Opening week now behind us, the net is rife with speculation into the Wachowski brothers’ intentions with their symbol-laden Matrix: Reloaded. One particular point of contention is whether Zion (and the rest of the “real world”) is also a part of the Matrix or perhaps a second, container Matrix for the original 1990s NYC Matrix. This scifi convention speculation is all well and good, but when all is said and done, the Wachowski brothers have no intention of their fans being able to figure it out before Matrix: Revolutions comes out in theaters later this year.

The architect explains that

As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that refused the program, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster…

The function of the One is now to return to the Source, allowing a temporary dissemination of the code you carry, reinserting the prime program. After which you will be required to select from the matrix 23 individuals, 16 female, 7 male, to rebuild Zion.

The Architect, the Oracle, the Merovingian, Persophone, Agent Smith–all these represent what Saul/Paul called “the principalities and powers of the air,” or what Paul-explicator Walter Wink has more simply called “the powers-that-be.” A scene from the Hebrew Bible book of Daniel may help explain. Disturbed by a vision he does not understand, Daniel fast and prays for three weeks for understanding, but receives no reprieve. Finally, the angel Gabriel arrives to explain the vision, but first offers this explanation for his delay:

Then Gabriel said to me, “Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard; and I have come because of your words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia. Now I have come to make you understand what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision refers to many days yet to come.”

The culture of the ancient Near East was henotheistic. That is to say, each city-state, kingdom and empire had its own pantheon of gods and knew that its neighbors also had their own. The existence of a neighboring city’s gods was never doubted; they were just regarded as inferior to the home team. The ultimate arbiter of who was in and who was out in polytheistic high society was the battle field. The army who took the field, obviously, has the superior set of gods.

The Hebrew religious cultus was little different. It’s own pantheon was officially populated by only one God, the cantankerous Yhwh, but it still banked on the henotheistic geopolitical game. (All the biblical stories of stamping out “idol worship” seem to belie the fact that the average subject of Israel and Judah preferred a pantheon with more variety.) The defeat of the northern Hebrew kingdom, Israel, by Assyria, followed soon after by the defeat of the southern kingdom Judah would have meant, then, that Yhwh had met his match. How, then, did Yahwist religion survive? Shouldn’t Ywhw’s worshippers moved on to better gods?

The genius of Hebrew prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah was to say that Yhwh was still around and still in charge but was letting the powers-that-be of Assyria of Babylon have their way with Israel and Judah as a punishment for your their than loyal devotion. (All the pietists in the room will feel a tingling in their loins at this point.) The historical and archeological records indicate that the Hebrew prophets’ revisioning or Yahwism was successful, since monotheism was never widely practiced in Israel until before the run-ins with Assyria and Babylon, and was universally practiced after.

And so it is that the angel Gabriel had a tough (if eventually successful) time of getting a message from Yhwh through to Daniel. It is within this henotheistic context that the early Christian claim “Jesus is Lord” draws its meaning. Early Christian theologians found themselves within a nominally henotheistic Roman Empire. Saying “Jesus is Lord,” then, was a provocative denial of the efficacy of polytheistic Greco-Roman culture in general and of the politico-religious authority of Caesar in particular. Saying “Jesus is Lord” denounced the powers-that-be and that’s-just-the-way-it-is as the problem, not a power scheme to be honored or even sustained.

The Matrix has no Christ (yet), but in Reloaded we can make out of the shape of a loosely organized, infighting pantheon of powers-that-be. This enchantment of the Matrix with god-programs extends down to every building and bird, the Oracle explains. The Architect and the Oracle created the Matrix but seem to have had little interaction since. By seeking out the One and then sending him on to meet with the Architect, the Oracle–for all her compassion–collaborates in the constant recreation of the Matrix. (Still, she is mentioned dismissively enough by both the Architect and the Merovingian that we have reason to suspect she may harbor some subversive motives after all. Her needing a bodyguard only backs this up.)

The agents function as Nemesis, punishing the hubris of those who will not accept their place. The Merovingian and Agent Smith are up-and-comers of the pantheon, working to consolidate their own power over against their fellow god-programs. And it’s likely that there many other powerful god-programs running about in the Matrix that we know nothing of.

The critical point for those of us who would oppose the power-that-be outside the theater, though, is the role of Zion. The powers-that-be of Saul/Paul and the Agent Smiths and Merovingians of the Wachowski brothers are for all intents and purposes no different from, say, a Foucauldian understanding of epistemes and power-relations. We understand why that’s-just-the-way-it-is is opressive and self-serving, and we look to unmask the powers-that-be in hopes of countering their influence. We may sketch out the pantheon in different ways, but we are all intent on mapping it out.

The early Christians had the kingdom of God–a pacifist, communal, self-sacrificing ecumene–as their alternative to Rome. Zion, then, stands as our alternative to the Matrix, our un-Matrix, our anti-Matrix. Zion’s brown flesh tones, sweaty raves, and multicultural communitarianism stand in stark contrast to the Anglo, corporate, surveilled Matrix. We may maintain a presence in the Matrix, but is only to subvert it, only for the future victory of Zion. Zion is always already present, but it is also always already a future reality yet to be realized.

But what if the Architect is right? What if the resistance of Zion was always already accounted for? What if letting people into Zion helps keep the Matrix a smoothly running machine? What if Zion is just as much a contrivance as the Matrix?

Elsewhere in the blogosphere (so help me, I can’t find the link), someone has argued that the pre-Iraq War peace movement was not successful in preventing the war because it was a necessary part of the war all along. It was a safety valve, releasing social pressure so the real work could go on unabated. Letting that 0.1% of the population have their party is just one step the powers-that-be need to check off on their to-do list.

The cultural corrolary finds its way to us via Mardi Gras, April Fools Day, and the childhood standby Opposite Day. Every great once in a while, a day is chosen for everyone to act out stereotypes of their social opposites. Men dress and act like nagging women. Women play the part of lazy husbands and viscious warriors. Children become domineering parents. The village idiot is king for a day.

And when the day is over, everything goes back to that’s-just-the-way-it-is. The occasional, radical subversion of roles only solidifies the entrenchment of the powers-that-be: successful revolutions reproduce the oppression they so opposed, albeit with renamed gods. If so, our utopias are only the dress-up drawer for a more dystopic reality.