Bob Dylan: "I practice a faith that's long been abandoned, ain't no altars on this long and lonesome road"

Bezoekers vandaag: 113Bezoekers totaal: 470880
Welcome to the website of Kees de Graaf
Kees de Graaf

Dr. Chales F. Stanley and sanctification.


In our previous weblog article called 'How secure is Dr. Charles F. Stanley's eternal security?'' we  stated that ‘over and over again, Dr. Stanley has emphasized that people are saved only by an act of divine grace which does not depend at all on any deeds of the individual believer and there is nothing  a person can do to influence his or her salvation. Dr. Stanley even takes this to the point that once a person is saved there is nothing the believer can do to undo his or her salvation, even if this seems to happen at the expense of the sanctification of the believer’.
We feel that this point needs further clarification. As said before, I admire Dr. Stanley’s wisdom a lot and I really enjoy listening and watching his weekly message on the In Touch Ministry's website. It is true, in his messages Dr. Stanley talks a lot about the necessity of sanctification in the life of the individual believer. Yet I have the feeling that Dr. Stanley’s knife of sanctification by far does not cut deep enough from a biblical point of view. To outline this, here is a quote from Dr. Stanley’s book ‘Eternal Security: Can you Be Sure?’. In a chapter called "For Those Who Stop Believing", Dr. Stanley says: "The Bible clearly teaches that God's love for His people is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand” (p. 74). Earlier in the book Dr. Stanley writes: "Even if a believer for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever, his salvation is not in jeopardy… believers who lose or abandon their faith will retain their salvation”.  When I read this I really had to rub my eyes? Is this statement of Dr. Stanley  really backed up by the Scriptures? So if this were true, you may even renounce your faith and denounce the Lord and still you will be saved because obviously at one time in your life you confessed your faith in the Lord? But then I wonder what the true value is of such a confession, if it is not followed by a life of sanctification? If I understand Dr. Stanley well, then the justification of the believer – through the blood of Christ – is not always necessarily followed by the sanctification of the believer.
Now the concept of ‘sanctification’ has two important aspects. The first one is ‘separation’. The word ‘sanctification’ is derived from the  Greek word ‘hagios’ which means ‘holiness’. Once you are truly saved you receive an entirely new position, you become ‘separated’ from all evil and tied to Christ and you are His property. The second aspect of sanctification is ‘devotion’. You devote your life to Christ. Once you are truly saved, The Holy Spirit enters into your life and turns you into a devotee of Christ. The Holy Spirit brings ‘holiness’ into your life but the Holy Spirit does so in a progressive way. The Holy Spirit starts up a process of inward renewal, a process  which brings you both pain and tremendous joy. Pain because more and more you start to realize what is wrong with you, more and more you become aware of the fact that you are a sinner and that you need daily cleansing from your sins. But at the same time, you also start to feel more and more a tremendous and abundant joy, more and more you will find great comfort in the forgiving arms of Jesus Christ and within you, you will more and more find the fruits of an awakening new life and this will fulfil you with great joy. This is not a static thing but a lifelong process, just like a branch of a vine is continuously pruned by the vinedresser so that it may produce abundance of fruit (John 15: 2). But once thing is certain: this will only happen to those who abide in (the vine) Christ and  only those (John 15:4) can and will bear fruit.
However, what will happen to the believer who does not abide in Christ, what will happen to the ‘believer’ who, like Dr. Stanley  says,‘ for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever’?.
John 15:6 makes it very clear what will happen to such a ‘believer’: ‘If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered into the fire and burned’. Is the salvation of such a ‘believer’ not in jeopardy like Dr. Stanley suggests?
Is it really true that branches which are cut off from the vine Christ will retain their salvation, just like Dr. Stanley says: “believers who lose or abandon their faith will retain their salvation”?.
It often happens that during mass meetings where the Gospel is preached to large crowds, in the heat of the moment, numerous people step forward, confess their sins, and publicly accept Jesus as their Saviour. But will it last? Thank God: Sometimes it lasts! But unfortunately, often enough it does not last. This is made clear by Jesus in the parable of the sower (Matthew 13-1:23). The gospel, the word that is sown in the heart of many people is snatched away by the devil (verse 19). Somebody receives the word with great joy. However verse 21  says: ‘yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation and persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away'. Somebody else (verse 22) ‘hears the word , but the cares of the world and the delight in riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful’. Verse 23 says that only the seed that was sown on good soil, ‘he who hears the word and understands it, he indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty’. Only such a believer is truly saved! And only to such a believer the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints applies. God will never give up such a believer. Such a believer may fall into sin, like David and Peter once fell into sin, but the grace of God will sooner or later always be there to make him or her repent and restore him or her into His grace.
Dr Stanley has said: "Even if a believer for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever, his salvation is not in jeopardy… believers who lose or abandon their faith will retain their salvation”. Does Dr. Stanley give any scriptural back up for his extreme stance on this issue?
Yes he does. Dr. Stanley refers to 1 Corinthians 3:14 and 15 where it says:’If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire’. So seen from Dr. Stanley’s point of view, the only thing a Christian may lose is his reward but not his salvation. Even if a Christian produces nothing but rubbish and worthless things on the foundation (Christ) – which is the same as becoming an 'unbeliever for all practical purposes' - yet he cannot lose his salvation but only his reward. So if I understand Dt Stanley correctly,  on the new earth to come there will be children of God with a reward and children of God who have suffered a loss and have no reward at all.  However we don’t think that this is what 1 Corinthians 3 tries to make clear to us. When we read the pericope 1 Corinthians 3:10-17 as a whole, we note the following:
1. Paul does not deal here with the individual believer but speaks here of his work as an apostle ( a skilled master) in comparison with other evangelists (verse 10).
2. But more importantly: Verse 11 makes it clear that all builders mentioned here, build on the same foundation and this foundation is Jesus Christ. Not all builders build in the same way and some building material cannot stand the test of fire. However, all the builders have in common that they build on the foundation Jesus Christ. They all have the intention to build on the foundation of Jesus Christ. God is merciful and will cleanse their imperfect work on the Latter Day  - he will cleanse it by fire – and in this way they will be saved. But what happens to believers who once confessed their faith in Jesus Christ but have abandoned their faith and denounced the Lord? Well, for all practical purposes, they do not build on the foundation Jesus Christ but they sow to their own flesh and they will reap corruption (Galatians 6:8). The question in 1 Corinthians 3 is: do you as an apostle or evangelist build on the foundation Jesus Christ? If you do you will be saved, no matter how imperfect your work may have been.
3. This pericope ends with a serious warning: ‘if anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him’,(I Corinthians 3:17). So if you are a builder, take care!. As a builder, an apostle or evangelist you bear a great responsibility. When you destroy the work of God, His temple, God will destroy you and then you have much more to lose than just your reward.
1 John 3:7 still stands: ‘Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as He is righteous’. And what about Matthew 7: 21: ‘Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven’. You cannot at one time put your trust in Jesus and then become an unbeliever ’for all practical purposes’ and still be saved. Such a confession must have practical consequences, otherwise such a confession does not have any value. Therefore, from a biblical point of view “Once saved always saved” should be understood as “Once truly saved, always saved”. That makes a lot of a difference! 



Bob Dylan's 'Jokerman' - an analysis - Part 5 (final part)


Bob Dylan's 'Jokerman' - an analysis – Part 5 (final part).

