3) both seduce people,
etc.258[67] If one adds one more item to the list of parallels, it would be that both are
eaten by the beast(s): Jezebel and the Whore are consumed by dogs (a kind of the
beast) and the beast, respectively. However, there are also differences. In the case of
Jezebel, the scene of her flesh being eaten by dogs is equivalent with the depiction of
Jehu eating a meal, which produces a symbolic effect of incorporating Jezebels power
and authority, as noted above.
In contrast, the consumption of the Whore does not imply any symbolic meaning
of incorporation. The symbolic incorporation occurs only in the depiction of the kings
consumption and their return in 19: 18 and 21: 24-26, as noted above. The fact that John
eliminates any possibility of the Whores recuperation or incorporation, though he bases
this verse on Jezebels story implying incorporation, can indicate how much he abhorred
the Whore. When John intends to incorporate Romes power/authority, it is expressed by
incorporating the kings (19: 18) who are depicted as having consumed the Whore (17:
16). That is, John minimizes the contact with Rome and if it is absolutely necessary, he
does it indirectly.
257[66] Aune, Revelation 17-22, 957.

258[67]

G.

Beale,

884.

Johns alienation from Rome can be observed when it compares with his
treatment of Jezebel at the church in Thyatira (2: 22). This Jezebel only suffers illnesses
for her sins,259[68] while the punishment of being eaten by animals, visited on Jezebel in
the OT tradition, falls on the Whore. John distinguishes the internal enemy with the
external enemy. For him, Rome is the entity which should undergo all the most severe
and cruel punishments. The other kings, nations, and Jezebels are treated more lightly
and most of all still stand opportunities.
The ultimate and assured destruction of the Whore is contrasted with the fate of
the ten horns. The ten horns are the ten kings (Rev. 17: 12), and these kings receive
authority and power, and rule under the authority of the beast for one hour (17: 12-13).
This time period for one hour, as Beale points out, echoes for one hour in Dan. 4:17a,
where the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar is caused by God to become like a beast. 260

[69] The phrase Lord of Lords and King of Kings can be another link between the two
episodes, for it occurs in both (Rev. 17:14; LXX of Dan. 4:37). The metaphor of
drunkenness suffusing ch. 17 also corroborates the interpretation above. As Beale points
out, the phrase wine of her fornication occurs in both 17:2 and 14:8, and the metaphor
of Babylon making nations drunk is traced back to Jer. 51:7-8, 261[70] where drunkenness
and madness are identified.
Revelation may indicate here that the nations and kings madness/ drunkenness
is only temporary. After the one hour, Nebuchadnezzar recuperates from madness and
praises God. Just as Nebuchadnezzar identifies himself with a beast, so the ten kings
259[68] According to Aune, the expression I will throw her into a sickbed (v. 22) is a

Hebrew idiom, meaning to punish someone with various illnesses (Exodus 21: 18; 1
Macc
1:5;
Jdt
8:3),
id.,
Revelation
1-5,
205.
260[69] G. Beale, 879.

261[70] Ibid., 849, 757.

ally themselves with the beast. If John had in mind this episode of the Babylonian king
in those passages, he may have meant the ten kings to recover from their beast-like
state and ultimately praise God, just like Nebuchadnezzar.
The contrast between the Whore and the other sinners is evidenced again in ch. 18,
where the punishment of the Whore is elaborated. In ch. 18, Babylon, i.e., the Whore, is
burned and undergoes divine punishments (18: 8, 10). On the contrary, the kings and
other groups such as merchants and professional mariners only witness the destruction
of Rome, even though they deserve to share the punishment for their fornication with her
and sharing unjust wealth with her. They only witness it, but are not participating in it,
which is symbolized well by their standing from a distance. (vv 10, 15, 17). That is, they
are only warned and stand another chance.
As for John, the Whore had to function as a metaphorical target to fight to
establish the right Christian identity, for the image of the Whore itself contains the
symbol of mixing or the blurring of the body boundary in her promiscuous relationship
with many men, which in turn becomes the symbol of the blurring of the social boundary.
That was the reason that the Whore, the symbol of mixing, could not be saved at all.
Not metaphorically but historically, as noted in the introduction, to obtain an
economically and even politically good status, one would have to accommodate to the
Roman imperial system, including the imperial cult. This theme is also shown in the
thematic juxtaposition of the beasts worship and the right of buying and selling in ch. 13.
The web of the Roman economic/political/religious system, in the eyes of John, was the
most execrable abomination, for it was the source of the blurring of the boundaries of the
Church.
Therefore, it comes as no wonder that Johns hatred toward the Whore is
maximized. Thus, the consumption of the Whore by the beast is caused by sheer hatred
only, in Gods plan, which is expressed in the trope of humans-eating, the most fitting

form of expression for extreme hatred. By dispossessing Rome the Whore of any
possibility of salvation, John warns the readers to steer clear of her: Come out of her
(Rev. 18:4) For him, it means eternal damnation to mingle with her and share anything
with her. By depicting her this way, John attempts to restore the true identity of the
Church that appears threatened to him.

ii. Bhabha: Ten Horns Consumption of Whore (17: 16; 18: 9-10)
The Whores demise ch. 17 and the fall of Babylon in ch. 18 are the two different
depictions of one and the same incident: the fall of Rome. However, some inconsistency
is found between them. For instance, the Whore is burned to death, while in ch. 18, the
cause of Babylons fall is pestilence, famine, and burning (v. 8). As regards the different
methods of the Whores demise, according to Aune, pestilence, mourning, famine, and
burning with fire are all part of the ancient topos used in describing the capture of a city:
pestilence and famine were frequent results of a prolonged siege of a city, mourning is
associated with the death of the city residents, and burning the beleaguered city was the
conquerors final act of reprisal in ancient times. 262[71] Therefore, the death of the Whore
in ch. 17 is assumed to be the metaphor of the capture of the city of Rome, and the
topos depicting the fall of Babylon in ch. 18 is nothing other than a different expression
of the fall of Rome.
Another tension is observed between Rev. 17: 16 and 18: 9-10. In Rev. 17: 16,
the ten horns hate and consume the Whore, while in 18: 9-10, the kings of the earth
weep for the destruction of Babylon. Possibly, the ten horns or the ten kings and the
kings of the earth could be regarded as two different groups that felt and behaved
differently toward Rome. Alternatively, whether they are different groups or not, it could
be viewed as the expression of the fact that each group contains the same mutually262[71]

Aune,

Revelation

17-22,

996.

contradictory emotions toward the Whore, while highlighting only one aspect of the
feelings explicitly each.
If the beasts consumption of the Whore is a manifestation of Johns
repulsion toward Rome, the ten horns consumption of the Whore takes on a more
complicated aspect: the colonized kings ambivalent emotions toward the colonizer,
Rome. The metaphor linking their extreme hatred and affection is again cannibalism. In
17: 16, the ten kings are said to eat the Whore out of hatred. In neglect of the
contradictory aspects included in cannibalism, in 17: 16, only one aspect of it, i.e.,
revulsion is pinpointed for a cause of the act of cannibalism.
As seen above, the act of cannibalism sometimes contains mutually-contradictory
emotions. The cannibalistic scene in 17: 16 is only indicative of the hatred part, which is
the surface level of the act. However, on the other side of the undercurrent of the
emotion is affection and attraction toward the Whore. One index showing it is the implied
image of sexual assault in the death of the Whore.
The Whore is the object of not only hatred but also desire. Jean K. Kim,
borrowing Constance Classens anthropological analysis of women and their associated
odors,263[72] concludes that sensual imagery oozing from descriptions of silk, sweet
wine, and perfumed/bejeweled body of the Whore (Rev. 17:2, 4, 16; cf. Isa. 57:9)
exposes male desire for her body and her seductive power.264[73]

263[72] An anthropologist Constance Classen classifies women into three types: 1) wives

and mothers, the good women, 2) young virgins 3) sexual women. Each type of women
is associated with a generalized odor; especially sexual women are associated with
heavily sweet and spicy odors, the sweetness of the scent signifying their beauty and
attraction, and the spiciness and heaviness their exotic status and overwhelming powers
of fascination. Constance Classen, Worlds of Sense (London, New York: Routledge
Press, 1993), 88.
264[73] Jean K. Kim, Uncovering Her Wickedness, Journal for the Study of the New

Testament

73

(1999):

75.

Not only is the male desire for her satisfied in Rev. 17:16. So is revulsion and
hostility toward her. Stephen Moore draws an image of a sexually assaulted woman from
Rev. 17:16,265[74] basing his argument on Harold C. Washingtons claim that in the OT,
the city is frequently portrayed as a woman (Isa. 66:8-13, 62:3, 37:22, 62:5, 47:8, 9,
54:4, 47: 1-4; Lam. 1:1; Jer. 6:1-8; 13:22; Nah. 3:5-6) and that especially in Deut. 20: 1020 the image of a sexually assaulted woman is used in the description of capturing the
city: it enjoins the soldiers to attack her (20:10), and the submissive city is opening to
the warrior (20:11) and the same verb is used for both militarily seizing of the city (20:19)
and sexually assaulting a woman (22: 28);266[75] that in a broader perspective, in the Old
Testament and other Near Eastern literatures too, the language of war is inextricably
implicated with masculine sexuality.267[76]
In Rev. 17: 16, male desire for womans body co-exists with his severe violence
on it. On the one hand, he desires and feels attracted to her body, yet he achieves his
satisfaction with severe violence, for she defies his approach. His frustration and anger
arising from the confrontational situation increases with his not-so-soon-accomplished
and accordingly all the more mounting desire for her tantalizing body. When it comes the
time to seize her, his adoration for her body is mixed with his hatred and hostility towards
her. In this sense, the affection part is hidden in the cannibalistic scene in 17: 16. He
eats her not only for hatred but also for her attraction.

265[74] Stephen D. Moore, Gods Beauty Parlor (Stanford: Stanford University

Press, 2001), 181-183.

266[75] Harold C. Washington, Violence and the Construction of Gender in the

Hebrew Bible, Biblical Interpretation 5 (1997): 346.

267[76] Ibid., 330.

The ambivalent attitude toward the Whore is found not only in ch. 17 but also in
the scene of the Whore funeral in ch. 18. According to J. M. Ford, in the NT this verb,
(to weep), always describes an unrestrained weeping of grief, often by
professional mourners.268[77] The word (to weep) occurs in the context of the
Whores death: it is interspersed in the laments of the kings (18: 9-10), the merchants
(18: 11, 15-17), and the sailors (18: 17-19) for the Whores death, which hints that this
weeping is for her funeral. Along a similar line, Tinna Pippin contends that the scene is
the funeral of the Whore for it has all the typical parts of the urban Roman funeral: paid
mourners, sacrifices at the grave, a funeral banquet, except a commemorative tomb.
Here the mourners do not eat over the body but eat the body of the Whore itself. 269[78]
Pippin only relates the cannibalistic scene in 17: 16 with the funeral scene of the Whore
in 18 randomly. Nonetheless, from the perspective of the cannibalistic theories, this
linking is not to be treated lightly. As seen in Eli Sagans theory above, affectionate
cannibalism takes place usually in the funeral setting, where extreme grief/hatred and
affection toward the departed are expressed baldly and confusedly among cannibals.
That is, the cannibalistic scene in 17: 16 and the funeral mourning scene in 18: 9-10
both contain ambivalent feelings, which could be a symbol of the mixed emotions of
hatred and affection toward the Whore.
The ambivalent attitude of the colonized toward Rome is found not only in Rev.
17-18 but also in other literature tradition and historical backdrop, especially, of Asia
Minor, too. As regards the conflictual relationship, Bauckham argues that Jewish Sibyline
oracles, roughly contemporary with Rev., took up the popular resentment in Asia Minor
268[77] J. M. Ford, Revelation (Garden City: Anchor Bible, 1975), 85.

269[78] Tinna Pippin, Death and Desire (Louisvill: Westminster, John Knox Press,

1992), 61.

against Roman pillage and taxation. The most important passages regarding the
bitterness are Sibyline Oracle 3: 350-380. It is sufficient to quote the beginning:
However much wealth Rome received from tribute-bearing Asia, Asia will receive three
times that much again from Rome and will repay her deadly arrogance to her. Whatever
number from Asia served the house of the Italians, twenty times that number of Italians
shall be serfs in Asia, or 4: 145 f. says that Great wealth will come to Asia, which Rome
itself once plundered and deposited in her house of many possessions. She will then
pay back twice as much and more to Asia 270[79]
What is of interest here is that the defeat of Rome by Asia is closely connected with the
legend of the return of Nero. Thus, as Bauckham claims, Sibylline Oracles 4: 145-148
saying that Asia will conquer Rome is closely linked with 4: 137-139 containing the Nero
redivivus myth, and a Sibylline passage (8: 68-72) later than Revelation, more explicitly
predicts that the returning Nero will restore the riches stolen by Rome to Asia. In
Revelation too, the fall of Rome is related to the legend of the returning Nero (16: 12-14;
17: 11-13, 16-17).271[80]
The tradition that Asia Minor will triumph over Rome seems to have played a part in
forming the legend of the returning Nero, which Jewish Sibylline Oracles and Revelation
270[79] Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 378-379, 381-382; cf. Collins, Crisis and

Catharsis,

91.

271[80] Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 382; the image of beast/Nero is evoked,

esp., by the number 666 (13:18), in ch. 13 as well, if one accepts the widely accepted
numerological interpretation that the number 666, the name of the beast (v. 17),
symbolizes Nero. Ibid., 384-407. However, the image of beast/Nero in ch. 13 is different
from that in ch. 16 and 17, in that in ch. 13 the dragon, and the first and second beasts
all cooperate with one another harmoniously. That could be due to Johns selective
highlighting the different aspects of Neros image, as fits in with the theme of each
chapter. That is, the main theme of ch. 13 is the persecution of Christians, and Nero was
historically the first emperor who persecuted Christians. Thus, the image of Nero there
functions as a trope of Christian persecution/martyrdom, in line with Rome. On the other
hand, the theme of ch. 16 and 17 is judgment, where Nero appears as an instrument of
Romes judgment, whose image is evoked by the legend of the returning Nero. In
parallel, in dreams too, the collecting of objects or people that evoke a similar thought or
feeling into one scene is observed. Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams, 212-232.

both adopted. In this sense, as Collins concludes, Johns Revelation is a part of the
tradition of the colonized easts collective efforts to resist the colonizer Rome, at least
intellectually.272[81] Therefore, if one assumes that Rev. 17: 16 reflects the rumor that
Nero would return from the east with Parthian armies to defeat Rome, 273[82] then behind
the scene of eating the Whore in the passage, one could see the colonized easterners
collective hatred, including that of John and his churches in Asia Minor, toward Rome the
colonizer,.
However, if one argues that Asia Minor held a hostile sentiment against Rome, forming a
part of the colonized easts tradition of protest, that would rule out the other side of the
moon. As Beale pinpoints, whereas Sib. Or. 3. 350-68 describes Asia Minor as a victim
of Romes voracious greed, in another Jewish apocalypse, 4 Ezra (15: 46-63), roughly
contemporary with Revelation again, Asia is complicit in Romes immorality.274[83]
Several passages from 4 Ezra 15 illustrate this: And you, O Asia, who share in the
glamour of Babylon and the glory of her person (italics mine): -- woe to you, miserable
wretch! For you have made yourself like her (italics mine): you have decked out your
daughters in harlotry to please and glory in your lovers, who have always lusted after
you. You have imitated that hateful harlot in all her deeds and devices (italics mine) (vv
46-49).275[84] That is, the author of 4 Ezra criticizes Asia for its mimicking the Roman

272[81] Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 93-94.

273[82] Aune, Revelation 17-22, 957.

274[83]

G.

Beale,

886,

906.

275[84] Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, vol. 1 of The Old Testament

Psudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York, London, Toronto, Sydney,

Aukland: Doubleday, 1983), 557.

evil practices and sharing its glory and glamour, and thus warns that it will suffer the
consequences (v. 49 f.).
As in the case of Revelation, the author of 4 Ezra may have referred to the
imperial cult system as harlotry, in which Asia Minor participated actively. As scholars
point out,276[85] the Asias passion for promoting the imperial cult is well known: the cult
began with the ascendancy of Augustus, and it is worth noticing that the imperial temple
construction was launched in Asia Minor not at Augustuss initiative but the Asian local
elites; since then, the building of the temples had become one of signal instances of the
Asian cities competition for showing their loyalty to Rome.
The provincial rulers in Asia Minor went beyond imitating the Roman but attempted to
become more Roman than the Roman. Their passionate initiative at being incorporated
into the imperial system evinces their desire toward the imperial Romes wealth and
power. Generally speaking, the provincial elites cooperation with the imperialists
rewarded them quite generously, whether economically or politically,277[86] which in turn
must have encouraged them more to participate in the system.
Correspondingly, Roman aristocrats ridiculed and felt disgusted by the intractable
ambition and desire of the provincial elites, including those of Asian Minor. For instance,
Plutarch derisively speaks of the provincials:

276[85] S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1984), 54-55; Steven J. Friesen, Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2001), 25-26; Howard-Brook and Anthony Gwyther, Unveiling
Empire (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2002), 102.