In this fifth and final part of our analysis of Dylan’s Jokerman we examine the last three verses of the song.
Well, the Book of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the law of the jungle and the sea are your only teachers. In the smoke of the twilight on a milk-white steed Michelangelo indeed could've carved out your features. Resting in the fields, far from the turbulent space, half asleep near the stars with a small dog licking your face”.  
One wonders why the poet only mentions the Book of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as his only teacher and why not the whole Pentateuch or the whole Old and New Testament? The Pentateuch consists of the five books of Moses of which Leviticus is the third and Deuteronomy the fifth book. The obvious reason may be that the Book of Leviticus and Deuteronomy –and also the Book of Numbers - are predominantly legalistic Books.  However, these books not only deal with the specific laws, commandments and cultic prescriptions for the people of Israel but especially the book of Deuteronomy also emphasizes God’s love and mercy (Deut. 4:31) and His continuous protection and commitment if the people of Israel obey and keep His commandments laid down in the Covenant. So in this verse we note dualism, controversy and ambiguity in the mind of the Jokerman between trust and faith in the laws of a righteous and merciful God as shown in the Book of Leviticus and Deuteronomy on the one hand, and belief in the harsh reality of ‘the law of the jungle and the sea’ on the other hand. The ‘the law of the jungle and the sea’ reflect the Darwinian thesis of the ‘survival of the fittest’. In this thesis only the strongest and fittest of any specimen or organism survive whereby all others are eliminated.
In the next line Dylan describes two separate scenes or notions – King Jesus Christ and his predecessor and forefather king David – and in a certain way he combines both notions into one picture. First Dylan draws our attention to ‘a milk white steed’ which looms largein the smoke of the twilight”. Horses generating smoke during twilight is an apocalyptic sign representing conquest and war. In Revelation 19: 11-13 we find Jesus Christ riding on a white horse, ready to judge and to conquer. When Dylan goes on to say that “Michelangelo indeed could've carved out your features” he refers to the statue of the biblical King David (see the picture of David's statue on the right top of this page) which Michelangelo made between 1501 and 1504 andit seems obvious that Dylan sees Michelangelo carve out the features of Jesus Christ in the statue of his predecessor King David of Israel. The Bible states that in a lot of ways the temporary kingdom of David resembles and foreshadows the eternal kingdom of his Son Jesus Christ. Matthew 22: 42, 43 not only says that Jesus Christ is David’s Son but also that David calls Jesus ‘’LORD”.  When we take a closer look at the statue, we see king David with his head turned to the left while his left arm is raised to his left shoulder with his sling flung down behind his back, ready to attack Goliath (I Samuel 17:40). Michelangelo’s David certainly is one of the most famous works of Renaissance sculpture, and it is a clear symbol of both strength and youthful determination. So if you take a close look at this statue, and although you do not literally see David riding this milk white steed, you may nevertheless discern the carved out features of King Jesus Christ, ready to conquer his enemies, in the same way as his predecessor, the righteous king David, combatted and conquered the Philistines and in particular the mighty giant Philistine Goliath. A studio outtake of “Jokerman” at this place has different lyrics: ‘No crystal ball do you need on your shelf, Michelangelo himself could've carved out your features”. These alternative lyrics seem to confirm that the features which Michelangelo has carved out here are indeed the features of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ does not need any fortune telling crystal ball but He has direct insight into the future through His Father in heaven.   
Resting in the fields, far from the turbulent space, half asleep near the starsmost likely refers to King David as well. Before David became king of Israel, he had been persecuted by King Saul for many years. We read of this in the first book of Samuel. To avoid being captured, David was constantly on the run and forced to leave theturbulent” villages and towns and to take refuge in the open fields and in the caves. “Half asleep near the stars” indicates that he could not find any enduring rest; he was always on the alert and in danger of being captured.A small dog licking your face” brings in a new element  and at first glance this dog has nothing to do with King David but the image of this dog is presumably used to reintroduce  ambiguity and uncanniness into the song. Again we are taken to the Tarot cards. On some of these Fool Tarot’s cards we see a small dog licking the elbow of the Fool. This Fool looks like a beggar or a vagabond, like David once may have looked when he was on the run for Saul “far from the turbulent space”, to the times when David took refuge to the land of the Philistines and acted like a lunatic in front of the Philistine king Achish. Even in great men like King David, an act of bravery may soon be followed by an act of utter cowardice. The alternative studio outtake of ‘Jokerman’ – which unfortunately has not been released up till nowhas the following lyrics: ‘So drunk, standing in the middle of the street, directing traffic with a small dog at your feet’. Again we see these ambiguous elements. When it says ‘directing traffic’ we see the positive characteristics of leadership, but this positive image is immediately neutralized by negative and contradictory and even preposterous elements when it says: ‘So drunk, standing in the middle of the street’. When you are drunk, the last thing you should do is directing traffic.
“Well, the rifleman's stalking the sick and the lame, preacher man seeks the same, who'll get there first is uncertain. Nightsticks and water cannons, tear gas, padlocks, Molotov cocktails and rocks behind every curtain. False-hearted judges dying in the webs that they spin, only a matter of time 'til the night comes stepping in”. The first part of this verse can only be grasped if we read it against the background of what it says in the Gospel of John, Chapter 5:1-10. In Jerusalem there was a pool. Around this pool lay a multitude of sick, blind, and lame waiting for the moving of the waters. Sometimes an angel of the Lord went down into the pool and stirred up the water of the pool. Whoever then first got into the water, after the stirring up of the water, was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted. (Verse 4).That is why it says: "who'll get there first is uncertain". Now there was a lame man at the pool who had been disabled for 38 years. Jesus came up to him and asked him if he wanted to be cured. The man answered that whenever the water was stirred up; there was no one around to help him to reach the water of the pool first. Then Jesus cured him and ordered him to pick up his pallet and walk (verse 8). The Jews however, (verse 11) stalked and rebuked the cured lame man because he had been cured by Jesus on the Sabbath and on the Sabbath it was not permitted to carry a load (his pallet). Actually the Jews were persecuting Jesus for what Jesus had done on Sabbath (verse 16). Now the ‘rifleman’ may be a metaphor for the Jews and the Pharisees who were ‘stalking the sick and the lame’ to find pretexts to persecute and kill Jesus. The ‘preacher man’ may be a metaphor for Jesus. A preacher man is a person who brings the good news of the gospel and that is exactly what Jesus did. But there is a major difference between the ‘rifleman’ and the ‘preacher man’. The ‘rifleman’ has evil intentions because he isstalking the sick and the lamein order to persecute and kill Jesus, whereas the ‘preacher man’ has nothing but good intentions. Jesus ‘seeks’ the sick and the lame in order to cure and heal them, even if this takes place on a Sabbath.‘Who'll get there first is uncertain’ may be an allusion to the healing pool in Jerusalem. The first sick, lame or crippled man who is able to step into the pool is healed and no sick or crippled man is sure that he will ever reach this water. However, whoever meets Jesus will certainly be healed, either physically or spiritually. Between the lines Dylan makes us feel the ambiguity in this world. The Jews and the Pharisees, pretending to defend a good course, the Sabbath rest, play a deadly cat and mouse game with Jesus with the purpose of preventing Jesus to ‘seek the sick and the lame’ so that their own authority is maintained, even if their attitude is at the expense of the sick and the lame. During the lifetime of Jesus we see the intensity of the ‘stalking of the sick and the lame’ increase. Because Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead, the Sanhedrin not only planned to have Jesus killed (John 11:53) but they also tried to murder Lazarus himself (John 12:10).
From a biblical image the focus suddenly shifts to a modern 20th century picture as Dylan goes on to say: “Nightsticks and water cannons, tear gas, padlocks, Molotov cocktails and rocks behind every curtain”. All these words are related to oppression and show that nothing will ever change in this world. This world is a violent world full of oppression and this is of all times and will never stop. The dictionary says that a “nightstick” is a short stout club  used primarily by policemen, “tear gas” is a gas that is used to combat riots and disperse crowds, a ”padlock”  is a detachablelock and  has a hingedshackle that can be passed through the staple of a hasp or the links in a chain and then snappedshut, and aMolotov cocktailis a crude incendiary bomb made of a bottle filled with flammable liquid and fitted with a ragwick. When it says that these things are “behind every curtain” this means that this weaponry is concealed to the eye. This is a typical trait of the Jokerman, to be intentionally ambiguous about his real intentions. An ostensibly peaceful status quo may, with a flick of the wrist, turn into war. For the same album ‘Infidels’ Dylan wrote the song ‘Neighborhood Bully’ which deals with the harassment of the Arab countries against Israel. Dylan writes in this song: “Well he’s surrounded by pacifists who all want peace, they pray for it nightly that the bloodshed must cease. Now they wouldn’t hurt a fly. To hurt one they would weep. They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep”. It is therefore not at all unlikely that at the time when Dylan wrote this song, he may have had in mind the precarious situation Israel had been in for quite some decades.
The studio outtake of “Jokerman” has:“well, the preacher man’s talking’ about the deaf an' the dumb and a world to come that's already been pre-determined. Nightsticks an' water cannons, teargas, padlocks Molotov cocktails an' rocks can't drown out his sermon. You let the wicked walk right into the trap. You're giving' away all good things that fall in your lap”. These alternative lyrics confirm that the message of the preacher man – Jesus – cannot be wiped out. Dylan seems to refer to the Sermon of the Mount here (Matthew 5-7). “A world to comeis the pre-determined Kingdom of God (Mat 6:33). Blessed are not only the “deaf and the dumb” (Mark 7:37) but blessed are also the poor in spirit, those who mourn, those who are meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, those who are merciful, those who are pure in heart, those who are peacemakers and those who are persecuted for righteous’ sake (Mat 5:3-10). The Jews and Pharisees at the time tried to “drown outthe message of Jesus. However, also in our days modern combat means like “Nightsticks an' water cannons, teargas, padlocks Molotov cocktails an' rocks” cannot drown out the Sermon of the Mount. Dylan would later on warn us in ‘Shooting Star’ that one of these days it may be ‘the last time you might hear the Sermon of the Mount’ before the Latter Day finally arrives. “You let the wicked walk right into the trap” may refer to Matthew 22:15 where we read: “Then the Pharisees met together to plot how to trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested” (NLT). The outcome was that the Pharisees walked right into their own trap and from then on no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any questions. (Mat 22:46).However, Jesus goes on doing the right thing: “Giving' away all good things that fall in your lap”. The good things fell into His lap – the gifts he received from the Father – and He gave the good things away  to the sick and the poor, the deaf and the dumb, in fact the whole world could have fallen into his lap, if only Jesus had given in to the temptations of the devil(Matt 4: 8-10). 
When the ‘official’ lyrics conclude: “False-hearted judges dying in the webs that they spin”, this expresses basically the same idea as “You let the wicked walk right into the trap”. As so often in this song, things are not what they seem and take an unexpected turn. Jesus was convicted to death by the “false-hearted judges” of the Jewish Sanhedrin, but in the end they were not able to withhold Jesus and the good news of the Gospel spread all over the world.  “Only a matter of time 'til the night comes stepping in” takes us to Judgment Day when these false-hearted judges will be condemned and forever sent into the eternal night. Dylan’s song ‘Foot of Pride’ was also recorded for the album ‘Infidels’ and was written about the same time as ‘Jokerman’. This song says about false-hearted judges: "Well, there ain’t no going back when your foot of pride comes down” and also:“Sooner or later you gonna meet them coming down”. As the Book of Judas (verse 13) says these false-hearted judges are “Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever”. Biblical and at the same time very much Dylanesque language.

It's a shadowy world, skies are slippery gray, a woman just gave birth to a prince today and dressed him in scarlet. He'll put the priest in his pocket, put the blade to the heat, take the motherless children off the street and place them at the feet of a harlot.  Oh, Jokerman, you know what he wants, Oh, Jokerman, you don't show any response”. Also this final verse breathes an atmosphere of ambiguity and at the same time makes an ultimate but fruitless appeal to the Jokerman to respond and to show his real intentions and to put his cards on the table. Who is who,who this prince really is,can only be determined by the way this prince is dressed and by what this prince is doing. Things are again contrary to what they seem at first glance. “It's a shadowy world” indicates that the picture which is drawn here lacks clarity and distinctness and at the same time this “shadowy world” is a sign that the real event, which the shadow foreshadows, will be coming up soon. The prince is borne under a sky which is denoted as “slippery grey”. The clouds and the color of sky often foretell what is coming, what the weather will be like (Luke 12:54, 55). This sky however, is “slippery” grey. “Slippery” may have the connotation here of the word “wanton” or “unchaste” or” loose in morals” (Shak). This slippery sky is “grey”. Grey is said to be any color of neutral hue between white and black. The word slippery seems to foretell that something “wanton” or “unchaste” is about to happen but at the same time the word “grey” somehow neutralizes the picture of what is coming up.
A woman just gave birth to a prince today and dressed him in scarletis an important line in this verse. “A woman just gave birth to a prince todayfirst seems to take us back to the days when Jesus was born, to what it says in Luke 2:7: “And she (the Virgin Mary) brought forth her firstborn son”. In many a place in the Bible this “Son” Jesus is called a “Prince”. Centuries before Jesus was born, the prophet Isaiah already prophesied the coming of this “Son” and called Him a “Prince”. Isaiah 9:6: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor,The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace”. Deception and confusion comes in when the poet goes on to say that the woman dressed this prince “in scarlet”.This seems confusing because Luke 2:7 says: “And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn”. From a different viewpoint also Revelation 12 speaks of a woman who is about to give birth to a male-child (Christ) of whom we are told that he will rule the nations with an iron rod (verse 5).
However, to dress the Son of God in scarlet would in itself be very appropriate because usually only the noble and very rich were dressed in scarlet. Scarlet is a vivid red color, sometimes with an orange tinge, and just like purple was typical of the exuberant lifestyle and clothing of the rich and the wealthy (see also Proverbs 31:21). However, the Son of God, when he came to this earth, chose to be dressed in swaddling clothes, the clothing which was typical of the poor. Therefore, the point the poet wants to make is to contrast between the humble and poor appearance on earth of the Son of God – wrapped in swaddling clothes but with the purpose of making us rich – and the exuberant and wealthy appearance of his opponent, the anti-Christ – who “dressed in scarlet” leaves us bereft of our children at the feet of a harlot.   
To further understand in what direction the poet may have been thinking when he wrote “A woman just gave birth to a prince today and dressed him in scarletwe have to realize that in the Bible, the title “Prince” is not only given to Christ but also given to God’s and Christ’s opponent the devil, the beast; for instance John 12:31 says: “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out”.  When it says that this prince is not dressed in swaddling clothes but “in scarlet” it is at this point where deception and ambiguity bursts upon the scene and where we are led to think in a completely different direction. The word ‘scarlet’ combined with the wordharlot’ – a word which will follow later on in the verse – makes us no longer think about the “princeof peace Jesus but about his opponent, the “princeof this world, the realm of the devil, the realm of darkness, the evil, spiritual empire of Babylon described in the Book of Revelation Chapter 17 and 18. However, the lyrics of the studio outtake of “Jokerman” haveShe's dressed in scarlet”, in that case the woman who gave birth to the prince is dressed in scarlet and not the prince. Either way, the combination “scarletandharlot” resonates in the Book of Revelation Chapter 17:3-5: ‘So the angel took me in the Spirit into the wilderness. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that had seven heads and ten horns, and blasphemies against God were written all over it. The woman wore purple and scarlet clothing and beautiful jewelry made of gold and precious gems and pearls. In her hand she held a gold goblet full of obscenities and the impurities of her immorality. A mysterious name was written on her forehead: “Babylon the Great, Mother of All Prostitutes and Obscenities in the World.” I could see that she was drunk—drunk with the blood of God’s holy people who were witnesses for Jesus. I stared at her in complete amazement’.
The same word combination “scarlet“ and “harlot” comes back in Dylan’s song “Soon after Midnight” from the album “Tempest” where Dylan writes: Charlotte is a harlot, she dresses in scarlet”.
We conclude that the “Prince” here represents the beast, the devil, the spiritually evil empire of Babylon and that this prince of darkness is out there to oppose the coming of the Kingdom of God. As outlined in the Book of Revelation, the devil does this in a variety of ways. The first weapon the devil, the beast, the dragon, deploys is temptation and deception through false prophecy. This weapon looks peaceful but does more harm than brutal force because it is ideological warfare. Therefore, when it says: “He'll put the priest in his pocketthis expression may be a metaphorical expression for the  attempts of the devil – the prince of darkness - to wipe out the influence of his opponentthe prince of peace” through false prophecy, through false priests and prophets. We read of this in Revelation 16:13, 14: “And I saw three evil spirits that looked like frogs leap from the mouths of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet. They are demonic spirits who work miracles and go out to all the rulers of the world to gather them for battle against the Lord on that great judgment day of God the Almighty (NLT)”. “He'll put the priest in his pocket” means that devil is in full command of those false priests and prophets, he has them in his pocket, to deceive not only individual believers but also to deceive whole nations and stir them up into ideological and spiritual warfare against the kingdom of the prince of peace.
The second weapon this prince of evil deploys is brutal force; this is expressed by the words: ”He’ll put the blade to the heat”. A hot blade is said to be an edged weapon that heats up, adding the thermal energy of its temperature to the kinetic energy of its blow to achieve extreme cutting power. Think of a flaming sword, in our imagination we see – as Dylan would write later on in his song ‘Shooting Star’- ‘the last fire truck from hell rolling by’ –the devil heating up his sword by taking fire from the last fire truck to destroy as much and as many as he possibly can, in a sort of scorched earth policy (Rev. 13:13). In Revelation 11:7 we read that the beast managed to kill the last two witnesses, these were the last two prophets or priests left, fully realizing Dylan’s metaphorical words: “He'll put the priest in his pocket and put the blade to the heat”.
For young children, to lose their father is a tragedy, but it is even a greater tragedy for young children to lose their mother and be left wandering in the streets “motherless”. That is exactly what this prince of evil, dressed in scarlet, has been doing for so long. He has been stirring up all those nations to make war, culminating in the final battle of Armageddon (Rev. 15:16).Throughout the centuries these wars have caused a continuous stream of blood shedding, devastation, destruction, destitution and poverty. These wars literally leave many children out on the streets of big Babylon, orphans, fatherless and “motherless”.  But what does this prince of evil do? Help thosemotherless” and helpless children? On the contrary:He takes the motherless children off the street and places them at the feet of a harlot”.  He abuses those motherless children for his own purpose in a morbid cycle of sexual abuse, whereby victims become perpetrators and end up in prostitution at the feet of harlots. 
In a metaphorical way those “motherless” children represent people without any direction, stability or proper guidance in their lives. These people make no choices in their lives just like Dylan wrote in “Man in the long black coat’: ‘But people don't live or die, people just float”. In an ideological way they become easy victims to the beast who places them at the feet of “a harlot”, so that they become servants of this harlot. The wordharlot” is metaphorically used in Revelation 17 to represent the antagonistic spiritual empire of Babylon. The word ‘’Babylon” is in itself a metaphor for all the big evil powers in this world who try to oppose the coming of the kingdom of God (Rev. 17:5).
The studio outtake of Jokerman has: “He'll turn priests into pimps and make all men bark,take a woman that could have been Joan of Arc and turn her into a harlot”. This verse line basically expresses the same idea. A pimp is someone who procures customers for whores or arranges sexual partners for others. When it says:He'll turn priests into pimpsthis may not be meant literally but is a metaphor for the continuous efforts of the devil, through false prophets, to deceive entire nations through erroneous doctrines, theologies and ideologies into becoming advocates and servants of ideologically evil empires and having those nations commit idolatry in a spiritual way. “Take a woman that could have been Joan of Arc and turn her into a harlot” refers to the kind of woman who resembles Joan of Arc. Joan of Arc –ca. 1412-1431 – was nicknamed “The maid of Orléans" and is regarded as a French folk heroine and a Roman Catholic Saint. At the time she saw it as her mission to support Charles VII in his attempts to recover France from English domination. She was eventually captured by the British and put on trial. She was convicted to death on charges of heresy and was burned at the stake when she was about 19 years old. The poet may have intended to say that the deceptive power of the prince of evil is so great that he successfully turns people who were meant to be saints into the opposite, into becoming harlots.

Having said all this, it is now finally time to confront the Jokerman with the dreadful consequences of all this. Therefore the words: “Oh, Jokerman, you know what he wants, Oh, Jokerman, you don't show any responsemay have been intended to draw some sort of a conclusion. The Jokerman is now put on the carpet. It seems as if he now says to the Jokerman: ‘oh come on Jokerman, stop mocking and joking, you know exactly what this prince of evil, the devil, the beast is up to! You know exactly “what he wants”.  All this prince wants is evil; in fact this prince is the incorporation of all evil. His purpose is total destruction of this world through a scorched earth policy. As the end of times approaches, he does his utmost – he puts the blade to the heat - to inflict as much pain and destruction and agony as he possibly can. Like it says in Rev. 12:12:’. So Jokerman, althoughYou don’t show any response”, you must respond now, you cannot have your cards in your sleeve any longer, you must put them on the table. You cannot play the joker card any longer to hide your real intentions. When you see all those innocent motherless children being abused you Jokerman must stop ‘laughing in the face of what sorrow brings’. You Jokerman, you’ve said all along that ‘there must be somewhere out of this’ but this time you will not get away with this. Although “you don’t show any response” I must ask you again ‘’which side are you onwas once on the same cross roads and concluded the following:‘ Eden is burning, either brace yourself for elimination, or else your hearts must have the courage for the changing of the guards’.

Please comment on this article by scrolling down and pushing the button 'reacties'


How secure is Dr. Charles F. Stanley's eternal security?


Some time ago I stumbled upon a Christian TV Channel here in the Netherlands called “Family7”. I witnessed a broadcast from the First Baptist Church in Atlanta, ministered by Dr. Charles F. Stanley (born in 1932, on the right you can see a picture of him). I was very impressed by what I heard and saw. Dr. Stanley is the founder of In Touch Ministries . What struck me particularly was not only the reverence for the Word of God which I felt was abundantly present in this church but also the great wisdom of Dr. Stanley. I curiously went to the website of In Touch Ministries and started to watch and hear many more sermons from Dr. Stanley. Listening to all these sermons you can almost sense the lifelong experience Dr. Stanley has in dealing with all the major biblical issues a believer has to deal with in his or her lifetime. I also noticed that Dr. Stanley puts heavy emphasis on so-called ‘Eternal Security’. One of the many books Dr. Stanley has written deals with this subject and this best seller is called: ‘Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure?’ 
As I understand it, in my own words, eternal security means that our security of salvation is in what God has done for us when he sent His Son to the cross at Cavalry to pay for all of our sins. Elsewhere Dr. Stanley quite rightly writes: “The very gospel itself comes under attack when the eternal security of the believer is questioned. Placing the responsibility for maintaining salvation on the believer is adding works to grace. Salvation would no longer be a gift. It would become a trade—our faithfulness for His faithfulness. This is a far cry from the good news Jesus preached”.  I could not agree more with Dr. Stanley.
However, Dr. Stanley also states: “Eternal life is received by grace through faith. It is a once-and-for-all transaction that can never be undone. Because of the nature of God’s grace, once you become a Christian, you are always a Christian”. Here I sense the beginning of a problem. To state this more accurately from a Biblical point of view, I would rather say that once you become a true Christian, you are always a Christian or once you are truly saved, you will always be saved (e.g. I John 2:19). Eternal security has therefore all to do with the doctrine of the so-called ‘Perseverance of the Saints’.Perseverance of the saints advocates the Calvinistic doctrine that if God has elected to save you, you are going to be saved forever and nothing can snatch you out of His hand (e.g. John 10:27-30). Because I  never hear Dr. Stanley say that once you become a true Christian, you are always a Christian, I had some doubts and wanted to know exactly where Dr. Stanley stands on this issue, so I sent him an email. I received a reply from his staff and his staff confirmed to me that indeed Dr. Stanley believes that this doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is supported by the Bible. That was quite a relief.Perseverance of the saints represents the P in the acronym TULIP, which is commonly used to enumerate what is known as the five points of Calvinism.
However, Dr. Stanley’s staff did more than I asked for and returned a document to me which states Dr. Stanley’s stance on all five points of Calvinism summarized in the acronym TULIP. What appeared? Dr. Stanley only believes that the T which stands for Total Depravity of man and the P which stands for Perseverance of the Saints are scripturally supported. Dr. Stanley believes that the other three points - the U which stands for Unconditional Election, the L which represents Limited Atonement and the I which represents Irresistible Grace – are not scripturally supported. I was really surprised to learn this from Dr. Stanley. Why?
The reason for my surprise is – as history has clearly shown us - that these 5 points are closely connected to each other and you either accept them all as scripturally supported or you reject them all as not scripturally supported. Those who reject TULIP entirely, mostly take their starting point in the T of Total depravity. They deny the Total depravity of man because they believe that although man may have fallen into sin and is in need of divine grace, there is something good left in him which leaves him at least some power to do well and – through good works – contribute to his own salvation. This stance has a lot of consequences for the interpretation of the rest of the contents of TULIP and most of the time the rejection of the Total Depravity gives reasons enough to reject the rest of TULIP acronym. This chain of reasoning to reject all five points of TULIP runs as follows:
If man has (part) his own salvation within the reach of his own capacity, he may chose for himself what way to follow and does not need any divine election as basis for his salvation, therefore he will denounce the U of Unconditional election.
Consequently he will also reject the L of Limited Atonement because man himself has the capacity to decide whether he will belong to the total number of those who will be atoned.
The result of this is that he will also denounce the I of Irresistible Grace because he is free to either accept or resist the offer of God’s grace and companionship and finally he will also reject the P of Perseverance of the Saints because man feels he has free choice to either persevere in his faith or to give it up entirely.
Dr. Stanley however rejects three of the five points of TULIP and in my opinion that does not seem to make any sense.Why not?
Because Dr. Stanley over and over, has emphasized that people are saved only by an act of divine grace which does not depend at all on any deeds of the individual believer and there is nothing  a person can do to influence his or her salvation. Dr. Stanley even takes this to the point that once a person is saved there is nothing the believer can do to undo his or her salvation, even if this seems to happen at the expense of the sanctification of the believer. I’m sure that Dr. Stanley’s thesis of eternal security would make much more biblical sense, would be much more coherent and convincing, if he would accept all the five elements of the TULIP acronym. The fact is that all these five elements support eternal security and now, by rejecting 3 of the elements of TULIP, Dr. Stanley tremendously weakens the case of eternal security. Let me try to explain how all 5 elements of the TULIP acronym are indispensable to make eternal security Rock solid:
Because of my sins and trespasses (Ephesians 2:1) I am completely lost and helpless and unable to save myself. By nature I am so fully Depraved that I am even hostile to God (Romans 8:7), therefore for my salvation I am a 100% dependent on God’s mercy in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:5). So the first thing I need to embrace to get eternal security is the doctrine of Total Depravity.
But if there is one thing which gives me eternal security, then it surely must be Unconditional Election.  By nature I was a sinner and a trespasser and hostile towards God. There was nothing in me, not any works, not even my faith, no reason at all why God should love me, on the contrary, and yet He has chosen me to be His child forever. He really has chosen me unconditionally. God had chosen me before I was even born (Psalm 139:16), He had chosen me even before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). He has chosen me from all eternity and into all eternity. There is nobody and nothing in this world which can undo His election as is stated Romans 8:33: ‘Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect?’.To make my election even more secure, God has sealed me with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1: 13) which is the guarantee of our childhood and our participation in His inheritance (Ephesians 1:14).So Unconditional Election is fully biblically supported and one of the corner stones of eternal security.
But because it is also biblical, I also need to embrace the thesis of Limited Atonement to get eternal security. Although the blood of Jesus Christ is more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, not all will be saved. Saving grace through the blood of Christ is available for the whole world but not all will be salvaged. The effectiveness of Christ’s death works itself out in the elect only and that is saving grace. Through saving grace I am elected to be a sheep in the flock of the good Shepherd Jesus Christ. He laid down his life for the sheep (John 10:11). As a sheep in His flock, He gives me eternal life, and I will never perish, and no one will snatch me out of His hand. (John 10:28). The total number of sheep however, is Limited to those given to the good Shepherd Jesus Christ (John 17:9). Being a sheep in His flock makes me grateful and gives me eternal security.
The love and Grace of God, the Father, is Irresistible for and to me. By nature I am hostile to God (Romans 8:7) but His sovereign grace simply overwhelms me and conquers my natural resistance, resistance and hostility which is a bad fruit of my total depravity. I am not saved because my conscience is tenderer than that of other men or that I was more willing to accept His offer of salvation than other men – such a thought would again mean: works! -, on the contrary, there is no reason in myself which would give God any reason to save me. God is my loving Father and loves me for His own sovereign reasons and that is why His grace is so Irresistible and never depends on what I do or not do, like it says in John 6:44–45: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.... Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." Therefore also the doctrine of Irresistible Grace is biblical and gives me great comfort and makes my soul rest in Him and brings me eternal security.
The Bible teaches me that there is also Perseverance of the Saints .Indeed: ’Once saved is always saved’.I am His child forever and God will never give up on me, no matter what happens to me in life .I may fall into sin and even, for some period in my life, lead a rebellious life, I may for some time have the feeling that I have lost my faith, for some time it may be dark in my life but my loving Father will never forsake me. Because I am His child, through the Holy Spirit, He will, in due course, surely make me repent and restore the joy and comfort of faith in me as it says in 2 Timothy 2:13: ‘if we are faithless, he remains faithful — for he cannot deny himself’, and also what it says in I John 3:9: ‘No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God’. Therefore, the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints is fully biblical and gives me great comfort, consolation and eternal security.  
So I repeat the question: why does Dr. Stanley not accept all the five elements of TULIP when all these elements support eternal security? Please feel free to respond to this article. Please push the button ‘reacties’ and write a comment on this article.