277[86] As Kraybill points out, scholars contend that during the entire Flavian period (69-

96 CE), an increasing number of Easterners took Roman imperial offices. Kraybill, 69; B.
Levick, Domitian and the Provinces, Latomus 41 (1982): 62; B. W. Jones, Domitian
and the Senatorial Order (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1979), 28-29; S.
J. Friesen, Twice Neokoros (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 159; P. Garnsey and R. Saller, The
Roman Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 9.

who are not content with whatever portion of either repute or power among their own
fellow-countrymen has fallen to their lot, but weep because they do not wear the
patrician shoe; yet if they do wear it, they weep because they are not yet Roman
praetors; if they are praetors, because they are not consuls; and if consuls, because
they were proclaimed, not first, but later.278[87]
Against the historical backdrop, 4 Ezra 15 reveals a penetrating vision on the
contemporary circumstances. Asia Minor indeed participated in the glory and glamour of
Rome by mimicking/imitating and even going beyond the Romans. The Asian provincial
elites laboriously demonstrated their loyalty to Rome by participating in and promoting
the imperial cult. They wormed their ways in the houses of the great, and were able to
savor power and wealth.
John could observe these contradictory sentiments toward the colonizer Rome
although they were puzzling and disconcerting. On the one hand, Asia Minor hoped to
triumph over Rome and pay back all the sufferings and afflictions to Rome. This
sentiment shows itself well in 17: 16, where the ten kings attack Rome and eat her. On
the other hand, Asia was cooperative and complicit in the Roman imperial system. Their
desire toward the power and wealth of the Empire propelled them to be tied up with
Rome, tightly. This affection toward Rome is well demonstrated in the scene of 18: 10,
where the kings weep and mourn over Babylons fall. However, each scene contains
ambivalent feelings.
Probably, the scene of the kings eating the Whore in 17: 16 is a link between
these two contradictory emotions. As noted above, one of the symbolic meanings of
cannibalism may be a coexistence of contradictory feelings. That is, the act includes
extreme hatred and extreme affection, simultaneously. When the kings consumed the
Whore, they did it not only out of hatred but also out of desire to absorbe her wealth and
power. This ambivalent emotion toward Rome is also expressed in the funerary scene of
278[87] Kraybill, 70; Plutarch, Mor. 470c.

kings and mourners in ch. 18. It is not co-incidental that among some tribes cannibalism
is practiced at the funeral, where ambivalent feelings toward the departed are
expressed.
John as a member of the colonized felt the same ambivalent feelings toward
Rome, as shown in ch. 4. 2, 4 above and ch.5. 2. iii below. However, the method by
which the emotion is expressed is different. In the case of hatred toward Rome, they
act it out baldly and savagely by consuming her literally (17:16), while we do only by
having the agents of birds eat them (19:21). As regards attraction toward Rome, they
demonstrate their greed for her riches directly by weeping bitterly for the ultimate loss of
the wealth (18:11, 14-18), while we eternally own pure wealth different from theirs,
although the wealth is actually transferred from their hands, as shown in ch. 5. 2. iii. The
lesson gained from these contrasting images is that notwithstanding the apparent
similarity of ambivalent emotions toward the Empire, we are different from them.
Those differences forge the identity of the Church.

4. Human Crops
There is a debate on whether two scenes of grain harvest and grape harvest
in 14: 14-20 are one scene of judgment repeated twice or the two scenes of salvation
and judgment. I will suggest that the scene of 14: 14 -16 includes both salvation and
judgment messages and is an expression of ambivalence in the Bhabhaian sense
toward the imperial subjects, which should be incorporated into the Empire of God. This
ambivalence is already included in the metaphor of human crops, for it implies
consumption of the people.

i. Salvation Scene or Judgment Scene? (14: 14-16)

At first glance, it is obvious that 14: 17-20 is a depiction of a judgment scene. For
one thing, the gathering of the grapes and trampling them in the winepress of Gods
wrath can be traced back to the OT images of Gods judgment (Joel 3:13 [MT 4:13]; Isa.
63: 1-6).279[88] In v. 20, the blood flowing from the winepress rises as high as the
horses bridles. Aune argues that for this metaphor is commonly used in apocalyptic
literature (1 Enoch 100:3; 4 Ezra 15: 35b-36), it indicates the final eschatological
judgment.280[89]
It also may indicate the last judgment that the blood also reaches the distance of
1,600 stadia (about 184 miles). According to Osborne, this is the whole length of
Palestine from the Syrian border in the north to the Egyptian border in the south. 281[90]
That is, the slaughter will be of exceptional proportions, possibly that of the last
judgment. It is also worthy to mention that the treading of the winepress occurs outside
279[88]

Aune,
280[89] Ibid., 848.

281[90] Osborne, 556.

Revelation

6-16,

846-847.

the city (14:20), just as the last judgment will be delivered outside the city in Rev. 20:
8-9.282[91]
However, commentators divide into two camps, as to whether 14: 14-16 should be
regarded as a salvation scene or a judgment scene. Aune summarizes the main
arguments of each camp of scholars. First, the items of evidence for the argument that
the scene is the eschatological judgment are the following: 283[92]
1)

Both Rev. 14: 14-16 and 14: 17-21 are clear allusions to Joel 3:13 (MT 4:13),
which deals only with divine judgment.284[93]; 2) the harvest instrument in each scene (v.
14, 17) is identically a sharp sickle, which may include a conception of judgment, for
the implication of the sickle is a known apocalyptic notion (e.g., Mark 4:29; T. Abr. [Rec.
A] 4:11; 8:9, 10; Vit. Proph. 3.6-7); 3) the phrase the hour for harvest has come in v. 15
can refer back to the phrase the hour of judgment has come in v. 7, in light of their
almost identical wordings and structures; 4) the harvest (grain, grape, or olive) is
frequently used as a metaphor for divine judgment (Isa. 17:5; Jer. 51: 33; 2 Apoc. Bar.
70:20; Matt. 13: 24-30, etc.); the motif of gathering the elect or the converts occurs in the
NT (e.g., 1 Thess 4:16-17) but not anywhere in Rev. According to Beale, the fact the
commands come from the temple or altar (14: 15, 17, 18) is also another symbol of
judgment, for they are always proclamations of judgment in Revelation (e.g., 6:1-5; 9:
13; 16:7, 17).285[94]
282[91]

G.

Beale,

781.

283[92] Aune, Revelation 6-16, 802.

284[93] However, Bauckham counters that even though the two scenes are based

on Joel 3:13, John must have twisted the original meaning. In parallel, Mark also refers
to Joel 3:13 (Mark 4: 29), but creatively changed its contextual meaning. Bauckham,
The Climax of Prophecy, 290.
285[94] G. Beale, 774.

There have been proposed many counter-arguments viewing the scene of v. 14-16 in a
positive manner286[95]: 1) Just as the vineyard image in v. 14: 17-20 has precedents in
the same chapter (v. 8, 10), so the grain image of v. 15-16 has an antecedent image in
the 144,000 who are the first-fruits (14:4). In light of Lev 23: 9-14 where the first sheaf is
gathered after which the rest of the grain harvest is gathered, 144,000 martyrs can be
the saved first and the grain harvest in v. 15-16 is the second salvation of the converted
nations; 2) Whereas the metaphor of the grain harvest and threshing floor can mean
divine judgment, the grain harvest is also used as a symbol of gathering the elect (Luke
10:2, etc.) or rewarding the righteous (4 Ezra 4: 35); 3) If John had intended to mean the
judgment, he could have included the scene of threshing and winnowing, frequently
used as a metaphor of judgment( cf. Jer 51: 33; Mic 4:12-13, etc.). In contrast to that, the
metaphor of the grape harvest is obviously a scene of judgment, for it includes the scene
of the treading the grape in the winepress of Gods wrath; 4) the fact that the one like a
son is seated on a white cloud is a favorable sign.287[96]
When one surveys the main arguments, one cannot help but feel that something is
wrong with the approach to this issue. The scholars on each side attempt to assign the
text in issue to either this or that. They only think in the mode of binary oppositions and
disregard the gray area in between. The question may have to be why the scene of
salvation and that of judgment are so similar to each other that it is difficult to recognize

286[95]

Aune,

Revelation

6-16,

802-803.

287[96] Beale rightly opposes the view that in Dan. 7:13-14 the son of man

functions only to receive the people of God into his kingdom, which is reflected in Rev.
14: 14-16. The reasons are that 1) the son of man is also a judge in ch. 7, as in 7:22; 2)
the verses directly preceding Dan 7: 13-14 is a court room associated with judgment; 3)
the son of man in Rev. 1:13 also judges churches as in 2:5; 3: 15-16, etc.; 4) early
Jewish and Christian interpretation sees the son of man as both savior and judge (1
Enoch 36-71; usage throughout the Gospels, etc. G. Beale, 777.

which is which. The intermixing of the two scenes is observable, when each group of
arguments mentioned above is compared and shown as contradictory to each other.
For instance, from the perspective of the structure and wording, the two texts, v.
14-16 and v. 17- 20 resemble each other greatly. Aune mentions only the phrase the
sharp sickle occurring in the two sections, but aside from it, the whole structure and
wording are undeniably similar,288[97] and also both are seen as based on Joel 3:13, the
scene of judgment. This similar pattern is another reason why these two scenes can be
a repetition of the same act of judgment.289[98] In addition, considering Johns tendency
to repeat similar or same themes, it is more likely that John here again recapitulates the
same event of judgment.
However, v. 14-16 can be interpreted as a scene of salvation because of the omission of
the scene of threshing and winnowing, which would correspond to the scene of trampling
the harvested grape in the winepress in v. 20. The obvious, symbolic meaning of
threshing and winnowing is judgment, and by omission of this scene, the text of v. 14-16
becomes ambiguous, for the image of harvest can be interpreted as positively and
negatively alike. The text in issue does not have any term or phrase directly indicating
the judgment character, such as the winepress of Gods wrath in v. 19 or blood in v.
20.
There are other insinuations that this scene can be viewed positively. For
instance, the mention of the first-fruits in 14: 4 asks one to link itself with the text of v. 1416, which leads to the conclusion that the latter section is a symbol of salvation, as noted
above. Positive elements can be drawn even from the suggestion that the phrase the
hour for harvest has come in v. 15 can refer back to the phrase the hour of judgment
288[97]

Cf.

Aune,

289[98] G. Beale, 774.

Revelation

6-16,

799.

has come in v. 7. Aune suggests that the occurring of another angel three times in the
section v. 14: 6-13 and the section 14: 14-20 can function to link the two units
somehow.290[99] In this suggestion, the first another angel and his activity is a link
between v. 6-7 and v. 15-16.291[100] Then, the reference of the phrase in v. 15 back to
that in v. 7 can be interpreted as positive, for another angels message (v. 7) is
described as the eternal gospel in v. 6, although the content of the message is
judgment on the surface (v. 7). As noted above,292[101] the eternal gospel may indicate
a positive significance, that is, an opportunity for repentance and salvation.
If 14:14-16 were meant to be a depiction of the judgment scene, it could include the
scene of threshing and winnowing for clarification. However, the scene does not appear
there. If it were meant to be the scene of the salvation, it could be described as totally
different from the following scene of the judgment. However, it is described similarly. In
contrast, this mysteriously ambivalent scene includes both the symbols of salvation and
judgment. Why?

ii. Bhabha: Eliminating/Incorporating Empires Components

To solve this problem, one needs to ponder why John adopted the image of
grain/grape harvest. In the end, these crops symbolize human beings, the implication of
which is cannibalistic, for one of the images evoked by the human crops is the act of
cannibalism. As noted in ch. 2, the image of cannibalism includes the ambivalent
feelings toward the eaten: revulsion and affection. That is, the use of the cannibalistic
290[99]

Aune,

Revelation

6-16,

794.

291[100] The other two another angel sections may be linked to each other (v. 811 and v. 17-20) with the vintage image.

292[101] Above, 106.

image of human crops itself implies the ambivalent emotions. John wants to crush and
eat them, whether they are symbolized as grain or grape, with extreme revulsion.
However, in the implied act of eating them is hidden his affection toward them, which
results in insertion of the salvation theme.
The combination of mutually-contradictory themes is found in dreams and myths,
which can be seen as resembling Revelation. According to Freud, dreams frequently
prefer to unite opposites or contradictions as one. He presents a girls dream as an
example. In her dream, there co-exist the symbols of sexual innocence such as the
blossoming branch and those of sexual sins such as the red blossoms covering it. Freud
explains that this combination of contradictory elements stems from her simultaneous
emotions of pride and guilt. That is, she was feeling proud of her sexual innocence and
at the same time feeling guilty of various childhood sins against sexual purity.

[102]

293

Myths also feature in the effort to reduce contradictions and the sometimes
resultant synthesis of contradictions. Lvi-Strauss says that the function of myths is to
reduce the oppositions encountered in reality, whether it can be overcome or not. In his
words, Mythical thought always progresses from the awareness of oppositions toward
their resolution.294[103] For instance, in the Kwakiutl version of a myth, a hero wanders
back and forth between the longing for the high world (mountains and celestial world,
hunting areas) and that for the low world (the marine and underwater space, fishing
areas). These two contradictions are resolved by the heros becoming a sea hunter, a
synthesis of the two contradict worlds, 295[104] or a satisfaction of both his mutually293[102]

Freud,

The

Interpretation

of

Dreams,

243.

294[103] Claude Lvi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology vol. 1 (New York: Basic Books,

1963),

224.
295[104] Claude Lvi-Strauss, The View from Afar (New York: Basic Books, 1985),

169.

contradictory emotions of longing for the high world and the low, although some other
versions of the myth only show the awareness of the contradictions and fail to resolve
the problem.296[105]
This co-existence of contradictory emotions effecting the illogical combination of
them may operate in Rev. 14: 14-16. That is, the simultaneous revulsion and affection of
the Church in line with Johns attitude to the imperial system toward the imperial subject
could have been expressed by the combining of the symbols of judgment and salvation.
The Church refusing to accommodate to the Empire wants to simultaneously punish and
save the imperial subject, the result of which is the awkward combination of the two.
Another evidence of the combination of the mutually-contradictory emotions in
the verses in issue is found in the scene of the two witnesses in ch. 11. In this regard,
one needs to look over Adela Yabro Collinss composition of Revelation which is based
on the theory of recapitulation. Very convincing as her structure of Revelation is, she
makes a slip by attributing the judgment/salvation scene in 14: 14-16 to the category of
judgment in the third column of unnumbered (1). If one regards it as a scene of the
ambivalent salvation/judgment, another pair of sections with a same message (ch. 11
and 14: 1- 16) can be added to Collinss diagram of repeated themes in Revelation. 297

[106]
In 11: 1-2, the inner core of the temple is measured and then two witnesses
proclaim their messages. In parallel, in ch. 14, the saved 144,000 appear, and then the
proclamations of three angels follow. Considering that in this context the metaphor of
measuring the temple means the preservation of worshippers (11: 1) in line with one of
the traditions of the OT (2 Sam 8: 2b; Ezek. 40: 1-6; 42:20; Zech. 2:5), 298[107] this scene
296[105] Ibid., 168.

297[106]

Consult

Collinss

diagram

revised

298[107] Aune, Revelation 6-16, 604.

in

the

appendix

(below

180).

corresponds to the scene of the saved 144,000 worshippers. That is, one theme is the
protection of earthly worshippers (11:1) and the other is the permanent protection (i.e.,
redemption) of the heavenly worshippers (14: 3). Johns eating the little scroll in ch. 10
and the two witnesses proclamation in ch. 11 are closely connected as noted above in
that eating the scroll is related with prophesying (10:11; cf. Ezek. 2:8-3:4). All of these
evoke the proclamation of evangelism. This in turn corresponds to the angels
proclamations in 14: 6-12. The effect of the angels proclamations seems to be
embedded in the judgment/salvation scene in 14: 14-20, which corresponds to the effect
of the two witnesses proclamations in 11: 5, 6, 13.
The sentiment of the two witnesses proclamation scene is as ambivalent as the
judgment/salvation scene in 14: 14-16. The ambivalence of the two witnesses is first
shown in that fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies (11: 5). They do
not devour their enemies directly but devour them indirectly with the fire from their
mouths. Here again appears the theme of mouths as seen in the introduction. Johns
ambivalent emotions are evident in this almost cannibalistic scene. John wants to
simultaneously kill and incorporate them all.
The hatred is expressed again in the two witnesses inflicting unlimited sufferings
and pain (11: 6, 10) on the inhabitants of the earth and the ultimate mass-murder of
seven thousand people (11: 13). Do they proclaim the prophecy to save them or destroy
them? His affection for them is shown only later in the salvation of the survivors after the
earthquake (11: 13). That is, although in this scene Johns hatred and affection towards
them are mixed, the part of hatred is so much stronger that the salvation part is only
hidden.
Even the emphasis on the judgment is similar to that of the scene of 14: 14-16.
Each element in the text, such as a sharp sickle, (v.14) and an angel coming out of the

temple (v. 15) indicates the scene of judgment, for their conventional usage in
Revelation or the OT, as noted above. Most of all, the similarities between the
ambiguous scene in v. 14-16 and the obvious scene of judgment in v. 17-20 forces one
to identify both the scenes as judgment. In contrast, if one attempted to view this scene
of v. 14-16 as positive, one should approach it more circuitously or negatively. Thus, for
instance, one should connect the text with the phrase the first fruits (v.4) which lies far
away from the text in question, or should pinpoint to the absence of the scene of
winnowing and threshing. Its connection with the eternal gospel (v. 6) also does not
show the clear-cut directness, for its content is mainly judgment (v. 7): the salvation
message is hidden, while the judgment message is put to the front. All in all, the
salvation elements lie in a deeper level than the judgment elements.
Who are this people that John felt ambivalently toward? If one looks over the
other sections relating to the text in issue, one can conclude that they were the people
participating in the imperial cult. First, 14: 1-5 is connected to 14: 14-16 because of the
phrase, the first-fruits, (14: 4), as noted above. Thus, the image of the saved 144,000
(14:1-5) may be rendered as opposed to the people in v. 14-16.
First, the 144,000 are those who did not defile themselves with women (v. 4). As
Mary Douglas taught us, the exchange of bodily fluids in sexual intercourse symbolizes
danger and impurity, for it evokes the breaching of the boundary of the social body that
is equated with an individual body in an imaginary world. 299[108] This 144,000 people is
called pure (v.4). They are contrasted with the nations that committed adulteries with
Rome (14: 8). That is, they are those who refused to be assimilated into the Roman
environment, and maintained the boundary between Church and Empire.
Especially the standard of guarding the boundary is to practice right worship,
obviously opposed to the imperial cult. All the references to the saved in 11: 1 and 14: 1299[108]

Douglas,

Purity

and

Danger,

115-129.

5 are connected with the right worshippers, whether they be earthly or heavenly ones
and that the angels warnings in 14: 9, 11 refers to the damned more directly as the
worshippers of the beast. However, Johns intention here is not to damn all the peoples
and nations yielding to the hegemony of Rome, but only warns them against the
seduction of Rome. Babylon the Great is doomed assuredly to total destruction, as a
second angel proclaims (14: 8). Not so all the other peoples and nations.
The phrase another angel speaking in a loud voice common in 14: 6-7, 15,
and 18 shows a connection between them, in which revealed is an opportunity for all the
other peoples and nations. Basically, the message of another angel is to repent lest you
should perish, and the message is directed toward every nation, tribe, language and
people (v. 6). This same another angel executes or is involved in judgment/salvation
(v. 15-16) and judgment (v. 18-20). Here, there is formed a connection between the
proclamation of the gospel and the results of its listeners attitudes toward it.
Here, a bare fact contradicts the emotion of the Christians in Johns line. They
hope to sweep away all the impure nations and peoples involved in the imperial system,
although they know for a fact that at least those who listen to the gospel should be saved
and incorporated into the Empire of God. Considering this sentiment, another
ambivalence is observed in 14: 14-16. John wants to destroy all the peoples and nations
for they are part of the evil Empire. At the same time, desiring the imperial subject, he
hopes to incorporate all of them into his Empire. His hatred and desire toward the
subjects loyal to the Empire are tangled inextricably, which expresses itself in the scene
of cannibalistic human crops.

5. Summary
When the image of humans-eating are played out in the relationship between
Church and Empire, the picture becomes very nasty. It is almost always fraught with

mutual hostility and hatred, which can jibe with the Fanonian definition of colonial
relationship. Nonetheless, that is not all that exists in there, for sometimes ambivalent
emotions intervene in the act of cannibalism, which is similar to the Bhabhaian theory,
due to attraction toward the power and wealth of Rome and desire to mimic the Roman
Empire and thus become an Empire itself, replacing Rome. Here the Church identity is
confused with that of the Empire. Johns occasional strategy for it is to conjure up the
images of enemies consuming humans, in which to exaggerate the savagery and
brutality of Rome out of proportions, a parallel to which is observed also the analysis by
scholars in Saids line of the colonizers strategy to denigrate the colonized as
cannibalistic barbarians and justify colonial rule.

Disser. ch. 5
Chapter 5
EATING VEGETABLES
In this chapter, we will investigate why in Rev. 22:1-2 Christians consume
vegetables and water, rather than luxurious foods, meat and wine. the place of the
verses is significant in that 22:1-2 follows the description of magnificent riches of the
New Jerusalem (21:11, 18-21) and Johns statement that there is no temple (21:22-27).
The depiction of heavenly yet plain food, vegetables and water, is opposed to the
enormous riches of Gods city, yet in line with there being no temple, for usually in or
around the temple, the practice of eating sacrificial meat was performed.
The reason for that only half-suitable placement of heavenly vegetables and
water could be found in cultic and ascetic contexts. Meat and wine were strongly
associated with ancient cultic sacrifices, which were intertwined with the Roman
religious/political brokerage. Meat and wine were also the cuisine for the relatively
wealthy, who benefited from the Roman rule. For John, meat and wine were

contaminated food for its strong association with the Roman rule and thus the opposite
food of vegetables and water was preferred. Here, Douglass or Freuds theory is
observed that in human minds consumption of food regarded as pure or containing
virtues is strongly associated with establishing right identity. Right Christian identity is
forged by eating pure vegetables and water.

1.

Vegetables/Water vs. Meat/Wine in Religious/Political Brokerage

In Rev. 22: 1-2, three kinds of celestial food are introduced: the water of life, and
the fruits and leaves of the tree of life. The fact that these celestial foods are vegetables
and water capture ones attention, for they can be regarded as the opposites of the
sacrificial food of meat and wine. Especially, the sacrifice foods were the main staple of
the Jerusalem cult and the imperial cult. In light of the deeply entangled mix of political
arenas and religious spheres, the use of the celestial foods may be a symbolic
expression of resistance against Rome. This point becomes clear when one recognizes
how the political/social brokerage, or the Roman patron-client relationships, penetrated
into the religious areas.

i. Vegetarianism in Cultic Context

In Rev. 21:1-2, the water of life and the fruits/leaves of life are described as
heavenly foods in the new Jerusalem. Could it be suggested that in the choice of the
food items of water and fruits/leaves is hidden a negation of the ancient sacrificial
system? To explore this topic, one needs first study the cuisine of ancient sacrifice.

According to Andrew McGowan, in Graeco-Roman antiquity, of which early

Christianity was a part, meat and wine were always evocative of sacrificial systems.
Especially, the cuisine of sacrifice was centered on sacrificial meat, which was killed in a
highly ritualized manner and consumed collectively according to precise strictures. 300[1]
The process of sacrifice consisted of two parts: slaughter of an animal and consumption
of the meat by participants. Thus, many temples were equipped with a dinning room in
which to eat the sacrificial meat. Portions of it were frequently taken home or sold at a
market outside the temple precinct, such that meat was generally associated with
sacrifice; thus, meat could be referred to as to hieron (that which is holy or sacrificed)
without further qualification (Xenophon, Cyr. 1. 4. 17; Oribasius, 2. 68. 6).301[2] Thus, to
reject meat was possibly to reject social structures of pious practice in light of the
importance of sacrifice and meat in these societies 302[3].
In regards to the religious character of wine, McGowan argues:
Wine in particular features as the single most common element used to indicate
the religious character of any meal, being more commonly consumed than
meatTo drink without libation, at a banquet at least, was unthinkable. More than for
any other item of food or drink, the offering of wine with prayer, even in the domestic
setting, was uniquely importantThe association of wine with sacrifice meant that
libations were one of the obvious means by which a Roman magistrate might put
Christians to the test (Pliny, Ep. 10. 96)303[4]
McGown suggests that cereals and water were the foods conceptually opposed
to the sacrificial food of meat and wine, in that cereals and water were everyones and
everyday main food. His standard by which to distinguish between sacrificial foods and
300[1] Andrew McGowan, Ascetic Eucharists, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 60-61.

Ibid.,

301[2]
302[3] Ibid., 72.

303[4] Ibid., 64.

62.

non-sacrificial foods is common rather than prized, bloodless not bloody, vegetable not
animal. 304[5] According to this standard, the fruits/leaves and water in Rev. 21:1-2 also
belong to the category of the food opposed to the cuisine of sacrifice.
In light of the OT background passages, there is a strong possiblity that the fruits/leaves
and water in 22:1-2 is intentionally set in opposition to the sacrificial foods. Rev. 22:1-2 is
traced unquestionably back to Ezek. 47: 1-12, which is situated in the section of
description of the new temple (Exek. 40: 1-47: 12). As can be expected, most of the
section is used for stipulating the sacrifice-related rules and regulations (e.g., 40: 38-43,
43: 13-27, 45: 13-25), and the water is flowing from under the temple and, among other
areas in it, the altar (47: 1). In contrast, in Rev. the new temple and the accompanying
paraphernalia are absent (21: 22) and the water is flowing from the throne of God and
the Lamb (22:1).
Johns elimination of the fish in Ezek. 47: 9-10 rouses suspicion. The food items
in Ezek. 47: 1-12 are water, fruits/leaves, and fish. By omitting fish, John produces a pair
of foods opposed to the sacrificial food: water and fruits/leaves vs. wine and meat. That
is, with the vanishing of the temple and its cultus featuring meat and wine, only
fruits/leaves and water are left for heavenly citizens.
The mention of the Lamb (22:1) in the midst of the description of water and
fruits/leaves (22: 1-2) also evokes a vegetarian diet, for Jesus as the Lamb is evocative
of the Eucharist in which real meat is lacking. This view may seem to undermine the
binarism of water and vegetables opposed to the sacrificial cuisine of meat and wine, for
wine was used in the Eucharist (Mk. 14: 25 and parallels; 1 Cor. 11: 23-29). However,
according to McGowan, the practice of using water, not wine in the Eucharist was widespread in early Eastern Christianity, especially Syria and Asia, for wine was avoided
304[5] Ibid., 63, 65.

because of its association with sacrifice. 305[6] In consideration of the fact that John sent
his epistle to the churches in Asia, the Lamb as a collective symbol of the Eucharist may
have evoked water rather than wine for the readers.
Johns evading the sacrificial system is confirmed in the absence of the temple from the
New Jerusalem in 21:22. The absence of the temple must have been unexpected for
John, for the new literal, physical temple in the future was expected in Jewish circles
(e.g., Jub. 1:17-29; 1 En. 90:28-29; Tob. 13:13-18; 14:5; Test. Levi 18:6; Test. Ben. 9: 2;
Targ. Isa. 53: 5; Targ. Zech. 6: 12-15; Sib. Or. 3. 286-94; 5. 423-33).306[7] Especially, it is
significant to ask why there is no temple there, when John has used apocalyptic
traditions that connect the temple of God with the New Jerusalem (3:12; see 7:15),
refers often to the temple in heaven (11: 19; 14: 15, 17; 15: 5, 6, 8; 16: 1, 17), and uses
temple imagery, particularly in descriptions of the heavenly throne room. 307[8]
Johns avoiding sacrifices-related images is observable even before the scene of
disappearing of the temple noted above. That is, before this absence of the temple, the
scattered scenes of the temple or altar are all related with the symbolic expression of
Gods power, from which judgment issues.308[9] Then does John attempt to tie the
sacrifice on the altar up with the judgment of the enemies? That is, in his imaginary
world, are the enemies equated with the sacrifice burned on the altar in the temple and
eaten in the end?
305[6]

Ibid.,

306[7]

G.

143-174.
Beale,

1092.

307[8] Aune, Revelation 17-22, 1168.

308[9] Gregory Stevenson, Power and Place (Berlin, New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 2001), 295-300; Beale also similarly argues that whenever commands are
issued from the heavenly temple or altar, they are always declarations of judgment (e.g.,
6:1-5; 9: 13; 16: 7, 17), G. Beale, 774.

In actuality, John carefully avoids the above association. The only scene where the
enemies as a kind of sacrifice are eaten by the agents of God is the ingestion of the
army by birds in Rev. 19: 17-21. Characterizing the enemy as sacrifice is manifest in
Ezek. 39, on which the passage of Rev. is based. In Ezek. the meal of human flesh is
explicitly called as a sacrifice (39:17), but John changes it to a great supper of God
(19: 17). Here, John recoils from expressing it in the image of consuming the sacrifice,
although that image is more suitable for the Ezekiels precedent and the symbolism of
the temple and altar in Revelation.
In Revelation, the use of the temple and altar image is limited to the description
of judgment, and the image of sacrifices never appears. These two factors co-operate in
the verse 22:1-2, in that only non-sacrificial food is consumed in the New Jerusalem,
which follows the explicit statement that there is no temple (21:22-27). How are those
two factors connected with the verses of vegetables and water? The answer may reside
in the general sentiment evoked by the chapters around 21:1-2.
First, the general sentiment of chs. 21, 22 is the unprecedented intimacy with
God. The intimacy with God in the New Jerusalem is already emphasized at the
beginning part of the emergence of the City. As Eugene M. Boring points out, it seems
that the New Jerusalem in Rev. 21: 2 is the dwelling of God, because right after the
scene in which the New Jerusalem descends from heaven, the statement appears that
Gods dwelling is with humans. 309[10] After the introduction of the City, in 21: 3b the
dwelling (skene) of God being with humans is promised.
According to G. R. Beasley-Murray, the dwelling (skene) literally means the tent,
and it was translated in the LXX from the Hebrew mishkan, which is used of the
tabernacle in the wilderness. He claims that the Jews viewed the tabernacle as the
manifestation of Gods presence among his people, because the tabernacle was
309[10] Eugene M. Boring, Revelation, (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1989), 215.

associated with Gods glory, Shekinah.310[11] Therefore, John the Seer seems to intend
the word dwelling to imply the vivid, glorious presence of God among the new
Israelites. 21: 3c appears to enlarge further on the intimate relationship between God
and renewed humanity.
The City itself seems to be described as a holy of holies in which the divine
presence is directly, intimately available, considering that the City is a perfect cube (21:
15-16) and golden (21: 18) like the holy of holies (I Kings 6:20; II Chron. 3: 8-9). 311[12]
Moses conversed directly with God and, as a sort of agent, told people what he was
commanded (Exod. 34: 29-35). However, even Moses was never allowed to sees his
face but only his backside (Exod. 33: 17-23), while the citizens of the New Jerusalem will
see his face directly (22:4; cf. I Cor. 13:12).
In this sentiment of radicalized intimacy with God, the image of temple, which had been
used as a symbol of judgment and punishment until then, may not be appropriate.
However, the image of temple or altar could have been used as a symbol of intimate
communication with God, apart from how it had been used until then? Similarly, the
sacrificial food also could have been used as an emblem of close fellowship with God.
For instance, all Christians could have been depicted as Zadokite priests eating
sacrificial meat in direct access to God in the temple, as opposed to the damned.
On the surface level at least, the idea of using the images of the temple/altar and
its sacrificial food as a symbol of close relationship with God is abandoned and even
avoided. For John, is there a defect in using those images as a symbolic means of
having intimate fellowship with God? If so, what could be the impure elements
310[11] G.R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, Rev. ed. (London: Marshall,

Morgan

&

311[12] Boring, 215.