Vier kritische vragen van mijn buurman over de fundamenten van het christelijk geloof.


Met mijn zeer gewaardeerde - niet christelijke - buurman ben ik in discussie over de fundamenten van het christelijk geloof. Mijn buurman is zeer analytisch ingesteld en laat zich niet met een kluitje in het riet sturen. Terecht. Ook als het gaat om het christelijk geloof, wil hij een duidelijk en logisch verhaal horen. Nu heeft buurman inmiddels gereageerd op mijn weblogartikel: 'Het unieke van het christelijk geloof'. In dat artikel had ik o.a. gesteld dat het grote geschenk van het christelijke geloof gratis, voor niets aan de gelovigen geschonken wordt en dat de gelovige die dit geschenk van God aanneemt, hiervoor geen tegenprestatie moet, mag, of kan leveren. Ten opzichte van alle andere religies of wereldgodsdiensten is het christelijk geloof op dit punt bepaald uniek. Nu heeft mijn buurman als reactie de volgende vragen aan mij voorgelegd die hier op neerkomen:
1. “Jij stelt dat ik als mens geen tegenprestatie kan en mag leveren en dus aan mijn behoud niets kan bijdragen maar jij stelt ook dat ik dat geschenk dan wel moet aannemen anders word ik, als ik dat geschenk weiger aan te nemen, daarvoor verantwoordelijk gesteld en gestraft. Is een geschenk wel een geschenk als je het verplicht moet aannemen?”.
2. “Als ik dit geschenk van God nu wel aanneem dan is dat aannemen van dat geschenk toch een verdienste en prestatie van mijzelf waardoor ik mijzelf toch onderscheid van alle andere mensen die dit geschenk niet willen aannemen? Is God op die manier voor de realisatie van zijn plannen uiteindelijk niet afhankelijk van mijn beslissing om dit geschenk al dan niet aan te nemen?”.
3. “ Jouw predikant Ds Bas Luiten heeft gereageerd op jouw artikel en heeft gesteld dat jouw stelling dat we niets hoeven te doen eenzijdig en ongeloofwaardig is. Hoe zit dat”?
4. “Waarom word ik verantwoordelijk gehouden voor de weigering om dit geschenk aan te nemen als de inhoud van geschenk mij niets zegt? Jij hebt veel met Jezus, dat is fijn voor jou, maar mij zegt het allemaal niets, voor mij is Jezus hooguit een historisch figuur waar christenen kennelijk wat mee hebben”. Puntsgewijs ga ik nader op deze vragen in.

1.   God heeft de mens goed en als een verantwoordelijk wezen geschapen. De mens heeft zich moedwillig en welbewust tegen God gekeerd en is daarmee in zonde gevallen. Toen de eerste mens in zonde viel en misbruik maakte van zijn verantwoordelijkheid, heeft hij daarmee de hele mensheid in het verderf gestort (Romeinen 5:12) en is er tussen God en mens – vanuit de mens gezien – een onoverbrugbare kloof ontstaan. Echter, ook na de zondeval is de verantwoordelijkheid  van de mens- en dus ook van de mensheid - blijven bestaan. De gevallen mens Adam wordt ter verantwoording geroepen: ‘Adam waar ben je?’ (Genesis 3:9). Gods ‘toorn’ – die niets anders is dan Zijn gekrenkte liefde – rust sindsdien op de mensheid (Romeinen 1:18.). God echter, heeft Zijn schepping niet opgegeven, maar heeft Zelf een unieke weg van verlossing gecreëerd door Zijn Zoon Jezus Christus te schenken als verzoenmiddel en als plaatsvervanger voor de gevallen mensheid. (2 Corinthiërs 5:19-21). Christenen lezen dit in de Bijbel. Maar ook al ben je geen christen en lees je nooit in de Bijbel, toch maakt God zich ook buiten de Bijbel aan jou kenbaar. Dat gebeurt als je met een onbevangen blik naar de schitterende pracht van de schepping kijkt. Want zegt Romeinen 1: 19: ‘want wat een mens over God kan weten is hun (de mensen) bekend omdat God het aan hen kenbaar heeft gemaakt. Zijn onzichtbare eigenschappen zijn vanaf de schepping van de wereld zichtbaar in Zijn werken, Zijn eeuwige kracht en goddelijkheid zijn voor het verstand waarneembar. Er is niets waardoor ze te verontschuldigen zijn’. Handelingen 17:27 zegt dat ‘Het was Gods bedoeling dat ze Hem zouden zoeken en Hem (God) al tastend zouden kunnen vinden, aangezien Hij van niemand van ons ver weg is’. God is in de schepping zo dichtbij dat de mens dus nooit onder zijn verantwoordelijkheid uitkomt. De kracht en de schoonheid en de glans van de schepping daagt de mens a.h.w. uit om op zoek te gaan naar deze machtige Schepper en nader met Hem kennis te maken.
 Je kunt Hem nader leren kennen in de Bijbel. In de Bijbel vind je Zijn ultieme liefdesaanbod in Jezus Christus.  Nu kan de mens dit geschenk aannemen of weigeren. De stelling van mijn buurman dat hij er voor verantwoordelijk wordt gesteld en gestraft als hij dat geschenk niet aanneemt is in feite een verkeerde voorstelling van zaken en daarom onjuist.
Vergelijk de toestand waarin de mensheid verkeert nu eens met een schipbreuk. Het schip is –door eigen schuld overigens - vergaan en we zwemmen met zijn allen in de woeste oceaan. Als er geen reddingsboot komt zijn we reddeloos verloren en verdrinken we allemaal. Maar gelukkig, er komt een reddingsboot langszij. Er wordt vanuit de reddingsboot een hand naar je uitgestoken die je omhoog wil trekken uit de woeste zee, een hand die je wil redden. Maar je weigert die hand vast te pakken en gered te worden. Het gevolg is dat je omkomt en verdrinkt. Dat is dan toch gewoon je eigen schuld! Je bent voor je eigen ondergang verantwoordelijk. God hoeft in feite al helemaal geen veroordeling meer over je uit te spreken want het oordeel van God bestaat hierin dat je in de toestand waarin je verkeert gelaten wordt (zie Johannes 3:36). Je was drenkeling en je koos ervoor om drenkeling blijven. God dwingt je niet om tegen je wil aan boord te komen en gered te worden. Het grote probleem van de mensheid is dat de mensheid zich geen drenkeling voelt en dus zegt, wat mijn buurman impliciet ook zegt: ‘Ik heb helemaal geen redding nodig, ik zie niet in dat ik verdrink, het gaat goed met me’.

2.  Als we dit beeld van die schipbreuk nu even vasthouden dan is de tweede vraag voor een deel al beantwoord. Wie zal, als hij al uren in het ijskoude water heeft gelegen en op het nippertje gered is door een reddingsboot, er na zijn redding prat op gaan dat hij het gepresteerd heeft om zijn hand uit te steken om gered te kunnen worden? Dat is toch absurd! Vooral als je bedenkt dat de werkelijke situatie zo is dat de mannen van de reddingsbrigade de woeste zee getrotseerd hebben en hun eigen leven op het spel hebben gezet om jou te redden, dan ben je toch alleen maar intens dankbaar dat die mannen dat voor jou over hebben gehad! Hoe vanzelfsprekend dit antwoord ook lijkt, toch zijn we nog niet klaar met deze vraag en willen we ons er niet gemakkelijk van afmaken. Vanuit de Bijbel gaan we er wat dieper op in. Dat maakt het er niet gemakkelijker op, maar toch moeten we ook het volgende zeggen: De Bijbel maakt het duidelijk dat we van naturen helemaal niet gered willen worden. Romeinen 5:10 zegt dat we met God verzoend zijn toen we nog ‘vijanden’ van Hem waren. (Zie ook Romeinen 8:7). Als je dan toch gered wordt dan is dat volgens de Bijbel enkel en alleen genade. Efeziërs 2: 8-9 zegt: ‘Door zijn genade bent U immers gered, dankzij uw geloof. Maar dat dankt u niet aan uzelf; het is een geschenk van God en geen gevolg van uw daden, dus niemand kan zich erop laten voorstaan’. Het woord ‘geloof’ in deze tekst zou je in zekere zin kunnen vergelijken met de ‘hand’ die je uitstrekt om als drenkeling gered te worden. Het geloof is het middel om gered te worden. Ook dat geloof, die hand die je uitstrekt, krijg je uit genade! Dit wordt bevestigd door o.a. Filippenzen 2: 12,13 waar staat: ‘Blijf u inspannen voor uw redding en doe dat in diep ontzag voor God, want het is God die zowel het willen als het handelen bij u teweeg brengt, omdat het Hem behaagt’. In deze laatste tekst blijven beide elementen overeind staan. Je bent en blijft verantwoordelijk, je hebt nog steeds een keuze (blijf je dus inspannen!) maar je kunt dit op een -ontspannen- manier blijven doen omdat het God Zelf is die het hele veranderings en vernieuwingsproces – ook de kracht om de reddingsboei te kunnen aannemen - in jouzelf tot stand brengt.
Nu heeft mijn buurman mij gewezen op een inconsequentie, een soort van paradox, in het christelijk denken op dit punt, iets wat volgens hem niet logisch is. Het is volgens mijn buurman óf óf. Dat betekent dat het óf 100% genade van God is, maar dan ben ik als mens niet verantwoordelijk voor het vanuit mijzelf niet kunnen aannemen van de redding en kan ik er dus niets aan doen dat ik wordt veroordeeld, óf God is afhankelijk van mijn welwillendheid om Zijn aanbod te accepteren, maar dan is God geen God meer omdat Hij dan afhankelijk is van mijn beslissing. God heeft de mens dan nodig om Zijn eigen plannen te kunnen realiseren. Nu kan je gerust stellen dat God de mens ook nodig heeft. Maar niet omdat Hij dat zou moeten, maar enkel en alleen omdat Hij dat wil. Hij wil Zijn geweldig grote liefde aan de mens schenken, daar heeft Hij Zich geheel vrijwillig toe verplicht.
Die hele ‘óf óf’ redenering klopt m.i. dan ook niet. De christelijke –en m.i. ook Bijbelse- leer spreekt echter over én én. De Bijbel spreekt over twee dingen die in het bekeringsproces van de mens tegelijkertijd waar zijn. Enerzijds is de mens voor zijn redding, voor zijn bekering en wedergeboorte, voor de volle honderd procent van Gods genade afhankelijk, én  anderzijds blijft de mens tegelijkertijd  in dat hele proces volledig verantwoordelijk voor het maken van zijn eigen keuzes. Dat die twee zaken – keerzijden van dezelfde medaille - tegelijkertijd waar zijn en een onlosmakelijk onderdeel vormen van een zelfde proces, kunnen wij als mensen, met ons beperkt verstand, niet begrijpen en doorzien. Dit hele proces is dan ook zoals onze belijdenis zegt een ‘volstrekt bovennatuurlijke, zeer krachtige en tegelijk zeer liefdevolle, wonderbare, verborgen en onuitsprekelijke werking[1]’.
Ik weet dat mijn buurman vanuit zijn analytische denkwijze deze verklaring als een zwaktebod zal ervaren en hij heeft mij al verweten dat als christenen iets niet begrijpen ze naar God verwijzen. Daar staat tegenover dat het christelijk geloof nu eenmaal geen logisch systeem is, het is en blijft een geloof, een geloof dat vraagt om vertrouwen en om overgave. Wij kleine mensen, schepselen, missen de dimensie die de grote God, de Schepper, wel heeft om, dit ‘én én’ geheel te kunnen doorzien. Job 36:26 zegt niet voor niets: ’God is groot en wij begrijpen Hem niet’.  