Scott,

1978),

311.

embedded in the images? Why can John not swallow the sacrificial food as well as
Ezekiel did? He is, as it were, a vegetarian out of line with his contemporary, cultic
environment. The reason may be found in an anti-imperialistic sentiment hidden in
avoiding the sacrificial system, with which the Roman imperial religious/political
brokerage was inextricably bound up.

ii. Sacrificial System In Jerusalem Temple Brokerage

According to Thomas Carney, antiquity was:
a society based on patronage, not class stratification; so little pyramids of power
aboundedThus society resembled a mass of little pyramids of influence, each
headed by a major family-or one giant pyramid headed by an autocrat-not the
three-decker sandwich of upper, middle, and lower classes familiar to us from
industrial societyThe client of a power wielder thus becomes a powerful man
and himself in turn attracts clients. Even those marginal hangers-on to power
attract others, more disadvantageously placed, as their clients. So arise the
distinctive pyramids of power-patron, then first order clients, then second and
third order clients and so on-associated with a patronage society.312[13]
This analysis of the ancient, social system, consisting of a series of multiple
patronages and clientages, explains well the political and religious situation around the
Jerusalem temple under Roman colonization. The Herodian family and the subsequent
Roman governors in Israel were clients under the aegis of the patron, the Roman
emperor. They, as a first order of clients, attracted a second order of clients including the
high priests.

312[13] Thomas F. Carney, The Shape of the Past (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,

1975), 63, 90, 171; especially, according to Richard Saller, Rome during the Principate
had markedly little formal machinery by comparison with other great, enduring preindustrial empires (e.g., the Chinese and Ottoman). Rather than developing palace
schools or competitive examinations (as in Turkey and China, respectively), emperors
relied on a network of private connections to bring leading candidates to their attention
Hence, many of these contactscould be made only through patron-client networks in
the Roman empire. Personal Patronage Under the Early Empire (Cambridge:
Cambridge
Univ.
Press,
1982),
205-206.

The emergence of the second order was made possible by the abolition of the
traditional principle that only the Zadokite family members be installed in the position of
high priestly offices. That is, since 37 BC, when Herod the Great conquered Jerusalem,
until 70 AD when the temple was destroyed, the high priestly offices were assigned at
the disposal of the political rulers.313[14] From this process of choosing the high priests
emerge four new aristocratic priestly families: the family of Boethus, Hannas, Phiabi, and
Kamith.314[15]
The near relatives of the high priests are composed of the third order of clients.
According to Jeremias, all the important offices in the Temple were assigned to the near
relatives of the new high priestly families. For instance, they took a charge of the offices
controlling the taxes and money flowing into the temple. The clientage of the near
relatives of the high priests is observed not only in religious matters such as the control
of the temple, or the priestly court, but even in political and economic arenas. Thus, the
large portion of command was distributed to the members of the high priestly families at
the outbreak of the rebellion against Rome in 66 AD. (e.g., Lam. R. I. 50 on I. 16, Son. I.
47, 128).315[16] This nepotism should be viewed in the context of the patronage and
clientage system.
The high priests did not function as a link in the political brokerage system only, but also
in the relationship between God and humanity. The high priest was Gods agent who
atones for the sins of the whole community (Ex. 30: 10; Lev. 16). For his special
relationship with the deity, only he could enter the Holy of Holies on the Day of
313[14] Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,

1969),

190-191.
314[15] Ibid., 194.

315[16] Ibid., 96-97, 197-198.

Atonement.316[17] God was the patron whose client was the high priest, and the latter
was the patron of the rest of the community. He was the broker of Gods grace.
The newly- instituted sacrificial system in the temple also operated in conformity with this
political-religious brokerage system. In patronal society, clients are obliged to pay an
appropriate homage317[18] to their patrons, the height of which may have been the
imperial cult. This principle is applied to the sacrificial system of the Jerusalem temple,
as well. However, as Emil Schrer noted,318[19] in exceptional Judaic context, the
equivalent to the Augustan cult was to sacrifice only for the emperor, not to the emperor
as in other areas.319[20]
Schrer presents the historical record of the offering of the sacrifices for the Emperor at
the Jerusalem temple as follows 320[21]: according to Philo, Augustus himself
commanded that for all time to come two lambs and a steer should be sacrificed daily at
the emperors expense321[22] (Legat. 23 (157)); the Jews particularly refers to this
316[17]

Jeremias,

Jerusalem

in

the

Time

of

Jesus,

148-149.

317[18] Especially, in ancient Mediterranean society where honor was regarded

as one of precious properties, it was one of important responsibilities of the client to give
honor to his patron. Dictionary of New Testament Background (2000), s.v. patronage,
766.

318[19] Emil Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ,

vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark LTD, 1979), 311.

319[20] According to Price, in imperial cults, both offering sacrifices to the emperor

and for the emperor are observed, and the distinction between them is ambivalent.
Price, 210-220.
320[21] Emil Schrer, 312.

321[22] Schrer notes a discrepancy between Philos statement that the cost of the

sacrifice was borne by the Emperor and Josephuss statement that the cost was paid by
the Jewish people. He conjectures that the real situation was probably similar to that of
the Persian period, when the expenses were covered by Jewish taxes falling to the
treasury.
ibid.

offering sacrifices twice daily for the Emperor and the Roman people at the time of
Caligula, when their loyalty was questioned for their opposition to erecting Caligulas
statue in the Jerusalem temple (Josephus, The Jewish War. ii 10, 4 (197)), and this
practice of sacrifice continued until the outbreak of the revolt at AD 66 (Josephus, The
Jewish War, ii 17, 2-4 (408-21); on special occasions, very generous sacrifices were
offered at public cost, e.g., a hecatomb was sacrificed under Caligula three times when
he accessed to the throne, and recovered from his sickness, and started the campaign
in Germany (Philo, Legat, 45 (356)). It can be easily conjectured that these sacrifices for
the Emperor may have been regarded by the Jewish political/religious rulers as honoring
him, returning the favors of the Roman emperor, although it was instituted by Augustus,
himself. This newly instituted sacrificial custom was one of the props to support the
Roman brokerage system.
Aside from this newly-instituted sacrificial system, the traditional custom of the table
manners about sacrifices also indirectly supported the brokerage system, on which the
high-priestly classes are based. The basic tenor of the sacrifice table manners was to
establish a hierarchy between the order of priests and that of the laity, and the high
priests were at the pinnacle of the priestly class.
According to Martin Goodman, in the first century CE, the Jews strictly followed
the rules of the sacrifices that were divinely laid down in the Torah in the case of priest
sacrifices on the behalf of the nation. This feature was in marked contrast to loose rules
of other pagan cults, in which, for instance, the sacrifices could be delayed in times of
emergency.322[23] In the case of wave offerings and tithes, the rules were regulated by
oral law, based on biblical texts, mostly, Torah. 323[24] According to the Torah sacrifices
322[23] Marin Goodman, The Temple in First Century CE Judaism, in Temple and

Worship in Biblical Israel, ed., John Day (New York: T & T Clark, 2005), 461.
323[24] S. Safraii, Religion in Everyday Life, in The Jewish People in the First
Century, vol. 2, ed., S. Safrai and M. Stern (Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, Assen, 1976),
818.

regulations which could not have been ignored lightly in the first century Judaism, there
are two differences between the table manners of priests and laity.
First, the priests were given more chances to eat the sacrifices and also
distinguished themselves from the laity by the different meat part to eat. For instance, in
the case of expiatory sacrifice, only the priests were provided with an opportunity to eat
part of the sacrifice (Lev. 4: 12). As for a communion sacrifice, the fatty part, the kidneys,
and the liver are offered to God, while the breast and the right thigh come to the priests,
and the rest were given to those offering (Lev. 7:28-34; 10: 14-15). 324[25]
Secondly, different between priest and laity is the place where the sacrificial meat
should be eaten. The priests are required to eat the sin offerings or guilt offerings only in
a holy place, i.e., in the inner forecourt (e.g., Lev. 7: 6, and other passages; Josephus,
Ant. iv. 4, 4 (74-75)).325[26] Schmidt claims that the communion sacrifices may have
been eaten outside the Temple enclosure, for the priests families could partake of these
(Lev. 10:14; Num. 18:11). 326[27] However, even in this case, the meat should be eaten in
a ceremonially clean place (Lev. 10: 14). On the while, the ordinary people could eat
the sacrifice always outside the temple.327[28]
Although this regulation is found outside the Torah, considering Revelations
dependence on Ezekiel, it might be also important. That is, according to the rules of the
sacrifices at the new temple in Ezekiel, the place of cooking the meat for priests is

324[25] Francis Schmidt, How the Temple Thinks (Sheffield: Sheffield, 2001), 212.

325[26] Emil Schrer, 261.

326[27] Schmidt, 213.

327[28] E. P.Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Trinity Press;

SCM

Press,

1990),

135.

different from that for the laity. As Schmidt points out, the place where the meat are
cooked for the priests is the kitchens at the corners of the inner square (Ezek. 46: 1920), while the kitchen for cooking the laitys meat is in the outer court (Ezek. 46:21-24). 328

[29]
All these rules and regulations revolve around the code of holiness, and the root of
holiness means set apart. This setting apart in turn fixes a group of people at a point
on a continuum of increasing closeness to the deity. According to this assessment, the
priests are more set apart and thus holier than the laity. They have more opportunities to
share the sacrifice with God, which evinces their more closeness to the divinity. They
cook or eat their portion of sacrifice in the temple or at a place closer to the center of the
temple, Gods house. The priests are closer than the laity to God.
The closeness of priests to the deity coheres with their status as religious
brokers. Through the table manners, different from those of the laity, the priests
demonstrate their patronal power, through which only the laity could have access to the
grace of God. This religious brokerage may have been viewed, by John, as supporting
the imperial system, in that the temple offices including the high-priesthood were
intertwined with the Roman patronage and the new sacrificial system for the Roman
emperor was installed. In this sense, the table manners of the sacrifices at the
Jerusalem temple were conducive to the working of Roman, political brokerage system,
indirectly.

iii. Food in Imperial Cult Brokerage

The imperial cult was a part of the Roman patron-client networks. The basis of
this cult was that the Roman emperor is the figure sitting at the acme of the patronal
328[29] Schmidt, 212, 214.

power relations.329[30] According to John K. Chow, the emperors were frequently called
as patron, benefactor, savior, son of a god, or god, especially in the Greek East,
and these designations were the expressions of the client subjects loyalty and honor, in
return of the emperors patronage.330[31]
In the context of social occasions, the emperors favors were expressed frequently in the
distribution of abundant gifts including food items. According to Fergus Millar, Gaius
introduced the practice of distributing gifts, and some other emperors followed the
practice. Nero distributed a thousand birds of all breeds, all types of food, tickets for
corn-distributions, and other gifts, and Titus would throw down into the theater from
above small wooden balls with a variety of marks indicating food stuff, or other gifts, and
whoever caught the ball could receive whatever was marked on it from the
dispensatores. Domitian, Hadrian, and Elagabal also followed their predecessors
practice.331[32]
However, the emperor held an ambiguous status in patronal power relations. He
was regarded as the supreme patron among humans, or a sort of a deity, but in relation
to gods, he was a broker of gods benefactions rather than a god himself. Augustus
begins to take the role of the broker by assuming Pontifex Maximus (the highest priest)

329[30] As S. R. F. Price claims, the Koinon of Asia Minor honors and elevates Augustus

almost to the status of a god, for his benefactions, as can be seen in the 1st decree of
the Koinon of Asia. Price notes that in this period all the expressions of passionate
gratitude for Augustuss benefactions in the imperial cult is in line with Hellenistic ruler
cults, yet the extent of deification in the imperial cult overwhelms that of the latter. S. R.
F. Price, Rituals and Power (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984), 54-55.
330[31] John K. Chow, Patronage in Roman Corinth, in Paul and Empire, ed.
Richard A. Horsley (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997), 105-106.

331[32] Fergus Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (Ithaca: Cornell University

Press,

1977),

137.

in 12 B.C.E. The function of this office was to secure the pax deorum (the peace of god),
and the office became hereditary since Augustus. 332[33]
The Pontifex Maximus was the president of the college of pontiffs consisting of
fifteen members, which was superior to all other priests and supervised all the public and
private worship of all gods. The chief priest, Pontifex Maximus, was a sort of pope in
charge of the whole of Roman piety. He was custodian of the sacred law, formularies,
the calendar, and the statutes pertaining to the different temples. 333[34] Therefore, in
some sense, the emperor as the highest priest was the supreme priest-broker of all the
benefactions of all the gods in the Empire.
In the imperial cults of the provincial areas, the pattern in Rome is observed that a
political potentate assumes even the religious leadership. In Prices words:
Imperial priestscame from the local lite and were generally among the most
prominent figures in the city, a status recognized by their privileged position in
the assembly, and as eponymous officials. Like priests of traditional cults they
were not specialists and the duration of their period of office varied. While some
periods were quite short, there are numerous cases of priesthoods being held for
life, or even, occasionally, inherited within one family. An Ephesian family
actually succeeded in maintaining an inherited priesthood over five
generations.334[35]
These local rulers, dominant in the political and religious area alike, also held the
double role, that is, of the patrons of the populace and the clients of the emperor, just as
the emperor did in relation to gods and people. The brokerage networks connecting
gods, emperor, local rulers, and populace is exemplified in an Asian koinons decree (9
332[33] Allen Brent, The Imperial Cult and the Development of Church Order
(Leiden, Boston, Kln: Brill, 1999), 52-53.

333[34] Robert Turcan, The Gods of Ancient Rome, trans. Antonia Nevill (New
York: Routledge, 2001), 53-54; cf., A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1845),
s.v. patronage.

334[35]

Price,

62-63.

B.C.E.) in response to a suggestion of a proconsul Paullus Fabius Maximus that the new
calendar be organized around the birth of Augustus. As Steven J. Friesen points out,
according to this decree, godly benefactions are transferred along down a hierarchical
axis: Providence fills Augustus with virtue to benefit humanity Augustus sends the
proconsul to hand over the benefaction to Asia Minor. And then, it is presupposed that
the Koinon mediates the benefaction to the populace, as its representative. Giving the
honors in return of the benefactions goes up along the identical hierarchy: the proconsul
honors Augustus, and the Koinon honors both Augustus and the proconsul. These
honors were expressed within the context of Augustan imperial cults. 335[36]
These benefaction brokers, local rulers, had many methods of transferring the
imperial benefactions, and one of the ways was to fund the feasts, games, and shows
related to emperor cults. Especially, according to Price, from the mid third century B.C.E.
through Roman imperial age, the religious sacrifices had been losing its significance,
while the attention was being shifted to the importance of the accompanying feasts.
Many inscriptions of this period lay great importance on feasts themselves and even
allow those absent to receive money instead of food. 336[37]
Imperial priests played an important role in this feast-provision after imperial
cults. In the word of Price, the whole community was also the direct beneficiary of the
munificence of the imperial priests. The priests often boasted of meals and donations
that they had made during their term of office, sometimes giving details of the groups on
which they lavished their wealth. 337[38] The standard group who were given feasts was
335[36] Steven J. Friesen, Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2001), 34-35.

336[37]

Price,

229.

337[38] However, according to Price, sometimes, the pressure of enormous,

financial burdens imperial priests had to bear even engendered some exceptional cases
that people attempted to evade the honor of being elected imperial priests. Ibid., 64.

all the citizens of the city, large or smallNon-citizens were also sometimes included in
the invitations to the feasts338[39]
Especially, the sacrifice offered to the emperors (and the gods) was provided as food for
the participants in the feast.339[40] Richard Gordon presents an example of this, quoting
from a fragmentary stele that was erected on the occasion of Cleanaxs quitting his local
magistracy in Cyme in the Aeolid, probably dating from 2 B.C.E.-- 2C.E.:
(As a patron, parenthesis mine)...during an imperial festival celebrated by the province of
Asia, he offered the sacrifices and the banquets at which the meat is consumed, as he
had promised, first of all sacrificing a bull to Caesar Augustus, his sons (Gaius and
Lucius Caesar) and to the other gods, sacrifices with which he entertained in (?) the
market-place the Greeks, the Romans, the paroikoi and the foreigners, by proclamation
on posters (ll. 40-45).340[41]
As Richard Gordon continues to argue, the evocation of community
consciousness in the context of imperial cults and euergetism of the feast-throwing (or
the meat/wine-providing) served to solidify the imperial hierarchy. All are united in
gratitude to the generosity of the local benefactors within the imperial, cultic setting. In
the context of imperial cults, people are already convinced of inequality between
divinized emperor and people, and the patronal relationship between them. This
inequality as a model is recapitulated in the relationship between local elites and the rest
of the community through the local patrons ability of providing sacrifices and the
accompanying, abundant feast.341[42] The cult and its following feast reaffirm the status
quo, the networks of patron-client relationships.
338[39] Ibid., 113.

339[40] Ibid., 229.

340[41] Richard Gordon, The Veil of Power, in Paul and Empire, 134.

341[42]

Ibid.,

134-135.

As Price points out, the general atmosphere of the imperial feast was carnivalesque,
according to Tertullians accounts. Tertullian contrasts the Christians behavior with the
pagans at imperial festivals of North Africa (Apology 35): The Christians
as men believing in the true religion, prefer to celebrate the Emperors festivals
with a good conscience, instead of with riotous behavior. It is, obviously, a splendid mark
of respect to bring fires and couches out into the open air, to have feasting from street to
street, to turn the city into one great tavern, to make mud with wine, to rush about in
groups to acts of violence, to deeds of shamelessness, to the incitement of lust. 342[43]
The people could feel the favors of the Empire vividly and clearly by satisfying their
palatal desires in an uncontrolled way, without restraint. The networks of patronal
relationships were imprinted into their body, when the free food went down their tongue,
esophagus, and stomach. Just as the food was digested in the stomach and penetrated
into every cell of the body, so each participant of the feast was dissolved into the
networks of patronal relations.
As we saw, whether in the Jerusalem temple cult or the imperial cult, the foods
functioned to support the imperial system. The rule of sacrifice and its table manners at
the Jerusalem temple was all conducive to the indirect support of the imperial patronage
system. The aristocratic families of high priestly offices at the Jerusalem temple were
established by Herod, the Roman client king. In this context, the table manners, making
priests spiritually superior to laypersons and thus allowing the former more access to the
deity, could be regarded as permitting of or even supporting the imperial power; above
all, the cult specifically designed for the Emperor was set up in the temple.
More relevantly, the feast after the imperial cult functioned as an instrument of
strengthening the imperial brokerage system. The patrons of the populace, who were
also the clients of the emperor, did not lose the opportunity to show their favors through
the preparation of the feast foods, the part of which contained the sacrifice. This served
342[43] Price, 113.

as indisputable evidence that the supreme benefactor, the emperor, should exist for the
good of the world.
Those sacrificial-(feast) foods, whether it be of the Jerusalem temple cult or the
imperial cult, were all out of line with the appetite of John, who was not in favor of the
Roman Empire. This may be the reason why John had to refrain from using the
sacrificial imagery, although he uses a number of the temple images. This may be also
the reason that he recoils from depicting a grandiose, new temple at the end, as
opposed to his former attitude to use temple images before then. This anti-sacrifice
attitude of his culminates in his employing the non-sacrificial food of water and
vegetables (22: 1-2), the opposites of the cultic food: wine and meat.
Here, religious brokers such as priests and political brokers intermixed with the
former vanish. In Johns vegetarian menu, the imperial brokerage does not function.
Only the supreme patron, God and the Lamb, sits at the pinnacle of a new brokerage
system, in which all others are in equal relation to each other. The new intimacy
emerges in relation to the only patron. The imperial brokerage system, the endless rungs
of the ladder, the pinnacle of which is the Emperor and gods, may have built up a
sentiment that the deity resides far away up there. 343[44] In opposition to it, John claims
that there is no need of human brokers and their menu of the sacrificial cuisine, for
reaching God. As will be noted below, a similar anti-imperialism, i.e., resistance to the
patronage and brokerage, is observed in Cynicism.
343[44] According to Folkert van Stratens study on the religious images in the

votive reliefs or steles, in the Hellenistic religiosity including that of the Roman period,
the importance was shifted from closeness and intimacy between human and deity to
gods aloofness and hierarchical order in parallel to the position of subjects to an
absolute potentate. He also says that the same phenomenon is observed in the
epigraphical and literary evidence in the contemporary society. F. van Straten, Images
of Gods and Men in a Changing Society, in Images and Ideologies, eds. Anthony
Bulloch, et.al. (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1993), 248-264; for the epigraphical
or literary evidence, e.g., H. W. Pleket, Religious History as the History of Mentality, in
Faith, Hope, and Worship, ed. Versnel (Brill Academic Pub, 1981), 152-192.

2.

Vegetarianism as Ambivalent Asceticism

Another aspect of Johns celestial vegetarianism is that it could be viewed as an

ascetic practice in that vegetables and water were very cheap foods in ancient times.
Cynicism is worth researching, for as an ancient practice of asceticism it can provide
working parallels to our text. In particular, considering that cynicism was an act of
resistance against the imperial wealth and power, a similar motif can be found behind
our text, too. Having said that, Johns ascetic diet as a symbolic resistance against the
Empire falls apart, when he summons up the agenda of establishing the Empire of God.
The elements of the Roman Empire are incorporated into Johns Empire, among which
enormous luxury and wealth number. It turns out that ambivalence in the Bhabhaian
sense lurks behind the whole scene.

i. Vegetarianism in Ascetic Context

Another aspect that captures ones attention here is that the fruits/leaves and
water were preferred by ancient ascetics. McGowan claims that in ancient Rome the
consumption of wine was more or less ubiquitous, at least in large cities, and that
while the poorest might have had to make do with water, wine was not reserved for the
wealthy, although the best wine undoubtedly was. 344[45] However, McGowan continues
to argue that wine was preferred to water except for the odd cases where water is
chosen for an ascetic regimen or voluntary poverty: e.g., Lucian criticizes Cynics for

344[45]

McGowan,

Ascetic

Eucharists,

44.

drinking wine (Fug. 14) or Cato chose to drink water only when on campaign (Plutarch,
Cato the Elder I. 13).345[46]
What of meat? According to McGowan, in Graeco-Roman antiquity, meat was the
most desirable and the least obtainable, hence the sign of the status of the wealthy, and
the relatively poor could have access to it only through public festivals and sacrifices. 346

[47] In contrast, the use of vegetables and fruits such as onions and garlic were a sign of
poverty and vulgarity (Plutarch, Quaest. Conv. 669B; Plautus, Most. 8), although regular
use of some vegetables indicated moderate wealth. 347[48] Considering that in the
heavenly world, John could have made up all kinds of rich and expensive foods, the
adoption of water and vegetables seems intentional and may be based on his inclination
toward asceticism.
As Beale points out, the vestiges of the garden of Eden is noticed in the river of
life and the tree of life in Rev. 22:1-2 (Gen. 2: 9-10), 348[49] and when the text in issue is
compared with the Eden garden, it becomes more clear that John eliminates any extra
elements in line with his ascetic bent: in Genesis treeswere pleasing to the eye and
good for food (2: 9). In contrast, Johns tree lacks the description of the great taste or
appearance.
Johns ascetic attitude in terms of the description of the food items becomes more
manifest in comparison with Ezekiel 47: 1-12, on which Rev. 22:1-2 is directly based.
The Ezekiel text mentions not only the fruits and leaves (v.12), but fish which will be
Ibid.

345[46]

346[47] McGowan, Ascetic Eucharists, 41-42.

347[48] Ibid., 40.

348[49] G. Beale, 1103,1106.

abundant in the day: Swarms of living creatures will live wherever the river flows. There
will be large numbers of fish, because this water flows there and makes the salt water
fresh; so where the river flows everything will live. Fishermen will stand along the shore;
from En Gedi to En Eglaim there will be places for spreading nets. The fish will be of
many kinds-like the fish of the Great Sea (vv. 9-10).
John omits Ezekiels detailed depiction of the plentiful and various fish, which
would be used for food to enrich the diet of the chosen. Johns forgoing fish could mean
an extreme self-control and asceticism. According to McGowan, there is evidence that
fish was more expensive than meat, although the evidence comes from the second
century BCE and the fourth CE,349[50] and fish was generally prized:

Plutarch has his diners discuss the relative merits of fish and meat, and seems to
indicate that despite the general desire for meat, the true gourmet was likely to
prize fish as highly as meat, or perhaps more so (Quaest. Conv. 667C-669E). On the
other hand, forgoing fish voluntarily, as it seemed the Homeric heroes had, was a sign of
highest frugality or self-control (Plato, Rep. 404 B-C). Apuleius makes the fishmonger
sound like a financial drain upon society (Apol. 32) and provision of fish inland seem like
magic (Apol. 41)350[51]
Why does John retreat from the imagery of abundant food to humble food for his
feast? Dennis E. Smith provides us with a useful categorization of the messianic
banquet. According to him, there are two motifs running through the messianic banquets:
1) the motif of sacred foods and 2) the motif of the divine banquet. The former motif
features basic foods, such as water, wine, bread and fish, invested with symbolic
meanings such as eternal life. The apocalyptic literature sometimes uses these symbolic
foods to represent the eternal life at the end-time (1 Eno. 24:4- 25:7; T. Levi. 18:11; 4
349[50]

McGowan,

Ascetic

Eucharists,

42.

350[51] Ibid., 42-43: however, salted preserved fish was more common and could
be reached by even the relatively poor, ibid.

Ezra 8;52; Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The tree of life, in Gen. 2:9, and the living water in Jn.
4:10-14 or Odes Sol. 6:8-18, are examples.351[52]
Smith continues to argue that, in contrast to the motif of sacred foods, the motif of
the divine banquet places the emphasis on the banquet itself, at which Messiah is
present. This motif has its roots in ancient Near Eastern creation myths, in which when
the battle is won, the gods assemble and celebrate their victory with a great banquet.
Naturally, the foods provided at the banquet are luscious and abundant. The classic
example of this kind of banquet is Isa. 25: 6: On this mountain the Lord Almighty will
prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine-the best of meats
and the finest wines.352[53]
Here is raised a question. John follows the pattern of the creation myths of the
ancient Near East,353[54] which feature the motif of the divine banquet. However, when it
comes the time of the joyful and abundant banquet, John retreats to spiritual and plain
foods. The result is that the victors of the last battle end up with water and
vegetables/leaves only, which could be sacred, yet poor quality from the perspective of
the earthly people.
Johns stingy provision of foods is also apparent against the sacred marriage
motif associated with the creation myths of the ancient Near East. 354[55] The apocalyptic
thought in Isa. 54:5-55:5 is soaked with this marriage and banquet theme: a divine
351[52] Dennis E. Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,

2003),

166-167.
352[53] Ibid., 168-169.

353[54] As Collins argues in The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation, 207-

211.
354[55] In the ancient Near Eastern myths, after the victory of the combat and/or the

establishment of kingship, there comes along a sacred marriage, which symbolizes

fertility.
Ibid.,
223.

marriage (54:5) is combined with a joyful feast and abundant food (55:1-2). 355[56] This
marriage theme occurs in Revelation (19:7-9; 21:2, 9; 22:17). 356[57] However, the kinds
of foods provided at the wedding banquet are totally different. In the Isaianic wedding
banquet, the waters, wine, milk, what is good, and the richest of fare are provided (Isa.
55: 1-2). Meanwhile, In Johns wedding banquet, only water is provided (22:17),
although this text is based on Isa. 55:1357[58] featuring the waters, wine, and milk. The
wedding guests, who must have looked forward to filling themselves with all kinds of
delicious and exotic heavenly foods, find themselves drinking only water!
Why does John provide his people with plain foods only? Is it because the food
should be spiritual? Even this answer cannot satisfy the question, for he could have
made even the basic, spiritual foods seem luscious and mouth-watering with his
imagination. A good example is 1 Enoch 24: 4-5:
And among them, there was one tree such as I have never at all smelled; there
was
not a single one among those or other (trees) which is like it; among all the
fragrances nothing could be so fragrant; its leaves, its flowers, and its wood
would
never wither forever; its fruit is beautiful and resembles the clustered fruits of a
palm tree. At the moment I said, This is a beautiful tree, beautiful to the view,
with leaves (so) handsome and blossoms (so) magnificent in appearance. 358[59]
In light of Johns description of the flowery and ornate appearance of the New
Jerusalem studded with all kinds of jewels (21: 9-11, 18-19), it is impossible to question
Johns imagination. He could have exaggerated his spiritual foods with unutterable
355[56] Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist, 169.

356[57] Collins, The Combat Myth, 223; ibid.

G.

357[58]
358[59]

Apocalyptic

Literature

Beale,
and

Testaments,

1149.
ed.,

Charlesworth,

26.

fragrance, beauty, and taste, as Enoch did. But his description of his heavenly foods is
undoubtedly minimal and austere. Where does this understatement come from? In other
words, why is he so ascetic in choosing foods? Comparison with the Cynics, ascetic
vegetarians could provide an insightful perspective.

ii. John, Cynic-like Vegetarian

The possible influences of the practice of Cynic philosophy on early Christianity
have been debated among scholars.359[60] Their ascetic and anti-institutional attitude
may illuminate this text of Revelation. The Cynics thought and practice engendered
eating vegetarian diets, and vegetarianism in Rev. 22:1-2 could be in line with the Cyniclike attitude. To explore this topic more deeply, one needs to study the Cynics way of
thought and life.
According to Donald Dudley, the rise of Cynicism at the end of the Augustan age
was a revival of its growth after the death of Alexander the Great. Dudley presents three
common reasons why this philosophical movement arose in both the ages: 1) the
effective, imperial system took the interest out of politics; 2) cosmopolitanism was
increased greatly; 3) luxury was more rampant than ever.360[61]
Thus, in some sense, Cynicism was an attack on the achievements of the
Empire: enormous wealth and an imperial system. The Cynic attitude is summarily
shown in the oft-told tale of the encounter between Diogenes and Alexander. Cicero
writes in 45 B.C.E.: But Diogenes, certainly, was more outspoken, in his quality of
359[60] E.g., F. Gerald Downings Christ and the Cynics (Sheffield: JSOT, 1988)

and Cynics and Christian Origins (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992); Leif E. Vaage, Galilean
Upstarts (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994), etc.
360[61] Donald Dudley, A History of Cynicism (Hildesheim: Olms, 1967), 124; similarly,

M.-O. Goulet-Caz, Introduction, in The Cynics, ed. R. Bracht Branham and M.-O.
Goulet-Caz
(Berkeley:
Univ.
of
California
Press,
2000),
5-6.

Cynic, when Alexander asked him to name anything he wanted: Just now, he said,
stand a bit away from the sun! Alexander apparently had interfered with his basking in
the heat. (Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 5: 92). 361[62]
Diogenes ignores Alexanders enormous imperial wealth. The attitude is
embodied in Cynics catchwords such as according to nature (kata phusin)362[63] or
self-sufficiency (autarkeia) .363[64] When Diogenes steps out of Alexanders realm, he
is left only with what nature can give him: the sun; by rejecting Alexanders offer of
favors, he proves that he is self-sufficient. The Cynics, through voluntary poverty
stemming from staying in nature opposed to the imperial civilization, mocks the imperial
wealth and culture. Diogeness rejection of Alexanders favor meant that he would
continue living at the level of subsistence. As such, the Cynics rather chose a lifestyle of
voluntary poverty.
However, from the perspective of the Cynics, there was no difference between
them and kings. Gregory Bloomquist relates how the Cynics enjoyed depicting
themselves, though in a rhetorical fashion, as kings: one of Antisthenes chreias is It is a
royal privilege to do good and be ill spoken of (Diog. Laert. 6.3.); Diogenes replies that
he is diogenes ho quion, to the introduction of Alexander the King himself (Diog. Laert.
361[62] Cicero, Cicero: Tusculan Disputations, vol. 18 of 28, trans. J. E. King
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1927), 518-519.

362[63] The Cynics insistence on staying within nature may be the reason to have
reduced them to the state of animals, which is to act according to nature only. McGowan
elaborates on their animality: The attitudes of Cynics seem often to align them with
animals, as the doggishness of their name itself suggests. Rejection of lack of
enthusiasm for cooking, for implements (Ps. Lucian, Cyn. 6. 2. 37), for normal means of
obtaining food, for dedicated spaces or for conventions of separation of sexes (6. 7. 97)
all seem to be related to a rejection of the animal-human distinction McGowan,
Ascetic Eucharists, 76.

363[64] C.f., for the cynics catch-words, see Downing, Cynics and Christian

Origins, 47.