3.       Ik had in mijn vorige weblogartikel 'Het unieke van het christelijk geloof' geschreven dat het unieke van het christelijk geloof o.a. hierin bestaat dat je als mens er niets voor hoeft te doen. Nu is Ds. Bas Luiten zo welwillend geweest om op mijn weblogartikel te reageren. Ds. Luiten schrijft: ‘Je benadrukt zo dat een mens NIETS hoeft te doen, dat het m.i. eenzijdig wordt. Daar word je dan weer ongeloofwaardig van, want iedereen zal zeggen dat hij wel iets moet doen, en dat is ook zo. Wedergeboorte en bekering gaan hand in hand. Misschien helpt het je als je benadrukt dat het om nieuw LEVEN gaat. Leven kun je alleen krijgen, welke zorg je er ook aan moet besteden. Op die manier kun je krijgen en zorgen laten samen gaan, wedergeboorte en bekering, genade en inspanning, enz’. Mijn buurman signaleert hier een meningsverschil met Ds. Luiten. Dat is echter niet het geval, integendeel, ik ben het van harte eens met wat Ds. Luiten schrijft. Ik heb in mijn artikel slechts willen benadrukken dat je niets moet, hoeft, kunt, of mag doen als tegenprestatie voor het geschenk van het leven dat God je geeft. Je kunt met God geen handeltje drijven, dat is een puur heidense gedachte, die diep in de menselijke genen zit. Ds. Luiten heeft gelijk wanneer hij dit nuanceert en stelt dat het hier om NIEUW leven gaat, dat je van God krijgt en waaraan je ook zorg moet besteden. Wanneer God met NIEUW leven in het hart van de mens binnenkomt, dan gaat er in dat leven van die mens heel wat gebeuren en veranderen. Zie hiervoor het artikel over Billy Graham dat rechts boven staat afgedrukt. Maar die verandering ligt dat niet meer in de sfeer van het moeten maar van het willen veranderen. Daar zorgt God Zelf voor (Efeziërs 2:10). Maar hoewel God dit Zelf doet, schakelt Hij de mens in dat proces wel degelijk in en blijft de mens ook hier zijn verantwoordelijkheid houden. Onze belijdenis zegt hierover: ‘En wanneer de wil vernieuwd is, wordt hij niet alleen door God geleid en bewogen; maar door God in beweging gebracht, werkt hij ook zelf. Daarom wordt terecht gezegd dat de mens zelf gelooft en zich bekeert door de genade, die hij ontvangen heeft[2] .

4.  Tenslotte nog iets over de laatste vraag van mijn buurman: “Waarom word ik verantwoordelijk gehouden voor de weigering om dit geschenk aan te nemen als de inhoud van geschenk mij niets zegt?”. Mijn buurman vraagt ook: “ waarom is dat geloof allemaal zo ongrijpbaar? Ik bedoel, als dat geschenk van God dan zo geweldig groot is, en Hij mij wil redden, waarom gebruikt God – die volgens jullie christenen immers Almachtig is - dan geen andere en betere middelen om de grootte van dit geschenk zodanig onder mijn aandacht te brengen dat ik er niet onderuit kan?”.
Mijn antwoord is dat God zich op een andere manier bekend kan maken, als Hij dat ook zou willen. Als Hij dat zou willen kan Hij zo maar een blinkende engel in stralend licht voor de neus van mijn buurman zetten die aan mijn buurman duidelijk maakt dat het evangelie de waarheid is. Ik verzeker je dat mijn buurman door deze verschijning zo overdonderd zal zijn dat hij geen kant meer op zal kunnen, en geen andere mogelijkheid meer zal hebben dan de waarheid van het evangelie te erkennen. Maar zou het ook helpen? In de Bijbel lezen we iets wat hier op lijkt. De rijke man van Lucas 16[3] is in de hel terecht gekomen. Hij wordt daar gekweld en nu wil hij dat iemand -in dit geval Lazarus – uit de hemel afdaalt naar de aarde om te verschijnen aan zijn vijf broers die nog op aarde zijn om die broers te waarschuwen. De rijke man zegt: “want ik heb nog vijf broers. Hij kan hen dan waarschuwen, zodat ze niet net als ik in dit oord van martelingen terechtkomen[4]”. Het antwoord aan de rijke man is dat dit niet gaat helpen want als de broers niet naar het evangelie willen luisteren, dan zullen ze zich ook niet laten overtuigen als er iemand uit de dood opstaat[5]. God is bij machte om Zijn glans, macht en majesteit onmiddellijk aan ieder mens op deze aarde met het oog zichtbaar te maken. Hij kan, als Hij dat zou willen, hier op aarde een PR campagne ten uitvoer brengen die zijn weerga in de geschiedenis niet kent. Hij kan, als Hij dat zou willen, voor ieder oog zichtbaar aan de hemel verschijnen zodat iedereen gedwongen zal zijn Hem te erkennen. Maar Hij doet dat niet. Althans nog niet. Als Jezus terugkomt, zal Hij dat wel doen. Openbaring 1:7 zegt dan ook: “Hij komt te midden van de wolken en dan zal iedereen Hem zien, ook degenen die Hem hebben doorstoken”. Maar nu houdt Hij zich in zekere zin nog verborgen. Waarom doet Hij dat? Het kan wel eens zo zijn dat God dat doet om dat Hij met zo veel mogelijk mensen een relatie van liefde en trouw wil aangaan. En het eerste wat in die relatie niet past is dwang. Als Hij in Zijn hemelse glans en heerlijkheid, voor het oog van iedereen zichtbaar zou verschijnen dan zou Hij in feite de mens dwingen Hem te accepteren, zonder dat die mens echt van Hem houdt. Het zou van de mens slaafse liefde zijn, zonder een toegewijd hart.Maar echte liefde kan in een relatie niet ontstaan en bestaan als die moet worden afgedwongen. Geloof is dan ook geen geloof als de mens daartoe gedwongen wordt. De tweede reden waarom God dat zo doet is dat echte liefde gevonden wil worden. Echte, duurzame, liefde wil gezocht en stap voor stap ontdekt worden. Hebreeën 11: 6 zegt dat iedereen die God oprecht zoekt door Hem (God) zal worden beloond. God wil zich dus heel graag laten vinden. Hij nodigt je uit om naar Hem op zoek te gaan. Als je dat serieus doet met een onbevangen hart, dan zal je Hem ook vinden. Gegarandeerd!! Zijn grootheid straalt je al in de schepping tegemoet. Kijk eerst naar de lucht en zie de zon en de maan en de sterren. De onmetelijke ruimte met zijn vele miljarden sterren. En kijk naar het wonder van de natuur en de pracht van het menselijke lichaam met zijn duizenden microscopische cellen, cellen die op zich al werelden zijn. Sla dan de Bijbel open en ontdek dat dat dezelfde God is die de wereld gemaakt heeft en die jou liefheeft. Alles heeft Hij voor jou over gehad. Zelfs zijn eigen Zoon. Meer kan Hij niet doen. Een groter geschenk is er niet. Reageer op dit artikel door naar beneden te scrollen en te klikken op ‘reacties’.


 1] DL Derde en Vierde Hoofdstuk Artikel 12
[2]  Slot van Artikel 12 DL Derde en Vierde Hoofdstuk.
[3] Lucas 16:19-31
[4] Lucas 16: 28
[5] Dit is m.i. de betekenis van Lucas 16:31

Het unieke van het christelijk geloof.