6.60), which implies that there is no difference between Alexander and him; Epictetus in
his Dissertation shows that in a rhetorical fashion, Zeus gives Diogenes the kingly
authority to rebuke people which fits, for Epictetus, Diogenes habitual comparing his
happiness with that of king Cyrus (Diss. 3.22.60), Epictetus also counsels the true Cynic
to evade involvement in worldly affairs, to be free as a king to engage in the public
interest only.(3.22.72); Dio Chrysostom envisions a true king after the image of the Cynic
saint Heracles (Or. 3), etc.364[65]
The Cynics attitude of anti-imperialism and anti-materialism is also noted in their
disposition toward the city. Most likely, the Cynics did not favorably viewed the city. Both
the Hellenistic and Roman Empire regarded cities as the backbone of their colonization
policy. Thus, building of cities was a major means to expand and maintain their
dominion.365[66] Especially in Roman cities, as Ramsay MacMullen argues, the
architectural elements and activities were astonishingly similar and reflected the highest
ambitions of imperial civilization in a luxurious fashion, which sometimes caused the
citizens of a bigger and more refined city to look down on people from the smaller or
provincial cities.366[67] The Cynics traveled mostly in an urban area only.367[68] The
364[65] L. Gregory Bloomquist, Galilean Questions to Crossans Mediterranean Jesus

in The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture, ed. William E. Arnal and Michel Desjardins
(Sheffield:
Sheffield,
1997),
222-224.
365[66] Helmut Koester, History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age (new
York, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995), 71-76.
366[67] Ramsay MacMullen, Roman Social Relations (New Haven and London:

Yale University Press, 1974), 57-58; cf., Barbara Levick, Urbanization in the Eastern
Empire in The Roman World, ed. John Wacher (London, New York: Routledge), 339;
Warwick Ball, Rome in the East (London, New York: Routledge, 2000), 149-150.
367[68] Downing argues that the Cynics must have traveled to the countryside,
though in the standard sources, they are described as almost always in town. I prefer the
standard sources to depict them travel mostly in the cities. Downing, Cynics and
Christian Origins, 82-84.

reason is obvious: cities were the centers of imperial civilization and luxury on which
Cynics wished to brandish their rhetorical swords in public .
The Cynics unconscious or subconscious resistance against the imperial system
is also noticed in their disregard of social conventions relating to food: Diogenes ate raw
meat (6. 2. 34) or tried to eat a raw octopus (6. 2. 76), or ate in public places (6. 2. 48,
57, 61, 69), scavenged (6. 2. 58, 61), or used the food that fell on the ground (6. 2. 35),
according to the Lives of Famous Philosophers by Diogenes Laertius368[69]. Most of all,
they were well-known to stick to vegetable food and water, i.e., the plainest food, as
opposed to general preference for luxurious food, as McGowan argues. The episodes
about or teachings of Diogenes (6. 2. 25-26, 28, 31, 46, 49, 59), his teacher, Antisthenes
(6. 1. 9), or Crates (6. 5. 90) show that asceticism based on plain foods was the
distinctive feature of Cynics; and Diogenes Laertius summarizes the Cynic view on food
as follows: They also hold that we should live frugally, eating food for nourishment
onlysome at all events take vegetables and cold water only (6. 9. 104; cf. Ps.-Lucian,
Cyn. 5).369[70] Along a similar line, the Cynics are criticized for dissipation when they are
found to consume meat and wine unexpectedly (Lucian, Fug. 14).370[71] The Cynics also
regarded sacrifice as silly rather than totally wrong (Lucian, Zeus Catechized, 5), and
thought of the meals following the sacrifice as extravagant (6. 2. 28). 371[72] Especially, in
light of their aversion to religious institutions noted above, it is understandable that they
could not be in favor of sacrifice.
368[69] McGowan, Ascetic Eucharists, 74.

369[70]

McGowan,
370[71] Ibid., 43.

371[72] Ibid., 75.

Ascetic

Eucharists,

74-75.

A similar attitude against the luxury, esp., luxurious food, especially, of the
imperial city, is noted in Revelation. The imperial city, Rome, is depicted as being
adorned with all kinds of jewels and enjoying luxuries (Rev. 17: 4; 18: 11-13, 16). The
diets of nature vs. city are diametrically opposed to each other. When the resident of the
Garden of Eden is satisfied with water only (22: 1, 17; cf., Gen. 2: 10-14), Babylon is
drunk with wine (17: 2), but this more expensive drink, the wine, turns out to be
abominable things, the filth, and the saints blood (17: 4-5). Whereas the resident of the
Garden of Eden should consume vegetables only (22: 2; cf., Gen. 2: 9), its Roman
counterpart can taste meat. However, this meat is nothing other than human flesh (17:
16).
Johns another criticism of the extravagant diet of Rome is found in the list of their
imports: cinnamon, wine, olive oil, fine flour, wheat, and sheep (18:13). Bauckham
argues that the import of cattle into Italy was for breeding purposes, not for food itself
because beef was not an important item even in the banquets of the rich, yet some
sheep may have been transported from Sicily to Rome for meat for the wealthy. 372[73]
Bauckham again argues that whereas wine, oil, and wheat are not the indications of the
Roman luxury, the general emphasis on the luxury of the Roman imports in the list is
maintained by reference to fine flour.373[74] Cinnamon was expensive and used as a
flavoring for wine.374[75]
Bauckham questions why John did not include in the list the exotic food stuffs for
the banquets of the rich, which many Roman writers satirized (e.g. Petronius, Sat. 38;

372[73]

Bauckham,
373[74] Ibid., 362.

374[75] Osborne, 649.

The

Climax

of

Prophecy,

364.

55; 119).375[76] Possibly, John may have been satisfied with the forging of the pair of
opposites: wine/meat(sheep) vs. water/fruits/vegetables, which sufficiently evokes the
implications of each pair. Even the foods on this level of luxury overwhelm the plain diets
for the ascetics in the New Jerusalem.
As Bauckham points out, 18: 14 shows that the purpose of the detailed list of the
imports is to demonstrate the luxuries and splendor of Rome. 376[77] More specifically,
part of the reasons for Romes doom is her overweening self-glorification stemming from
her riches and luxuries. This point becomes clearer in comparison with the prototype of
Johns Babylon: Ezekiels Tyre. To Tyre itself Ezekiel says, your heart is lifted up
because of your riches, which is equated with saying, I am a god (Ezek. 28: 5, 9).
Tyres economic self-idolatry was the cause of its eventual judgment. Babylons
judgment for self-glorification has already been announced in Rev. 18: 7. 377[78]
Romes clients, merchants, also hold these two mutually-bound sins: luxuries and
self-glorification. The reason for Romes doom is the merchants of the earth have grown
rich from her excessive luxuries (18: 3c), and merchants were the worlds great men.
(18: 23b). According to Beale, Rev. 18: 23b is an allusion to Isa. 23: 8, where the pride of

375[76] Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 366-367.

376[77] Ibid., 368.

377[78] G. Beale, 921: in Rev. 18: 7, the close relation between the Romes luxuries and

her pride is indicated by juxtaposition of the two factors; most of all, the self-glorification
of Rome is clearly pointed out in ch. 13. The dragon and the first beast are worshipped
by people (v.4), while the beast blasphemes God (v. 5). Later the second beast even
makes an image in honor of the first beast (v. 14). The point of this chapter is obvious:
Rome
dispossessed
God
of
praise
and
worship.

the merchants is contextually to blame for their fall. 378[79] Thus, merchants luxuries and
self-glorification partly forms the cause of the fall of Rome. 379[80]
Interestingly, Ezekiel also uses the metaphor of the garden of Eden in describing
Tyres fall. The king of Tyre was adorned with all kinds of jewels and beauty in the
garden (Ezek. 28: 12-13), yet he became proud for his beauty and splendor (v. 17), and
so was expelled from there (v. 17). In contrast, the residents in Johns Eden will not
follow the suit, for at least in terms of the kind of food they eat, they do not have any
basis for self-glorification and the resultant fall (Rev. 22:1-2).
Bitterly criticizing the luxurious food of the imperial city of the cities, John provides
the simple food which Adam and Eve consumed in the Garden of Eden: the tree of life
and the water of life (Rev. 22: 1-2). By examining the original context around the Garden
of Eden, one can clarify Johns intention in here. In the Garden of Eden, there was no
culture, i.e., no farming (as Gen. 3: 23 implies) and no clothing (Gen. 2: 25). Only in the
city built by the first murderer Cain, after Adams and Eves being expelled from the
garden for sinning (Gen. 3: 24), culture began to flourish (Gen. 4: 17, 20-22). Bearing
this context in mind, John possibly argues that the pure, although plain, food of the
sinless nature should be consumed over against the corrupt, although luscious, food of
the sinful city.
Another point worth noting is that Babylons possessing the luxurious food was
the result of international trade (18:11ff.). However, as for John, this being rich through
the trade is not viewed favorably, for it is connected with adultery in his schema. In ch.
18, growing rich from the trade (v. 3, 11, 19) is closely related to adultery, in that the two
378[79] Ibid.

379[80] A. Yarbro Collins, Revelations 18, in Apocalypse Johannique et

L'apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament (Gembloux, Belgium: Editions J. Duculot,

1980), 202-203.

are always juxtaposed (v.3, 9), which is a development from ch. 17, where Babylons
adultery is juxtaposed with luxurious food, wine (17:2) and her general wealth (17:4): in
ch. 18, only the new factor of trade is added.
Growing rich, international trade, and adultery could not be separated in their
close symbolic proximity. First, trade and adultery can be easily rendered as a symbol of
mixing with the Other, which is an abomination for John. Becoming rich and thus being
able to buy expensive food could not be severed from international trade, which is in turn
tied to adultery in its symbolic meaning. It would not be coincidental that here the epithet
Babylon is used, in that Babylon evokes the Israelite captivity, which is necessarily
evocative of mixing with the Other, for the Israelites had to live inside Babylon. Here is
another instance of the condensation of objects or people evoking similar thoughts or
feelings into one scene, as seen in dreams.
In contrast, the garden of Eden is surrounded by the symbols of not mixing. Thus,
the imagery of legitimate matrimony reigns (21:2, 9), as opposed to Babylons whoring
and adultery (ch. 17-18). Promiscuous mixing with the Other is regulated. The food of
Eden also fits in with this symbol of not mixing. In the garden, there is no international
trade, which could be a part of the causes for there being no sea any more (21: 1).
Rather, the economic structure of Eden is agrarian (Gen. 2:15), which could not have
gained exotic and luxurious foreign foods as in the Babylonian system of international
trade. However, at least, the economic system of Eden does not include any symbolic
meaning of mixing with the Other. By consuming the plain yet indigenous plants and
water, the New Jerusalemites can maintain their pure identity. Interestingly here the
symbols of not mixing require the reduction of pleasure. Sexual and palatal pleasure is
decreased, due to not mixing with the Other wantonly. Here asceticism is preferred to
hedonism.

John prefers the food in the divine world of nature to the luxurious foods that the
imperial city can provide. Probably, the Cynics attitude toward our issues provides good
parallels to Johns. Like a Cynic, he disparages the imperial city and its luxury/luxurious
food; and he rather resorts to the state of nature where pure/spiritual, although plain,
food can be obtained. However, Johns Cynic-like ascetic tendency, which is consistent
at least in terms of food, becomes shaky in other areas of life. Rather, it turns to the
opposite direction: seeking the most luxurious lifestyle. We will turn to this contradictory
attitude of Johns

iii. Ambivalence of Ascetic Vegetarian

As Royalty points out, abundant wealth imagery is often used in depiction of
heavenly beings or place in Rev: Christ appears in a gold sash and long robe among
gold lamps (1: 12-16), the heavenly throne room is portrayed with all varieties of jewels
and gems (4:2-11), the New Jerusalem is also similarly bedecked with all kinds of jewels
(chs. 21-22).380[81] When one investigates each wealth theme in comparison with that of
each allusive scripture or other parallel texts, it becomes clearer how John wanted to
emphasize the riches and wealth of his kingdom.
First, as Royalty argues, in Dan. 7: 13-14, the locus classicus of someone like a
son of God (Rev. 1: 12-16), there is no wealth theme; nor is it in parallel texts dealing
with someone like a son of God (Mk. 13:26-27; Matt. 25: 31; 4 Ezra 13; 1 Enoch 46: 18, 71: 12-17, etc.).381[82] Johns image of rich Christ was invented intentionally to
Royalty,

380[81]
381[82] Ibid., 42-45.

39.

emphasize his wealth. Each word in the text in issue is fraught with strong wealth
associations: e.g., the long robe (), in which Christ appears in Rev. 1:13, evokes
wealth and riches, for the word is used in Exod. 25-40 (LXX) for priestly garments which
are decorated with gold, gems and fine clothes, as Royalty points out. 382[83] Gold lamps
and gold sashes (1: 12-13) also reveal the wealth of Christ.
The same goes for the scene of Gods throne (Rev. 4:2-11). There are a few
wealth motifs in Ezek 1 (v. 16, 22, 26), on which the text in issue is based, yet the
number of jewels with which to describe the throne is increased in Rev.(4: 3, 4, 6), and
the wealth theme is more emphasized in Rev. by reversing Ezekiels order of description:
John puts the description of Gods sumptuous throne first and then others around it. 383

[84] In addition, the gold and gems are more focused in one section in Rev., while in
Ezek. those are scattered, so that it is easier to recognize the theme of wealth in Rev.
The wealth theme of the New Jerusalem (21: 11, 15, 18-21) also similarly stands
out in comparison with other texts. Generally, the theme of the restoration of Jerusalem
does not feature the theme of wealth represented by gold or gems (Bar. 4:5-5:9; Pss.
Sol. 17), and at most, there is only agricultural bounty and peace in the New Jerusalem
(1 Enoch 1-36; 2 Bar. 4:1-7, 29: 5-8, 73:1- 74: 4; Sib. Or. 3:619-623, 744-751).384[85]
Royalty conjectures that Johns portrayal of the New Jerusalem with jewels and gold was
influenced by Isa. 54: 11-12 and Tob. 13: 16-17.385[86] Even at first glance, the depiction
of Johns New Jerusalem is more detailed and flowery. In addition, by incorporating the
382[83] Ibid., 46.

Ibid.,

383[84]
384[85] Ibid., 74-76.

385[86] Ibid., 74.

50-51.

scene of measuring the huge size of the city (21: 16-17), John emphasizes that jewels
and gold abound, in light of the fact that all the gates, walls, and roads are made of
jewels and gold.
What attracts ones attention even more is that many luxury items of heavenly
world overlap with those of Babylon. Royalty enumerates those items that appear in both
the list of merchants cargoes (18: 12-13) and visions of heaven: gold (1:13; 4: 4; 8:3; 14:
14; 15: 6-7; 18:12); jewels (4:3; 21: 11, 19; 18: 12); pearls (21: 21; 18: 12); incense (5: 8;
8: 3-4: 18: 13).386[87] This overlapping recurs in Babylon, the Whores appearance and
the New Jerusalem, the brides. The Whore is glittering with gold, precious stones, and
pearls (17: 4), and similarly in the New Jerusalem, respectively, the streets are made of
gold (21: 21), the wall and foundations are decorated with precious stones (21: 18-20),
and each gate is made of single pearl (21: 21:21).
The similarities between the luxury items of the New Jerusalem and those of
Babylon may have been caused by Johns desire to imitate and overwhelm the Roman
Empire in riches. This can be seen in the fact that not only in the decorations of the
throne room but also in the method of praising God there is found a clear parallel
between heaven and Empire.387[88] In a similar vein, the size, the 12,000 stadia, of the
386[87]

Ibid.,

206.

387[88] For example, John mimics the worship scene of the Roman emperor in

depicting the heavenly worship, notwithstanding demonizing the imperial cult. David
Aune points out that the acclamation, Worthy art thou, addressed to God or the Lamb
(4:11, etc.), and the title our Lord and God (11:17, etc.) were already employed in the
Roman imperial ceremonies. [David Aune, Word Biblical Commentary vol. 52a
(Revelation 1-5) (Dallas: Word Books, 1997), 309-311]. Aunes other examples are that
the twenty-four elders correspond to the twenty-four lictors who accompanied Domitian,
and the elders gesture of throwing the wreaths before the throne evokes a similar
imperial custom of offering crowns to the emperor. [David E. Aune The Influence of
Roman Imperial Court
Ceremonial on the Apocalypse of John, Papers of the Chicago Society of Biblical
Research, vol. XXVIII (Chicago: The Chicago Society of Biblical Research, 1983), 1213].

New Jerusalem (21: 16) is about the same as that of Rome, for it was the length of the
Empire (from Joppa in Spain to the Euphrates). 388[89] Thus, John makes his city rival
Rome in every sphere.
Not only is it done in imitation of the examples of Roman power such as the
throne room or the size of the territory, but also in literary parallels between two Empires:
the New Jerusalem counters as a similar mirror image of the power structures of
Babylon, ever and anon outdoing the latter. In Babylon, the Whore enjoys her luxury
with her kings of the earth (ch. 18) and the second beast with the power of the first
beast promotes the worship of the latter (13: 11-18). In the New Jerusalem, the chaste
bride glories in her luxury provided by the kings of the earth (ch. 21, esp., v. 24), and
the Lamb (in parallel with the second beast for the latter has two horns like a lamb, 13:
11) on behalf of God does not have to promote the worship of the latter: rather, both
are just by default worshipped even without the need of a temple (21: 22; 22: 3-4).
The only difference between the two power structures is pureness. Nothing
impure can ever enter into the New Jerusalem (21: 26). The Whore and her kings of the
earth are adulterers (18: 3), and the worshippers of the first beast are religious
adulterers so to speak. On the while, all the relationships in the New Jerusalem are
legitimate and pure: the chaste bride and the kings of the earth have appropriate
relationships (21: 24), and worship and praise are attributed to its rightful owners (21: 24,
26; 22: 3)
Similarly, John avoids identifying his Empire with Rome all the way in the field of
riches, too. Gundry argues that the Seer distinguishes the harlots wealth from the
brides by mentioning that the gems of the New Jerusalem are crystal clear, her pearls
white, her gold like pure glass, like transparent glass (21: 11, 18, 21). 389[90] That is, our
388
[89] Osborne, 753.
389
[90] Gundry, 261-262.

wealth is different from their wealth, although they look similar. The Seer, also, with a
similar intent, prevents readers from linking heavenly wealth with Babylons wealth, by
saying in particular that nothing impure can enter the city (21: 27), right after remarking
that nations will bring glory into the city, for probably the latter scene evokes the imperial
system in which Babylon accumulated wealth (Rev. 18). That is, the pure wealth of the
bride has nothing to do with that of the harlot, although the external appearances are
similar.
Nonetheless, John could have gone farther than this. He could have spiritualized
heavenly wealth all the way and thus contrasted heavenly wealth with earthly wealth,
refusing to include any similarity to the latter in the former, as the writers of other NT
books did. For instance, as Royalty argues, in Matt. 6: 19-20, or 1 Tim. 6: 17-19,
heavenly wealth is diametrically opposed to earthly wealth, and is never described in any
earthly detail.390[91] In contrast, in Rev., the differences between earthly wealth and
heavenly wealth are extremely decreased by use of similar materials such as gold, as
noted above.
Here is observed Johns ambivalent attitude toward earthly imperial wealth. Take
the scene in which the nations bring glory and honor in the New Jerusalem in 21: 26.
Fekkes holds that the meaning of this term glory and honor is very ambiguous in
Johns context. In its allusive verse, Isa. 60: 11, nations bring their wealth in. However,
John makes it a double entendre by turning the term their wealth into glory and honor,
for this term can refer to both the conventional vocabulary of spiritual worship, (Pss.
8:5; 28: 1 (LXX), etc.) and the outward splendour which accrue from material wealth
(e.g., Exod. 28: 2; 2 Macc. 5: 16). Fekkes concludes that John adopted purposely the
ambiguous term, glory and honor, and conjectures that this scene may be a

390
[91] Royalty, 236-237.

combination of the worship scene in chs. 4-5 and of the wealth-receiving scene in chas.
17-18.391[92]
However, if John had wanted to combine the two properties, praise and wealth,
he could have clarified it by using more concrete expressions such as praise and
wealth. He instead used the ambivalent term. The reason may be that he felt himself
ambivalent toward determining the quality of heavenly wealth itself: should it be
Babylones wealth or spiritual wealth (i.e., praise)? John is wavering over a choice of
spiritual wealth (i.e., worship) and material wealth. His indeterminacy is reflected in the
ambivalence of the term.
John is ensnared in the contradiction of mimicking the imperial wealth with
insurmountable desire and attraction toward it, yet of not being able to overtly claim that
he is imitating it, for his detestation and revulsion toward it. The result is the awkward
merging of the two Empires, for the inherent instability and untenability of the binary
division comes to displaced expression in the elaborate mimicry that, we saw,
characterizes Revelations depiction of the other empire, that of God and the Lamb, a
mimicry that blurs the boundaries between the two empires until it becomes all but
impossible to decide where one leaves off and the other begins. 392[93]
Johns Cynic-like vegetables-eating should be viewed from the perspective of
ambivalence, mimicry and hybridity in the Bhabhian senses. The Cynics mocked the
wealthy in collaboration with the newly emerging Empire. The method they adopted for
that criticism is to intentionally take on a lifestyle opposed to that of the imperial
collaborators. When the imperialists were gold-clad, the Cynics wore only tatters. While
the former loved and lived in a city equipped with all varieties of imperial civilization
391
[92] Fekkes, 272-273.
392
[93] Moore, Empire and Apocalypse, 119.

conveniences, for the Cynics, the city was only a target of their criticisms. When the
imperialists ate meat and wine, the Cynics ate vegetables and water to show they could
be happy with poor foods.
Johns world of ideation is complicated and rigidly opposed to a strict dualism. He
is part Cynic-like and part imperialist. John is like a Cynic in that he draws in the theme
of the Eden garden, which the Cynics could have regarded as their perfect place. Here,
people consume water and vegetables/fruits only, just like the Cynics. However, this
garden is situated in the middle of another imperial city, the New Jerusalem, bedecked
with jewels and gold. People are gold-clad and live a luxurious life, here.
As noted above, in the mythical mentality or a dreaming state, a synthesis of
contradictory images means the coexistence of ones contradictory/ambivalent feelings.
The frugal food of Eden symbolizes anti-imperialism, while the luxury of the New
Jerusalem points to pro-imperialism. It indicates Johns ambivalence that those mutuallycontradictory images are combined in Johns imaginary world. He wants to both reject
the idea of imperialism itself and embrace the idea of being like an imperialist.
John Dominic Crossan designates Jesus and his followers as Jewish Cynics and
caricatures them as hippies in a world of Augustan yuppies. 393[94] In Rev., this division
is blurred, and a contradictory picture emerges: the yuppies of the New Jerusalem eat
the food for the hippies of the Eden garden. The Cynics blend with the imperialists. The
dream of the colonized is realized in imitation of the colonizer, but this replication is not
the exact copy of the original. As Bhabha wittily phrases, -- almost the same but not
quite.394[95]
3. Summary
393
[94] John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (New York: HarperSanFrancisco,

1991), 421.
394
[95] Bhabha, 89.

The celestial vegetables and water in Rev. 22: 1-2 can be placed in two contexts: a cultic
context and an ascetic one. In the Jerusalem temple cult and the imperial cult, meat and
wine were the main sacrificial food and Johns celestial vegetables and water may be
regarded as their opposite foods. In light of the fact that in ancient Roman times political
and religious elements were mixed up, Johns intentional use of the foods can be
interpreted as a symbolic resistance against Rome.
This spirit of resistance and confrontation goes for their symbolic significance in
the context of asceticism, too. As can be seen in the case of cynicism, ascetics opted for
vegetables and water as their diets, and the choice of the foods was their strategic act of
resistance against the imperial wealth and power. John could fit in this category of
ascetic vegetarian. However, the desire of incorporating the elements of the Empire
propels him to appropriate part of their enormous wealth and luxury. Ambivalence and
contradiction always loom large in Revelation.

Disser. Conclusion
Chapter 6
CONCLUSION
As noted above, the themes of eating relating to identity-making are observed all
through the book of Revelation. In Johns symbolic world, eating something was to
incorporate the elements of the eaten and thereby create changes to the identity of the
eater. In the sense, Rome tried to eat the Church and thus eliminate its identity. For
John, the Church was losing this war, yielding to the Roman enormous power of
temptation based on earthly wealth and success. At the counterpoint, John was careful
about what to eat, which resulted in many themes of (implicit) consumption of pure foods
such as the Lamb and the celestial foods for making of the true Christian identity. John
did not stop at defending the Church identity only. He counterattacks, using aggressively
the images of humans-eating. He charges at the enemy, baring his sharp teeth.

Devouring them and savoring the flesh of the enemy, he absorbs all their wealth and
even their souls, or identity.
The basic method taken in this research is that ingestion is a symbol of
establishing identity. In the method, one of main food images that are consumed in
Revelation is human flesh, which is the culmination of violence observed in Revelation.
This approach may answer the question that has plagued many readers of Revelation:
why is Revelation full of violence?
Readers have been appalled at enormous violence in Revelation. Elizabeth Cady
Stanton remarks that John of Patmos was evidently the victim of a terrible and
extravagant imagination and of visions which make the blood curdle. 395[1] Harry Maier
asks, Who, indeed, does not pale at Revelations two-hundred-mile-long river of human
blood, as high as a horses bridle, pouring out from the winepress of Gods wrath (Rev.
14:20)? Whose stomach does not turn at that vision of birds gorged on the flesh of the
dead (19:17-18)?...Who can estimate the apocalyptic sum of all those gulags and
concentration camps designed to usher in a Revelation-inspired millennium? 396[2]
Is Revelations violence only an expression of sheer hatred and hostility?
Alternatively, does one have to seek out other causes for the violence? For instance,
Carl Jung sees all this violence as the outburst of long pent-up negative feelings such
as can frequently be observed in people who strive for perfection. 397[3] That is, John
395
[1] Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Womans Bible (New York: European Publishing, 1895-

98), 179.
396
[2] Maier, 164-165.
397
[3] Carl J. Jung, Answer to Job, in The Collected Works of C. J. Jung, vol. 11:

Psychology and Religion, trans. R. F. C. Hull, 2d ed. (London: Routledge, 1968), 438;
Perhaps, as C. A. Meier criticizes and Harry O. Maier seems to lean toward his criticism,
one cannot acknowledge Jungs ignoring the scholars contention that the John of
Revelation cannot be identified as the John of the Fourth Gospel, who sought for the
perfection of love, although the biography could fit Jungs hypothesis more nicely, in the
sense that the apostle of love and forgiveness could not contain pent-up negative

strived to reach the moral perfection such as loving even your enemy, which was an
impossible task, and consequently only accumulated negative feelings such as hatred
and resentment underneath, and in time all the negative feelings burst upon the surface
of consciousness in the form of a vision.
Jungs psychoanalytic approach to this issue provides a good pointer in that it
attempts to search for the answer in the unconscious. What would be the psychological
pre-condition that spews out enormous and gruesome violence, which culminates in the
image of humanity-consumption? If one accepts the premises of the present research,
the answer would be concern over establishing right Christian identity. The body
symbolizes identity in Revelation, and the Church identity was not separated from the
Roman one. The Churchs effort to separate itself from the Other takes on the image of
enormous violence on bodies/identities: those metaphors of body/identity necessarily
feature the images of tearing or even devouring the flesh of the numerous human bodies
symbolizing identity. Therefore, Revelations violence could be expressive of the
collective unconsciouss agonizing over creating its own identity, which is always
accompanied by hatred and hostility toward the Other, a stumbling block to setting up
right identity. In the sense, it would be a balanced approach to focus on both the
symbolism of identity-making and on hatred toward the Other, included in the violence.

emotions and at some point turned suddenly into the vengeful and vindictive John of
Revelation. Still, Jungs hypothetical pattern of drastic change of personality may be
insightful. Jung, Answer to Job, 435 ff.; C. A. Meier, Persnlichkeit (Breisgau: Walter,
1977), 73-75; Maier, 51.

Appendix
Adela Yarbro Collinss Structure of Revelation Based on the Theory of
Recapitulation398[4]

Seven
Seals
Persecutio
n
(6: 9-11)

Seven
Trumpets

Unnumbere
d
(1)
(Persecution Persecution
)
(chs. 12-13)
(8: 3-5)
(Armies
Assembling)
(9: 13-21)

Seven
Bowls

Unnumbere
-d (2) (A)

(B)

Persecutio
n (16: 4-7)

Persecution
(20: 4)

(Persecution
) (20: 9)

Battle/
Destruction
(19: 1120:3)
Salvation
(20: 4-6)

Battle/
Destruction
(20: 7-15)

Day of
Wrath
(6: 12-17)

Destruction /
Judgment
(11: 18)

(Destruction
/Judgment)
(14: 14-20)

Armies
Assemblin
g (16: 1216)
Destructio
n
(16: 17-20)

Salvation
(7: 1-17)

Salvation
(11: 15-19)

Salvation
(15: 2-4)

Salvation
(19: 1-10)

Salvation
(21: 1-22: 5)

Revised Collinss Diagram

Seven
Seals

Seven
Trumpets

Persecutio
n
(6: 9-11)

(Persecutio
n)
(8: 3-5)
(Assembling
Armies)
(9: 13-21)

Unnumbere
d
(1)
Persecution
(chs. 12-13)

Seven
Bowls

Unnumbere
-d (2) (A)
(B)

Persecutio
n (16: 4-7)

Persecution
(20: 4)

Armies
Assembling
(16: 12-16)

398
[4] Collins, The Combat Myth, 41. http://www.drew.edu/theo

(Persecution
) (20: 9)

Ambivalent
Salvation
(11: 1-13)
Day of
Wrath
(6: 12-17)

Destruction
/Judgment
(11: 18)

Ambivalen
t
Salvation
(14: 14-16)
(Destruction /
Judgment)
(14: 17-20)

Salvation
(7: 1-17)

Salvation
(11: 15-19)

Salvation
(15: 2-4)

Destructio
n
(16: 17-20)
Salvation
(19: 1-10)

Battle/
Destruction
(19: 1120:3)
Salvation
(20: 4-6)

Battle/
Destruction
(20: 7-15)
Salvation
(21: 1-22: 5)

PhD Disser Bibliography

Bibliography
Books and Articles
Abraham, Karl. Dreams and Myths, trans. William Alanson White. New York: Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease Pub., 1913.
Ackroyd, Peter R. Goddesses, Women and Jezebel, in Images of Women in Antiquity,
ed. Amelie Kuhrt, et al., 245-259. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1993.
. The Vitality of the Word of God in the Old Testament, in Annual of the
Swedish Theological Institute vol. I., 7-23. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962.
Appler, Deborah A. From Queen to Cuisine, Semeia 86, 1999: 55-71.
Arens, William. The Man-Eating Myth. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.
. Rethinking Anthropophagy, in Cannibalism and the Colonial World, ed. Peter
Hulme, et. al., 39-62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, Key Concepts in Post-Colonial Studies.
London and New York: Routledge, 1998.
. Post-Colonial Studies. London, New York: Routledge, 2000.
Aune, David E. The Influence of
Roman Imperial Court
Ceremonial on the Apocalypse
of John, Papers of the Chicago Society of Biblical Research, vol. XXVIII (1983): 5-26.
. The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity. Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1972.
. Revelation 1-5, vol. 52 A of Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books,
1997.
. Revelation 6-16, vol. 52 B of Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 1998.
Balsdon, J.P.V.D. Romans and Aliens. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina
Press, 1979.
Ball, Warwick. Rome in the East. London, New York: Routledge, 2000.
Barr, David L. The Apocalypse as a Symbolic Transformation of the World,
Interpretation 38, (1984): 39-50.
. Tales of the End. Santa Rosa: Polebridge Press, 1985.
Barus, Imants, Alterations of Consciousness. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association, 2003.