In gesprekken met niet christenen over geloof en geloven ga ik altijd van start met de stelling dat het christelijk geloof uniek is. Het christelijk geloof heeft iets dat in geen enkele andere godsdienst te vinden is. Het unieke van het christelijk geloof bestaat hierin dat je er niets voor hoeft te doen. Je kunt in geestelijk opzicht helemaal voor niets harstikke rijk worden. Wie wil dat niet? Je hoeft er niets voor te doen om alle schatten en gaven van het Koninkrijk van God te ontvangen. Eigenlijk is dit nog te zwak geformuleerd. Het is zelfs zo dat je volgens het basisprincipe van het christelijk geloof geen tegenprestatie mag leveren. Daar komt nog bij dat als je wèl iets wil doen van jouw kant als gelovige, als je toch een soort van tegenprestatie wilt leveren, dat je er dan meteen buiten staat. Je ontvangt dan niets. Je begaat dan een doodszonde tegen het kernprincipe van het christelijk geloof, nl. dat het voor nietsis, dat het geheel gratis is. Het is bovendien ook nog een keer zo dat je niets kunt bijdragen van jouw kant. Je hoeft het niet en je mag het niet en je kunt het niet.
Ik durf te stellen dat dit in alle andere religies een heel ander verhaal is. Al die religies – of het nu om primitieve natuur religies gaat of om de grote wereld godsdiensten - zijn vervuld met een typisch menselijke en daarom ook tegelijk oer heidense gedachte: doe iets voor (een) god of godheid en je ontvangt er iets voor terug. Om de goden mild te stemmen brengt men in de natuurgodsdiensten een offer. Dat offer kan van alles zijn, van voedsel tot zelfs mensen of kinderoffers. In ruil daarvoor krijgt men van de goden voorspoed, in de vorm van bijv. goede oogsten, ook kunnen op die manier boze geesten worden verdreven. Jij als mens houdt bij al die rituelen het heft zelf stevig in handen. Als jij maar de dingen blijft doen die de godheid van je vraagt blijf jij in feite zelf baas over die godheid. Ten diepste blijf je dan zelf god.
Als je nu naar de grote wereld godsdiensten kijkt dan zie je ook daar dit principe op verschillende manieren terug komen. De boeddhist keert in zichzelf en kan door het volgen van een achtstappen pad, de zalige verlichting, het nirwana bereiken. De Hindoe staat voor de redding of Zelfrealisatie van de persoonlijke ziel, het individu moet daarbij zijn zintuigen onder controle brengen en leren dat redding niet voor niets wordt gegeven. De moslim probeert, door zich plichtsgetrouw aan de z.g. vijf zuilen van de islam te houden de gunst van God te verwerven, waardoor hij bij het laatste oordeel naar het paradijs mag. Soera 56:1-57 zegt o.a. over dat paradijs: ‘Ze zijn in de tuinen van verrukking…. Op prachtig bewerkte rustbedden, tegenover elkaar liggend, terwijl eeuwig jong blijvende knapen hen bedienen met kopjes, kannen en kommen gevuld met brondrank, waarvan ze geen hoofdpijn krijgen of dronken worden, en met fruit waarvan ze het beste kunnen uitzoeken en met vlees van vogels, wat ze maar lusten, en paradijsmeisjes met mooie ogen, als ingelegde parels…’. En,  Soera 56:25 zegt dan dat deze gunsten gegeven worden  ‘Als beloning voor wat zij trachten te doen’.  
Toen ik over dit onderwerp met mijn niet christelijke overbuurman in gesprek raakte, was hij van mijn argumenten bepaald niet onder de indruk. Hij zei dit: “Jouw stelling dat je volgens het basis principe van het christelijk geloof niets hoeft te doen, klopt niet. Jij moet je toch ook aan de tien geboden houden en bovendien, als ik christen zou zijn en lid van jullie kerk, zou jullie kerk het dan accepteren dat ik niets zou doen en dus ook niet naar de kerk zou gaan?”. Daar komt nog bij, zo vervolgde hij: ‘ Dat jouw stelling dat je volgens het basis principe van het christelijk geloof ‘niets’ hoeft te doen niet zo uniek is als jij denkt. Deze gedachte komt ook in andere religies voor”. Vervolgens kwam mijn buurman – die zelf Aziatisch bloed in de aderen heeft - met het tijdschrift ‘Filosofie’ naar me toe en toonde mij een artikel over Lao Zi[1] (5e eeuw v. Chr.). Lao Zi is de grondlegger van het taoïsme. Het kernconcept van de taoïstische filosofie is: 'Wu Wei’ wat letterlijk betekent ‘’niet doen”. Ik citeer uit dit artikel over het taoïsme het volgende: Wie koste wat het kost zijn doel wil bereiken, raakt snel gefrustreerd. Zo iemand heeft een tunnelvisie: hij houdt geen rekening met zijn omgeving en is zelfs soms bereid over lijken te gaan. Op die manier bereikt hij misschien wel zijn doel, maar richt hij om zich heen enorm veel schade aan. Lao Zi heeft felle kritiek op deze instrumentalistische manier van denken. Volgens hem kan de mens zich beter oefenen in het ‘niet doen’. Deze term betekent niet dat de mens letterlijk niets meer heeft te doen, maar wel dat hij handelt zonder vooropgezet plan. Hij probeert niet alles naar zijn hand te zetten, maar staat open voor elke situatie waarin hij zich bevindt en houdt rekening met iedereen om zich heen. Zo bereikt hij zijn doel en passant en op een ontspannen manier, zonder iemand schade te berokkenen. Hoe kun je het bereiken? Door je erin te oefenen vastomlijnde doelen los te laten’.
Dit taoïstisch kernconcept klinkt aanlokkelijk maar toch heeft het niets te maken met het christelijke basis principe van het ‘niets’ hoeven te doen. Want ook in deze taoïstische filosofie blijft de mens zelf weer aan de touwtjes trekken en kan hij door oefening het hele proces beheersen en controleren. Uiteindelijk is deze methode niets meer dan een handige, zo je wilt verstandige, manier om je eigen doelstellingen en ambities te realiseren. Toegegeven moet worden dat handelen zonder bijbedoelingen, zonder vooropgezet eigenbelang, bij alles wat je doet rekening houden met het belang van je naaste, wel degelijk een zeer belangrijk onderdeel vormt van het christelijk leven. Maar dat zijn volgens het christelijk geloof eigenschappen die we niet van naturen uit onszelf hebben, maar die God door Zijn Geest aan je geeft en die zaken vormen in het christelijk geloof een onderdeel van het grote geschenk dat je voor ‘niets’ van God ontvangen hebt.
Maar als mijn buurman het nu heeft over het je moeten houden aan de tien geboden, het naar de kerk moeten gaan, en zoveel andere dingen die christenen ‘moeten’, dan lijkt mijn buurman zeker een punt te hebben. Daar komt nog iets bij. Het mag dan zo zijn dat volgens de leer, de Bijbel, Gods liefde een geschenk is dat de mens uit genade voor ‘niets’ ontvangt ( al moeten we er wel bijzeggen dat er een hoge prijs voor ‘betaald’ is, maar dan niet de mens heeft ervoor betaald maar Gods eigen Zoon, Jezus Christus), in de praktijk van het christelijk geloof speelt de tegenprestatie van de mens nog een heel grote rol. De christen kan het haast niet laten om het dan toch weer zelf gaan doen. Dan denken we aan de rooms katholieke leer van de goede werken. Goede werken dragen daar bij aan je behoud. Door je goede werken bouw je boven bij God a.h.w. krediet op. Maar laten we maar bescheiden blijven, want die drang om een tegenprestatie te leveren zit ook bij ons protestanten, gereformeerden, diep in de genen. En als je denkt dat je een tegenprestatie ‘moet’ leveren dan  ‘moet’ jij ineens weer van alles, want anders…..En de tien geboden kunnen in jouw leven dan zo maar gaan functioneren als een soort van prestatie of reparatie set waarbij jij zelf het heft in handen houdt, zonder echt zelf van binnenuit, van harte, te veranderen.
Maar, zo zal je je afvragen, maakt de stelling dat het voor ‘niets’ is de christen niet passief, kan hij of zij niet rustig achterover leunen omdat het toch allemaal voor hem gedaan wordt? Ook daar heb ik met mijn buurman een discussie over gehad. Mijn buurman is een vooraanstaand hockey coach die veel kennis en ervaring heeft met het toepassen van training en motivatie technieken in het hockey. Mijn buurman weet daardoor als geen ander dat als zijn training en/of tactische instructies door zijn team alleen maar uitgevoerd worden omdat het van de coach ‘moet’, dat dit niet gaat werken. Alleen als het hockey team een ideaal heeft, bijv. het kampioenschap, een ideaal dat weliswaar in de toekomst ligt maar waarvan het team de rotsvaste overtuiging heeft dat het haalbaar is, dan gaat daar een geweldige innerlijke motivatie en drive vanuit om er alles voor over te hebben om dat doel nu ook te bereiken.  En als de neuzen dan allemaal dezelfde kant op staan, dan is geen inspanning of training voor het team te zwaar om het doel, het ideaal, te bereiken. Als het team gelooft in de realisatie van het ideaal, dan is de training niet langer een ‘moeten’ en wordt het voor de coach een stuk gemakkelijker.
Zo is het nu ook in het christelijk geloof. Het grote geschenk dat je van God voor niets krijgt, is Hijzelf en Hijzelf is niets anders dan liefde. En dat geschenk van de liefde van God komt zo overweldigend binnen in het hart van de gelovige, dat het hem transformeert. De liefde van God gaat reflecteren in het hart van de gelovige. Het gevolg is dat de gelovige nu in beweging gaat komen en nu niets liever wil dan zich houden aan Gods geboden, nu niet meer omdat het ‘moet’ maar omdat hij het wil. Hij komt tot het inzicht dat Gods geboden goed zijn en hij wil er van harte uit leven.




[1] Filosofie Nr 7-8 augustus2013 Pagina 39.

Bob Dylan's 'Soon after Midnight' - an analysis - Part 2.

Bernardio Luini the Magdalene.jpg

In this article we continue the analysis of this intriguing song.

’ i
s among others described in the Urban Dictionary as a girl who is known for being beautiful both inside and out. Although the Urban Dictionary says that Charlotte is also good in bed and although there once was a song called “Charlotte the Harlot” by a group called ‘Iron Maiden’, yet the meaning of the name ‘Charlotte’  in itself cannot in any way be linked to being a harlot. Therefore when Dylan says that ‘Charlotte’s a harlot’ he seems to have chosen the name ‘Charlotte’, not only as a vague reference to and a stepping stone from that song “Charlotte the Harlot”, but mainly because it rhymes with ‘harlot’ and not because the meaning of this name may in itself in any way be connected to a harlot or to any whorish behavior whatsoever. ‘Charlotte’s a harlot’ is further defined by the words ‘She dresses in scarlet’. The word ‘harlot’ combined with the word ‘scarlet’ immediately takes us to the Book of Revelation Chapter 17:3-5 ‘So the angel took me in the Spirit into the wilderness. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that had seven heads and ten horns, and blasphemies against God were written all over it. The woman wore purple and scarlet clothing and beautiful jewelry made of gold and precious gems and pearls. In her hand she held a gold goblet full of obscenities and the impurities of her immorality. A mysterious name was written on her forehead: “Babylon the Great, Mother of All Prostitutes and Obscenities in the World.” I could see that she was drunk—drunk with the blood of God’s holy people who were witnesses for Jesus. I stared at her in complete amazement’. Duessa, Redcrosse’s counterpart in Edmund Spenser’s epic poem ‘The Faery Queene’ is also dressed in scarlet. This is not without importance because this epic poem – as we will outline further below – seems to have had an influence on this song. Spenser made the same allegory on Revelations 17:3-5 as well.  The rhyme combination ‘scarlet, harlot’ is also made in the final verse of Dylan’s song ‘Jokerman’ and like in this song, the combination of these two words has a negative connotation. Scarlet is a vivid red color, sometimes with an orange tinge, and just like purple is typical of the exuberant lifestyle and clothing of the rich and the wealthy (cf Proverbs 31:21). The red – scarlet – color of the woman’s clothing represents her blood-thirstiness and fully portrays her as a whore. In the Bible a harlot represents the apostasy of God’s own people and also – like in the Book of Revelations - the antagonistic world empires.  It is obvious that such a whorish woman cannot fulfill the poet and therefore cannot be his future bride.
Whereas ‘Honey’ and ‘Charlotte’ represent vice, ‘Mary’ who follows the two, represents virtue. Very little is said about her, only this: ‘Mary dresses in green’. At the same time this brief qualification of Mary is a very significant one and represents the core of the song. Who is this Mary? Some have argued that the virgin ‘Mary’ is referred to here. Although she was already introduced in the opening song of the album ‘Duquesne Whistle’ where it says: ‘I can hear a sweet voice gently calling, must be the mother of our LORD’, yet we don’t feel that Dylan had the Virgin Mary in mind when he wrote: ‘Mary dresses in green’. Firstly, the Virgin Mary is usually portrayed dressed in blue, not in green. Secondly, we feel that the woman of whom Dylan here says that she is dressed in green and who in the final verse of the song is addressed with the words: ‘When I met you I didn't think you would do’ and also ‘I don't want nobody but you’ is one and the same person. Therefore, to address the Virgin Mary with words like ‘I don’t want nobody but you’ would not only be inappropriate, to some ears it would even sound blasphemous and all this makes it very unlikely that the Virgin Mary is meant here.
We feel that Mary of Magdalene (sometimes called Mary of Magdala) is the likeliest candidate to be the ‘Mary’ Dylan may have had in mind here.  She is often portrayed dressed in green, green, in the color of fertility. (On the right top of this article you see a picture of a painting of Mary of Magdalene, dressed in green, by the Italian Renaissance painter Bernardino Luini). In the New Testament Mary of Magdalene is a very important woman. Mary of Magdalene was one of Jesus’ most ardent followers and traveled with Jesus. Mary of Magdalene was with Jesus during the most crucial moments of Jesus’ life, during the crucifixion she stood by His side at the cross and she reappears immediately after the Resurrection, to be the first to see Jesus back again (Mark 16:9). What makes Mary of Magdalene so special is the fact that before she started to follow Jesus and travel with Him, Jesus cleansed her of ‘seven demons’ (Luke 8:2 and Mark 16:9). So, when in the final verse it says: ‘When I met you I didn't think you would do’ it is as if Dylan has Jesus speak through his mouth and have Jesus say about Mary of Magdalene: ‘When I met you I didn't think you would do’. This ‘ I didn't think you would do’  does not mean - as the Da Vinci Code seems to suggest -  that Mary of Magdalene  was ever involved in a romantic love relationship with Jesus nor that she ever was  some kind of a harlot.
On the contrary, for such a theory there is not a shred of Biblical or non-Biblical evidence available. So when Dylan has Jesus say: ‘When I met you I didn't think you would do’ it is as if Jesus would have said to Mary of Magdalene: ‘When I first met you, you were possessed by seven demons, in that dreadful condition you were unable to follow me, first I had to cleanse you of those demons and make you fit to follow me’. There are more – and deeper - things to be said about the words ‘When I met you I didn't think you would do’ but we will do so below when we discuss the final verse.
When the poet goes on to say that ‘It's soon after midnight, and I've got a date with a (the) fairy queen’ he seems to take us into a dreamland, into the fancy land of fairies, elves and midgets, the land where he has a date with a fairy queen. The dream woman will be Mary but he has not got her yet, he is not yet mentally there – he is still ‘away with the fairies’ - and he is still fantasizing on how things will be. Some have argued that ‘Mary’ and the ‘Fairy Queen’ might be one and the same person but this thought seems unlikely because he does not speak of some imaginative woman but of a real woman – which does not preclude the fact that this woman also symbolizes much more than just a ‘physical’ woman because – under the layer of that ‘physical’ woman – there is also a ‘spiritual’ woman shining through This spiritual woman symbolizes the relationship between God and his people, and between Christ and his bride, the church.
There are a number of resonations in this verse line ‘It's soon after midnight, and I've got a date with a (the) fairy queen’. A first resonation is said to be the 16th ballad ‘Tam Lin’. In this ballad – which has many different versions - the elfin Tam Lin is captured and owned by the Fairy Queen. This elfin Tim Lin however, makes visiting girls from the real world pregnant and in this way more or less acts like a two timing elfin, something to which Dylan would later on in the second bridge Dylan  allude to by speaking of  ‘a two timing Slim’. Another connotation may be, that the girl – though named ‘Janet’’, not ‘Mary’ - who in this ballad Tam Lin has made pregnant happens to be dressed in green
A second resonation is said to be a Shakespearean. As outlined above, some see in the song’s title ‘It's soon after midnight’ not only a direct reference to Shakespeare’s ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ but they also see in the words ‘I've got a date with a (the) fairy queen’  an allusion to the Fairy Queen who is this play has a midnight encounter with Bottom. But it would seem to me that only some word combinations from both the ballad ‘Tam Lin’ and ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ resonate here but that there is no real connection with the meaning of this verse line, or with any other part of the song for that matter.
A third resonation which is also Shakespearean and which may well have much more connection with the meaning of the song is the fairy queen ‘Queen Mab’ referred to in Shakespeare's play ‘Romeo and Juliet’.  Queen Mab’s is involvement in in this play, is described in a speech by Mercutio. Queen Mab is portrayed by Mercutio as a sort of miniature creature who drives her chariot into the noses and brains of sleeping people, forcing them to have dreams in which their wishes and wildest dreams are fulfilled. At one time Mercutio says about Queen Mab: ‘And in this state she gallops night by night, through lovers’ brains, and then they dream of love’. This is exactly what happens in this song. The poet hasn’t got her yet, he has to wait for her, the woman or bride is very much a promise for the future, yet he knows for sure that she will be his and he is now fantasizing on how great and wonderful the prospect will be of being with her forever.
However, as far as contributing meaning to this verse line ‘ I've got a date with a (the) fairy queen’ is concerned, we feel that Edmund Spenser’s epic poem ‘The Faerie Queene’- first published in 1590 -1596 - may be an important source. The heroic knight Redcrosse (a Christian) has finally conquered the dragon. Yet his long ago planned and promised marriage to Una must be delayed again. Before Redcrosse, the valiant knight and warrior, is allowed to marry Una, Redcrosse has has more work to do and his mission is not fulfilled yet. Redcrosse, as Dylan puts it, has ‘got a date with the Faerie Queene’ ,which means that Redcrosse made an arrangement with the Faerie Queene that, before he can Marry Una, he has to serve the Faerie Queene for another six  years to defeat the king Paynim. The poem says that the knight Redcrosse must go "Backe to return to that great Faerie Queene, and her to serve six yeares in warlike wize, gainst that proud Paynim king (I.xii.18)." This attitude of  heroic bravery combined  with  docile servitude, this whole concept of faith in the future against all odds, this notion of endurance, perseverance and patience before one finally reaches the ultimate goal is  typical  of Edmund Spenser’s ‘Faerie Queene’, not only in this passage but in the entire epic poem. We see this same attitude and notions also very prominently present in Dylan’s ‘Soon after Midnight’. We have already seen that the poet is not ‘in a great hurry’ and he is not afraid ‘of the fury’ his brave stance will evoke in other people’s judgments. He has ‘got a date with the Fairy Queen’, he made an arrangement with her to hold back his passions and to restrain his emotions till the right time has come and the final battle has been won. Meanwhile the Fairy Queen allows him to fantasize and dream about the great future which is about to come and for which he is prepared to wait because he knows that the battle is nearly over. It will be soon ‘after midnight’, it is nearly twelve o’ clock, it is nearly midnight and his day will begin soon.
Like the first bridge of the song, also the language of the second bridge of the song is reminiscent of the strong, robust and violent language of the Old Testamentical prophets and kings, language which King David used in his Psalms. To understand this language of the second bridge in our modern times, we have to bear in mind that again, a great and righteous king and valiant warrior speaks here, a king and warrior just like King David once was and in his wake – and to perfection - the great King and warrior Jesus Christ. He chose his bride – the church - but in the eyes of people this bride was not good enough. That’s why it now says: ‘They chirp and they chatter’ which means that people and the public in general, like flocks of birds that chirp together, gossip and chat idly about all kinds of minor and unimportant details and also great faults they find in his future bride, with only one goal and that is to denounce this bride and to express that she simply won’t do in their eyes. The poet, however, is determined to go on and is not really touched by all this and lightheartedly dismisses the slander and gossip by saying ‘What does it matter?’.  All this gossip and slander will not make him go back and the best remedy is to simply ignore all criticism, just like Shakespeare once said: ‘To tame a shrew, and charm her chattering tongue’. ‘What does it matter?’ has another denunciative connotation. ‘What does it matter?’ also refers to the words that follow: ‘They're lying and they're dying in their blood’. Again, to understand the impact of these words in our age, we have to take into account that Dylan has a great and righteous King speak here; a warrior who has conquered his enemies and that is why we hear war-like language. ‘What does it matter?’  is as if the poet now says: ‘Why should I care any longer about my enemies, we fought and I won, they lie on the battlefield, on the killing floors, in their blood, and they will all die, that is why I now say: ‘They're lying and they're dying in their blood’.
But there is more to the words ‘They're lying and they're dying in their blood’. If you put the emphasis on the words ‘They’ these words contrast with the situation his future bride was in when he first met her, as if he says: ‘My enemies are lying and dying in their blood, but not so my future bride. O, Yes she too was lying in her blood but unlike my enemies I came to her rescue and she did not  die in her blood, on the contrary, look to what the prophet of Ezekiel says in Chapter 16, verse 6 and following: ‘But I came by and saw you there, helplessly kicking about in your own blood. As you lay there, I said, ‘Live!’. And I helped you to thrive like a plant in the field. You grew up and became a beautiful jewel. Your breasts became full, and your body hair grew, but you were still naked. And when I passed by again, I saw that you were old enough for love. So I wrapped my cloak around you to cover your nakedness and declared my marriage vows. I made a covenant with you, says the Sovereign Lord, and you became mine’. When in the last verse Dylan says: ‘When I met you I didn't think you would do’ the above words of Ezekiel may have been on his mind. He found his future bride lying in her blood, so at first it looked as if she would not do, but he rescued her even if she did not deserve it.
‘Two-Timing Slim who's ever heard of him?’ dwells on the same subject; it is all about loyalty and faithfulness in a love relationship. What does ‘Two Timing’ mean? A person is said to be ‘Two Timing’ when he or she tries to maintain two separate ‘love’ relationships at the same time, without the persons involved in this love affair know about each other that they are dating with one and the same person. Why does Dylan add ‘Slim’ to the words ‘Two Timing’? To whom does he refer? Some have argued that he refers to Slim Whitman, an American country music and western music singer, songwriter and instrumentalist who died in 2013. But this explanation sounds odd because Slim Whitman has never been known to be ‘two timing’. On the contrary, when Slim Whitman’s wife died in 2009, she had been married to Slim Whitman for 67 years so if there has ever been an artist who was not ‘two timing’ is must have been Slim Whitman, at least so it seems.
Others have argued that Dylan, when he says ‘Two-Timing Slim who's ever heard of him?’, he would refer to himself, to his old nature, to his mischievous behavior prior to becoming a Christian, but now that he is inwardly renewed, he has got new eyes and he is burying the ‘old’ man by ‘dragging his corpse through the mud’ and in this way he would publicly denounce his former ‘two timing’’ life style. In fact, he would speak here of that same enemy inside who ‘crashed into the dust’ (‘Long and Wasted Years’).
However, we feel that the above analyses do not satisfy. We feel that ‘Two-Timing Slim’ does not refer to any specific person but that ‘Two-Timing Slim’ is a personification of disloyalty, unfaithfulness and adultery. Disloyalty, unfaithfulness and adultery have no real face, name, or future and therefore, in eternity, will not be remembered and will end up in the land of oblivion. It is the reason why the words ‘Two-Timing Slim’ are qualified by the words ‘who's ever heard of him?’. The poet takes us back to the Latter Day, to what will happen ‘soon’, ‘after midnight’. (For the meaning of ‘soon’’ in this context we refer to Rev. 22:20). At the Latter Day the great King, Christ, will present His bride, in a majestic style, as written in Revelations 19:7,8: ‘Let us be glad and rejoice, and let us give honor to him. For the time has come for the wedding feast of the Lamb, and his bride has prepared herself. She has been given the finest of pure white linen to wear’. This bride – the church – did not deserve it at all to stand there in such a glorious fashion. Throughout history she had been ‘two-timing’ on Him.  As stated above, Ezekiel 16:6 pictures that she was dying in her blood, but He came to her rescue. But the rest of Ezekiel 16 and Hosea 2 show that she was not at all grateful for her miraculous redemption. On the contrary, she was unfaithful to Him and acted – as Dylan wrote elsewhere - ‘as whorish as ever’. But His burning love never gave up on her, as is written in Ephesians 5: 25, 26:” He gave up his life for her, to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word. He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault’. At the Latter Day, it will appear that Chris has forgotten her ‘two timing’ behavior as if it never happened and He will say of all ’two timing’ conduct: who's ever heard of him?’ It is as if He will then say: ‘I paid for this bride in my own blood, she is cleansed now and anyone who now dares to accuse my chosen bride will meet with my violent wrath and I'll drag his corpse through the mud’, which means that I will publicly condemn, denounce and humiliate such a person’.
When it says: ’I'll drag his corpse through the mud’ we must keep in mind that this is again war-like language of a righteous King and Warrior. The word choice is also reminiscent of the Trojan War when Hector was killed by Achilles, and Achilles dragged Hector’s corpse behind his horse. ’I'll drag his corpse through the mud’ may also allude to the prophet of Isaiah, chapter 14 verse 19 where it is written: ‘Like a corpse trampled underfoot, you will be dumped into a mass grave, with those killed in battle’. All this heroic language seems to make it clear that the acquisition of the eternal bride is serious business and nothing – not even the most extremely violent resistance - can stop Him from reaching His ultimate goal.
When Dylan – in the final verse of the song - goes on to say that ‘It’s now or never’, he intends to say more than just to quote an old Elvis Presley song. ‘It’s now or never, more than ever’ emphasizes the urgency of the situation and that the whole affair of his future bride has reached a decisive stadium. Against all odds, in defiance of what people expect him to do, He is now ready to present the bride of His choice to the world. His choice for her is not based on any outward beauty or any high moral standards of His bride to- be, on the contrary, he explicitly states that ‘When I met you I didn't think you would do’. Again, the Biblical allegory shines through here. The people of Israel were chosen to be God’s bride. When God came to the rescue of His people in Egypt- as described by the prophet of Ezekiel in Chapter 16, verse 6 – He found that Israel was helplessly ‘kicking around in her blood’. When God ’met’ her, so to say, she ‘wouldn’t do’, there was no reason why He should have been so merciful to His bride Israel. But His goodness and benevolence got repaid with scorn. The prophets, especially Ezekiel and Hosea, made it abundantly clear that also later on Israel ‘wouldn’t do’. Israel was very unfaithful to him and acted even worse than –to speak in the language of this song – ‘Charlotte, the harlot’ because as Ezekiel 16: 33 says: ‘Prostitutes charge for their services--but not you! You give gifts to your lovers, bribing them to come and have sex with you’. But yet God gave never up on her and in the end He will make it possible that she will do!. This allegory continues in the New Testament. Above we already outlined in the passage ‘Mary dresses in green’ that Mary of Magdalene was chosen to be one of the first witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, albeit the fact that when Jesus first met her ‘She wouldn’t do’ because at the time she was possessed by seven demons.(Mark 16:9). But what about the New Testamentical bride, the church?  When He, Jesus, first met her on earth, and also later on when He accompanied her from heaven on her journey through history ‘She wouldn’t do’ either. The church committed many horrible crimes and instead of helping the poor and wretched, the church often became an institution of oppression, power, greed and sexual abuse. Also this bride, the church acted whorishly. But He, Jesus, never gave up on her. We read in Ephesians 5: 25, that: “He gave up his life for her, to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word”. At the end of times, on the Latter Day, ‘soon, after midnight’, the bride- Israel and the church- will be standing there, cleansed for the eternal wedding (Rev. 19:7,8) and wearing – as Dylan wrote elsewhere in great poetic style - ‘silver bracelets on her wrist and flowers in her hair’.
The song ends by saying: ‘It's soon after midnight, and I don't want nobody but you’. The ending ‘I don't want nobody but you’ can be interpreted as a pretty carnal, if not unchaste, way of expressing his passion. And if so, do these final words ‘I don't want nobody but you’ not contrast with the spiritually elevated language and allegorical biblical imagery which we feel is hidden in this song? However, we have to bear in mind that in the Bible this sort of romantic language is not at all as unusual as it may sound. The Book of Songs for instance, is full of the same allegoric language, in which the love of God for his people is expressed as a romance, as the love between a young man and a young woman, in words which may sound pretty carnal but are yet chaste, e.g. Songs 3: 1 where a young woman says:  “One night as I lay in bed, I yearned for my lover. I yearned for him, but he did not come”.
‘I don't want nobody but you’
is as if the groom now says: ‘Nobody expected me to choose you, even if you did not deserve it to be my bride, yet you are the only one, ‘I don't want nobody but you’. The  long quest to find the real woman has finally come to rest. His woman is on board.
As always, please feel free to comment on this article, to do so please scroll down and press the button 'reacties'


Bob Dylan's 'Soon after Midnight' - an analysis - Part 1.