Bauckham, Richard. The Economic Critique of Rome in Revelation 18, in Images of

Empire, ed. L. Alexander, 47-90. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.
. The Climax of Prophecy. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993.
Beal, Timothy K. Religion and Its Monsters. New York: Routledge, 2001.
Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids, Cambridge: Wm B. Eerdmans,
Paternoster, 1999.
Beasley-Murray, G. R. The Book of Revelation. London: Oliphants, 1974.
Beaver, Dan. Flesh or Fantasy, Ethnohistory 49.3, 2002: 671-685.
Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. London, New York: Routledge, 1994.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 1-39. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Bloomquist, L. Gregory. Methodological Considerations in the Determination of the
Social Context of Cynic Rhetorical Practice in The Rhetorical Analysis of
Scripture, ed. William E. Arnal and Michel Desjardins, 200-231. Sheffield:
Sheffield, 1997.
Boring, M.E. Revelation. Louisville: John Knox, 1989.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction. London: Routledge, 1984.
Boxall, Ian. Revelation: Vision and Insight. London: SPCK, 2002.
Brent, Allen. The Imperial Cult and the Development of Church Order. Leiden, Boston,
Kln: Brill, 1999.
Bronfen, Elizabeth. Over Her Dead Body. New York: Routledge, 1992.
Brown, Raymond. The Gospel According to John, I-XII. New York: Doubleday/ London:
Geoffrey Chapman, 1966.
Caird, G. B. A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine. New York and
Evanston: Harper & Row, 1966.
Carney, Thomas F. The Shape of the Past. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975.
Cassirer, Ernst. The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms (vol. 2: Mythical Thought), trans.,
Ralph Manheim. New Haven and London: Yale Univ. Press, 1955
Charles, R. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John vol. I.
New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1920.
Charlesworth, James H., ed. Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, vol. 1 of The Old
Testament Psudepigrapha. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Aukland: Doubleday,
1983.
Chow, John K. Patronage in Roman Corinth, in Paul and Empire, ed. Richard A.
Horsley, 104-125. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius, Cicero: Tusculan Disputations, vol. 18 of 28, trans. J. E. King.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1927.
Classen, Constance. Worlds of Sense. London, New York: Routledge Press, 1993
Cogan, Mordechai. 1 Kings. New York, etc.: Doubleday, 2000.
Collins, Adela. Yarbro. Revelations 18, in Apocalypse Johannique et L'apocalyptique
dans le Nouveau Testament. Gembloux, Belgium: Editions J. Duculot, 1980.
. Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976.
. Crisis and Catharsis. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984.
Cook, Stephen L. Prophecy and Apocalypticism. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995.
Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.
Daly, Robert J. Christian Sacrifice. Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of
America Press, 1978.
Dietler, Michael. Feasts and Commensal Politics in the Political Economy. In Food
and the Status Quest, ed. P. Wiessner and W. Shieffenhovel, 87-125. Providence:
Berghahn Books, 1997.
Douglas, Mary. Implicit Meanings. London, Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
. Natural Symbols. New York: Pantheon Books, 1982.

. Purity and Danger. New York, Washington: Frederick A. Praeger, 1966.

Downing, F. Gerald. Christ and the Cynics. Sheffield: JSOT, 1988.
. Cynics and Christian Origins. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992.
Dudley, Donald. A History of Cynicism. Hildesheim: Olms, 1967.
Duff, Paul B. Who Rides the Beast? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Eddy, Samuel K. The King is Dead. Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1961
Eliade, Mircea. Myth and Reality. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, Inc., 1963.
Evans, Dylan. An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. Hove, New York:
Brunner-Routledge, 1996.
Exum, J. Cheryl. Fragmented Women. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Fanon, Franz. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press, 1968.
Farthing, G. William. The Psychology of Consciousness. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1992.
Fearson, James D., and David D. Laitin, Violence and the Social Construction of Ethnic
Identity, International Organization 54, 4 (2000): 845-877.
Feeley-Harnik, Gillian. The Lords Table. Washington and New York: Smithsonian
Institution Press, 1981.
Fekkes, Jan. Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Fewell, Danna Nolan, and David M. Gum. Gender, Power & Promise. Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1993.
Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schssler. Apocalyptic and Gnosis in the Book of Revelation and
Paul, Journal of Biblical Literature 92, (1973): 565-581.
. The Book of Revelation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.
Ford, J. M. Revelation. Garden City: Anchor Bible, 1975.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality trans. R. Hurley. Vol 1 of The History of
Sexuality. 3 vols. New York: Vintage Books, 1980.
Fox, M. V. The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs. Madison: Univ. of
Wisconsin Press, 1985.
Freud, Sigmund. The Ego and the Id and Other Works, vol. 19 of The Standard Edition
of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, ed. and trans.
James Strachey (London: The Hogarth Press and the Institute of PsychoAnalysis,
1981.
. On the History of the Psycho-Analytic Movement Papers on Metapsychology
and
Other Works, vol. 14 of The Standard Edition.
. Creative Writers and Day-Dreaming, in Delusions and Dreams in Jensens
Grandiva, vol. 9 of The Standard Edition, 141-154.
. Totem and Taboo and Other Works, vol. 13 of The Standard Edition.
. Three Essays On the Theory of Sexuality, trans. James Strachey.
London: Imago Publishing Company, 1949
Friedman, Johathan. Consumption and Identity. New York: Harwood Academic
Publishers, 1994.
Friesen, Steven J. Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2001.
. Twice Neokoros. Leiden: Brill, 1993.
Frilingos, Christopher A. Spectacles of Empire. Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient
Religion; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.
Garnsey, P., and R. Saller, The Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1987.

Garrett, Duane. Song of Songs, vol. 23 B of Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville:

Thompson Nelson Publishers, 2004.
Garrow, A. J. P. Revelation. London and New York: Routledge, 1997.
Gatta, Julia. The Marriage of the Bride and the Lamb. Sewanee Theological Review
35: 2 (1992): 173-181.
Gordon, Richard. The Veil of Power. In Paul and Empire, ed. Richard Horsley, 126137. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1997.
Goulet-Caz, M.-O. Introduction, in The Cynics, ed. R. Bracht Branham and M.-O.
Goulet-Caz, 1-28. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 2000.
Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed. and trans. Quintin Hoare
and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1971.
Gruenwald, I. Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism. Leiden: E. J. Brill: 1980.
Hannestad, N. Roman Art and Imperial Policy. Aarhus: Aarhus UP, 1988.
Hanson, Paul D. The Dawn of Apocalyptic. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.
Harland, Philip A. Honoring the Emperor or Assailing the Beast. Journal for the Study
of the New Testament 77 (2000): 99-121.
Harris, R. Lourdes. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1999.
Harris, R. Laird ed., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol 1. Chicago: Moody
Press, 1980.
Hillers, Delbert R. Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets. Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1964.
Hillyer, Norman. The Lamb in the Apocalypse. Evangelical Quarterly 39 (1967):
228-236.
Hoffner, Harry A. Jr. Symbols for Masculinity and Femininity: Their Use in Ancient
Near Eastern Sympathetic Magic Rituals. Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966): 326334.
Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and Empire. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
Howard-Brook, Wes, and Anthony Gwyther, Unveiling Empire (Maryknoll, Orbis, 2002.
Hulme, Peter. Colonial Encounters. London and New York: Methuen, 1986.
. Making No Bones. Critical Inquiry 20, no. 1 (1993): 179-186.
JanMohammed, A. R. The Economy of Manichaean Allegory. Critical Inquiry 12, no.
1 (1985): 59-87.
. Manichean Aesthetics. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts
Press, 1983.
Jart, Una. The Precious Stones in the Revelation of St. John xxi. 18-21, Studia
Theologica 24, no. 2 (1970): 150-181.
Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.
Johnston, Gordon H. Nahums Rhetorical Allusions to Neo-Assyrian Treaty Curses.
Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (2001): 415-436
Jones, Brian W. The Emperor Domitian. London and New York: Routledge, 1992.
. Domitian and the Senatorial Order. Philadelphia: American Philosophical
Society, 1979.
Jung, Carl. Jung on Mythology, ed., Robert A. Segal. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1998.
. Symbols of Transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967.
. Answer to Job. In The Collected Works of C. J. Jung, vol. 11:
Psychology and Religion, trans. R. F. C. Hull, 2d ed., 355-470. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1969.
Keller, Catherine. God and Power. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.
Kim, Jean J. Uncovering Her Wickedness. Journal for the Study of the New Testament
73 (1999): 61-81.

. Woman and Nation. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Kirk, G. S. Myth. Cambridge, Berkeley, Los Angeles: Cambridge University Press,
University of California Press, 1970.
Koester, Helmut. History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age. New York,
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995.
Kraybill, Nelson. Imperial Cult and Commerce in Johns Apocalypse. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Krodel, Gehard A. Revelation. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989.
Kuper, Adam. The Structure of Dream Sequences. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 7
(1983): 153-175.
Lacan, Jacques. crits, trans. Alan Sheridan. New York, London: W.W. Norton &
Company, 1977.
.Some Reflections of the Ego. The International Journal of PsychoAnalysis 34 (1953): 11-17.
Lacocque, Andr. Romance, She Wrote. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998.
Laplanche, J., and J.-B. Pontalis, The Language of Psycho-Analysis. New York, London:
W.W. Norton & Company, 1973.
Levick, Barbara. Urbanization in the Eastern Empire in The Roman World, ed. John
Wacher, 329-344. London, New York: Routledge, 1987.
. Domitian and the Provinces, Latomus 41 (1982): 50-73.
Lvi-Strauss, Claude Structural Anthropology. vol. 1. New York: Basic Books, 1963.
. The View from Afar. New York: Basic Books, 1985.
Lvy-Bruhl, Lucien. How Natives Think, trans. Lilian A. Clare. Salem: Ayer Company,
1984.
. The Notes on Primitive Mentality, trans. Peter Rivire. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1975.
Liew, Tat-siong Benny. Tyranny, Boundary and Might. Journal for the Study of the
New Testament 73 (1999): 7-31.
Lindblom, J. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963.
Lotman, Jurij. The Origin of Plot in the Light of Typology Poetics Today 1 (1979):
161-184.
Ludwig, Arnold M. Altered States of Consciousness in Altered States of
Consciousness,
ed. Charles T. Tart, 11-25. Garden City: Anchor Books, 1972.
MacMullen, Ramsay. Roman Social Relations. New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1974.
Maier, Harry O. Apocalypse Recalled. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.
. Staging the Gaze, Harvard Theological Review 90:2 (1997): 131-154.
Malina, Bruce J. The New Testament World. Louisville, Ky.: John Knox, 1981.
Markschies, C. Sessio ad Dexteram: Bemerkungen zu einem altchristlichen
Bekenntnismotiv in der christologischen Diskussion der altkirchlichen Theologen. in Le
Trne de Dieu, ed. M. Philonenko, 252-317. Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1993.
Mason, H. J. Greek Terms for Roman Institutions. Toronto: Hakkert, 1974.
Mattern, Susan P. Rome and the Enemy. Berkeley, Los Angles, London: University of
California Press, 1999.
McCarthy, S. J., Dennis J. Treaty and Covenant. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981.
McGowan, Andrew. Ascetic Eucharists. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.
. Eating People, Journal of Early Christian Studies 2 Wint. (1994): 413-442.
McKinlay, Judith E. Negotiating the Frame for Viewing the Death of Jezebel, Biblical
Interpretation 10 no. 3, (2002): 305-323.
Meier, C. A. Persnlichkeit. Breisgau: Walter, 1977.

Meletinsky, Eleazar M. The Poetics of Myth. New York and London: Garland Publishing
Inc., 1998.
Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 23-27. New Tork, etc.: Doubleday, 2000.
Millar, Fergus. The Emperor in the Roman World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977.
Miller, Patricia Cox. Dreams in Late Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1994.
Moloney, Raymond, S.J. The Eucharist. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1995.
Moore, Stephen D. Empire and Apocalypse. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006.
. Gods Beauty Parlor. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001.
Moore-Gilbert, Bart. Postcolonial Theory. London, New York: Verso, 2000.
Mounce, R. H. The Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977.
Mowry, Lucetta. Revelation 4-5 and Early Christian Liturgical Usage. Journal of
Biblical Literature 71 (1952): 75-84.
Moyise, S. The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1995.
Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Parpola, Simo, and Kazuo Watanabe. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths.
Helsinki:
Helsinki University Press, 1988.
Patterson, Stephen J. The End of Apocalypse. Theology Today 52 (1995): 29-48.
Perkins, Judith. The Suffering Self . London and New York: Routledge, 1995.
Petrinovich, Lewis. The Cannibal Within. New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 2000.
. Science. Gibbons, 1997.
Pippin, Tinna. Death and Desire. Louisvill: Westminster, John Knox Press, 1992.
Pleket, H. W. Religious History as the History of Mentality. In Faith, Hope, and
Worship, ed. H. S. Versnel, 152-192. Brill Academic Pub, 1981.
Preez, James Du, Mission Perspective in the Book of Revelation. Evangelical
Quarterly 42 (1970): 152-167.
Price, Merrall Llewelyn. Consuming Passions. New York, London: Routledge, 2003.
Price, S. R. F. Rituals and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Prigent, P. Apocalypse et Liturgie. Paris: Delachaux et Niestle, 1964.
Pritchard, J. B., ed. The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.
Reader, William W. The Twelve Jewels of Revelation 21: 19-20, Journal of Biblical
Literature 100: 3 (1981): 433-457.
Rissi, Mathias. The Future of the World. London: SCM Press LTD, 1966.
Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.
Roloff, J. Revelation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Rowland, C. The Open Heaven. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002.
Sagan, Eli. Cannibalism. New York, Evanston, San Francisco, London: Harper & Row,
1974.
Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993.
. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1979.
Saller, Richard. Personal Patronage Under the Early Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press, 1982.
Sanday, Peggy Reeves. Divine Hunger (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1986.
Sanders, E. P. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah. Philadelphia: Trinity Press; SCM
Press, 1990.
Schmidt, Francis. How the Temple Thinks. Sheffield: Sheffield, 2001.
Schulte, Hannelis. The End of the Omride Dynasty, Semeia no. 66 (1994): 133-148.

Schrer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. 2.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark LTD, 1979.
Schwartz, Regina M. The Curse of Cain. Chicago and London: The University of
Chicago Press, 1997.
Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 2001.
Simmel, Georg. Conflict and the Web of Group-Affiliations, trans., Kurt H. Wolff and
Reinhard Bendix New York: Free Press, 1955.
Slater, Thomas B. King of Kings and Lord of Lords Revisited, New Testament
Studies 39 (1993): 159-160.
Slemon, Stephen. Bones of Contention. In Literature and the Body, ed. Anthony Purdy,
163-177. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1992.
Smith, Carol. Queenship in Israel? the Case of Bathsheba, Jezebel and Athaliah, in
King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. John Day, 142-162. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Smith, Dennis E. From Symposium to Eucharist. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
Smith, Jonathan Z. What a Difference a Difference Makes, in To See Ourselves as
Others See Us, ed. Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs, 3-48. Chicago:
Scholars
Press, 1985.
Soggin, J. A. Jezabel oder die Fremde Frau, in Melanges Bibliques et Orientaux en
Lhonneur de M. Henri Cazelles ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor, 453-459. Kevelaer: Butzon
& Bercker, 1981.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. Identity and Alterity (with Nikos Papastergiadis). Arena
97 (1991): 65-76.
Stevenson, Gregory. Power and Place. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2001.
Straten, Folkert van. Images of Gods and Men in a Changing Society. In Images and
Ideologies, ed. Anthony Bulloch, et.al., 248-264. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press,
1993.
Sugirtharajah, R. S. Postcolonial Reconfigurations. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2003.
Sundkler, Bengt. The World of Mission. London: Lutterworth Press, 1965.
Sweet, J. P. M. Revelation. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1979.
Thompson, Leonard L. Cult and Eschatology in the Apocalypse of John, Journal of
Religion 49 (1969): 330-350.
. The Book of Revelation. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990
. Spirit Possession. In Reading the Book of Revelation, ed. David L. Barr, 137151. Atlanta: SBL, 2003.
Turcan, Robert. The Gods of Ancient Rome, trans. Antonia Nevill. New York: Routledge,
2001.
Vaage, Leif E. Galilean Upstarts. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994.
VanGemeren, Willen A. ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology
and Exegesis, vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997.
Villiers, Pieter G. R. Prime Evil and its Many Faces in the Book of Revelation,
Neotestamentica 34:1 (2000): 57-85.
Warner, Marina. Fee fie fo fum, in Cannibalism and the Colonial World, ed. Francis
Baker, et. al., 158-182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Washington, Harold C. Violence and the Construction of Gender in the Hebrew Bible,
Biblical Interpretation 5 (1997): 324-363.
Westhelle, Vitor. Revelation 13, in David Rhoads (ed.), From Every People and Nation.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.
Winkelman, Michael. Trance States Ethos, vol. 14, No. 2 (1986): 174-203.
Young, Robert J. C. Postcolonialism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2001.

Zimmermann, Ruben. Nuptial Imagery in the Revelation of John. Biblica 84 no. 2

(2003): 153-183.
Zlotnick, Helena. From Jezebel to Esther. Biblica vol. 82 (2001): 477-495.
Dictionaries
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, s.v. patronage.
Dictionary of New Testament Background, s.v. patronage.
Encyclopedia of Psychology, s.v., altered states of consciousness.
The Anchor Bible Dictionary, s.v., Messianic Banquet.
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s. v. .