This song from the album ‘Tempest’ really is a very great song. This precious gem captured and mesmerized me from the first minute I heard it. The music has this typical joyful 1950’s doo-wop swing and Dylan’s voice sounds really sweet and gentle and we hear some great phrasing too!. At first glance, it looks like a simple love song, but as the song starts to grow on you, you find out that there is much more to it and, as is so often the case with Dylan, in the end things are not what they seem.
In his 2012 RS interview Dylan said that ‘Tempest’ wasn’t the record he set out to make. "I wanted to make something more religious," he said. "I just didn't have enough [religious songs].  Intentionally, specifically religious songs is what I wanted to do. That takes a lot more concentration to pull that off 10 times with the same thread — than it does with a record like I ended up with."
If we interpret ‘more religious’ as more ‘gospel’ like’ – albeit not ‘gospel’ like in the same manner as during Dylan’s so-called Christian era 1979-1981 - then we have good reasons to assume that ‘Soon after midnight’ may have originally  been intended to be one of those religious songs which Dylan had in mind for this more ‘religious’ album. This idea is supported by the fact that this song starts off as a psalm: “I'm searching for phrases, to sing your praises” but as the song progresses Dylan’s well spring of creativity takes him somewhere else but then again –as we will see - in much deeper waters than one would expect, because the song –even if it may sound as a simple love song at first glance – is suffused with Biblical imagery. Also, lyrically the song starts off in a bright and positive mood and although the two bridges of the song reveal some dark undercurrents which give the song an obsessive and even hostile trait, these elements cannot prevent the song from ending in an equal positive mood and in such a way that the overall joyful and even exalted spirit of the song is maintained. The question is: what is this song about? I think that overall, the song is more about ‘the’ ideal woman or bride than about ‘an’ ideal woman or bride, which does, however, not necessarily mean that there are no personal,  autobiographical, undercurrents in the song, reflecting the poet’s  personal lifelong quest to find this ideal woman or bride. In this quest for the ideal woman or bride there are both physical and spiritual elements of this quest pictured but in the end –as we will see - these elements melt together. In other words, in this song, in the quest to find the perfect bride, there is a struggle going on between lust, infidelity, and disloyalty on the one hand and chastity, fidelity, and loyalty on the other hand. In this respect Dylan must have been inspired by the Bible where we see the relation between God and His people – or between Christ and the church for that matter - described by some of the same metaphors Dylan uses here. God (Jesus) is the groom and his people (the church) are the bride. The Bible reveals that over and over again, God’s chosen people were disloyal to Him and acted like a harlot. In particular the prophets describe this metaphor in all sorts of varieties, see for instance the book of Hosea (e.g. Hosea 4:15) and Ezekiel. But in spite of this continuous adultery, God’s burning love keeps on searching the bride’s heart, till in the end He finds her and cleanses her and makes her ready for the eternal marriage (Rev. 19:7,8).
Therefore, as we are getting nearer to the end of the poet’s life, this song is an ultimate and successful attempt to bring the life long quest for this ideal woman or bride to rest.  In the first song of the album, ‘Duquesne Whistle’ we hear the final whistle of time blowing and indeed, this whistle is ‘Blowing like my woman's on board’. In the end he has found her and has come to terms with his woman and he is now ready to enter into eternity with this ethereal woman.
Apart from the Bible there may be other sources which inspired Dylan to create this song. Shakespeare’s play ‘A Midsummer Night's Dream’ may resonate, especially in the song’s title and also maybe the 16th century ballad ‘Tam Lin’. But as far as other sources are concerned Edmund Spenser’s poem ‘The Faerie Queene’ may have been the most important influence, as we will outline later on in this article.  Let’s first delve deeper into the specific words of the song.
“I'm searching for phrases, to sing your praises, I need to tell someone” is reminiscent of “All my powers of expression and thoughts so sublime, could never do you justice in reason or rhyme” which Dylan wrote in the song ‘Mississippi”. The question is who does Dylan address here? It may be God because “to sing your praises” is a terminology which occurs quite often in the book of Psalms and such an eulogy is invariably addressed to God, e.g. Psalm 144: 9. “I will sing a new song to you, O God! I will sing your praises with a ten-stringed harp”. Above we wrote that the two bridges of the song reveal some dark undercurrents which render the song a trait of animosity. We also see this phenomenon frequently occur in the book of Psalms, sometimes even within the same Psalm, e.g. “To sing your praises” of Psalm 144:9 goes with Psalm 144: 11 where it says “Save me! Rescue me from the power of my enemies. Their mouths are full of lies; they swear to tell the truth, but they lie instead”. In this song “to sing your praises” goes with “They're lying and they're dying in their blood” and with “I'll drag his corpse through the mud”.
Yet we have good reasons to believe that “I’m searching for phrases to sing your praises” is not primarily addressed to God but to his (ideal) woman, wife or bride. Such language is not at all unusual in the Bible, in fact the book of Songs is full of such praises addressed to a woman or bride, e.g. Songs 6: 9 where a young man says: “The young women see her and praise her; even queens and royal concubines sing her praises”. In this song, one may say that in a certain way Dylan follows the same route which the Bible follows in finding the perfect bride, a long and narrow road indeed, on which a number of women pass by – some of them ‘as whorish as ever’- till at last the true bride is found in Dylan’s favorite Bible book the Revelation of St John, Chapter 19 verse 7:  ‘Let us be glad and rejoice, and let us give honor to him. For the time has come for the wedding feast of the Lamb, and his bride has prepared herself’.
Therefore, this first verse of this song shows us the final result of his quest to find this woman. The poet has reached the end of the trail and he can hardly believe that at last he has found her. Her beauty  is so exuberant and her serenity so overwhelming that he cannot find the right words to express his exaltation, therefore when he says ‘I need to tell someone’ he actually intends to say that he wants the whole world to know how intensely happy he is with the outcome.
In this first verse it looks as if the end of time has just begun, that is why he now says: ‘It's soon after midnight, and my day has just begun’. Some see in the song’s title ‘It's soon after midnight’ a direct reference to Shakespeare’s ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ in which Bottom has an encounter with the Fairy Queen after midnight. This seems the more likely because later on in the song the poet has a date with the fairy queen.  Although Dylan has Shakespeare’s play resonated in the song’s title, we feel that the poet predominantly wants to express something else, at least in this first verse. ‘It's soon after midnight, and my day has just begun’ may express that the Latter Day has just arrived. At midnight a new day has begun. It is ‘his’ day and this day will never end. This spiritual matrimony will last forever. The idea that Christ will return at midnight – as bridegroom to meet his bride, the church, - is wide-spread within the Christian tradition and is based on Matt. 25:6 where it says: ‘At midnight they were roused by the shout, 'Look, the bridegroom is coming! Come out and meet him!'
But before this day will finally come, a number of obstacles have to be overcome, a number of women pass by and these women try to distract him from the road. This theme is also dealt with on the Tell Tale Signs song ‘Marching to the City’ where it says: ‘Once I had a pretty girl, she’s done me wrong, now I'm marching to the City and the road ain't long’ The first woman that passes by is ‘A gal named Honey’ .The Urban Dictionary says that the name ‘Honey’ is a nickname for a beautiful girl who has just about everything. Deceived by beauty as he may have been, he soon found out that this woman was not in for a lifelong relationship of enduring love but that only ‘she was passing by’. Her ‘love’ was selfish and superficial.  She is the kind of woman who –after a brief period of infatuation - comes and goes and shows no genuine and lasting interest in you, in fact she only wants to take and not give, that is why it says that she ‘took my money’. There may even shine through some self-criticism from the part of the poet when we see this same selfish attitude reflected in the male counterpart of Dylan’s cover of The Mississippi Sheiks’ song ‘Blood in my Eyes’ on the album ‘World Gone Wrong’ where he has Honey’s male counterpart say: ‘I tell you something, tell you the facts, you don't want me, give my money back’.  In summary, this first girl or woman called Honey represents the type of marriage or relationship which is only based on material things and has no deeper spiritual foundation. Because there is no strong foundation, such marriages or relations ‘pass by’, they break up easily and they leave you behind, robbed and – as Dylan wrote elsewhere –‘howling at the moon’.
When he goes on to say that ‘the moon is in my eye’ this reminds us of a song called ‘Moon Got In My Eyes’ written by Johnny Burke, and Arthus Johnston. The song has been covered by Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby .One of the verses reads: ‘You know the saying, 'All who love are blind', it seems that ancient adage still applies, I guess, I should have seen right through you, but the moon got in my eyes’. Apparently, beauty deceives the eye and romantic feelings may easily blind a man and these feelings are often associated with the moon which may block your view. Just like in Shakespeare’s ‘Midsummer Night’s Dream’ the moon is continuously associated with a midnight realm where dreams and imagination flourish but in real life however, these sweet notions are wiped out by the harsh reality of matrimony’s every day’s wear and tear..

The language of the first bridge of the song is reminiscent of the strong and robust language of the Old Testamentical Kings David and Solomon which they used especially in the Book of Psalms and Songs. ‘My heart is cheerful, it's never fearful’ is an example of the determination and valiance of these kings. ‘My heart is cheerful, it's never fearful’ expresses confidence and faith that the ultimate goal will be reached: he will surely find the perfect bride and this bright prospect is a reason for abundant joy.  This firm mental attitude resembles the resilience shown in Dylan’s song ‘Mississippi’: ‘My heart is not weary, it is light and it is free’, and echoes what King Solomon says in Proverbs 15:13: ‘A happy heart makes the face cheerful, but heartache crushes the spirit.’
‘I been down on the killing floors’
shows that the poet- as a valiant warrior - has undergone a lot of hardship and suffering. ‘I been down on the killing floors’ may also resonate Howling Wolf’s song ‘Killing Floor’ (1964) which says: ‘I was fooling' with ya baby, I let ya put me on the killing' floor”.  Herbert Sumlin, blues guitarist and at the time a member of Howling Wolf’s band, is said to have said about the song’s title: “Down on the killing floor–that means a woman has you down, she went out of her way to try to kill you. She at the peak of doing it, and you got away now.”  However, we feel that Dylan may have used the words of this song ‘Killing Floor’ as a vehicle to express a deeper meaning. The language used here resembles that of a great king and warrior. King David was such a great warrior who had been involved in many battles and had been down on the killing floors many a time. But what about David’s great Son, the great warrior Jesus Christ? If there has ever been a man on earth who can literally say ‘I been down on the killing floors’, it is Jesus Christ. In fact He was killed on the killing floor but He rose from the dead and continued His quest throughout history to find the perfect bride like it says in Ephesians 5: 25- 27 ”For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her, to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word. He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault’.’
‘I'm in no great hurry’
  not only means that the quest to find the perfect bride takes a lot of time  but  also that it has to be done at the right time. The poet is fully in control of all his passions, so he is patient enough to wait for the right time. Some have argued – and quite rightly so – that this song reflects some of the menacing and spooky feelings of Dylan’s song ‘Moonlight’ where it says: ‘Well, I’m preaching peace and harmony the blessings of tranquility, yet I know when the time is right to strike’
Hurry and impatience go with lust but true love goes with patience and endurance, just like King Solomon says in Songs 8: 4. “Promise me, O women of Jerusalem, not to awaken love until the time is right’. 
The poet’s mind is well balanced and he knows exactly what he wants. ’A gal named Honey’ is not what he is looking for and he is ready to face her violent anger and scorn, that is why it now says: ‘I’m not afraid of your fury’.  A famous saying in this respect is: “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." This saying is based on lines from ‘The Mourning Bride’ a tragedy by the playwright William Congreve, premiered in 1697: ’Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor hell a fury like a woman scorned’.
‘I've faced stronger walls than yours’
confirms the epic altitude of these words. It looks as if a valiant king is addressing us here. The king and poet David shines through here, who says in Psalm 18:29 “With my God I can scale any wall”. And not only king David, but also in his slip-stream, the great king Jesus Christ who in his quest to find the perfect bride has faced stronger walls than the fury and resistance of His bride to be. A much stronger wall was death, but He rose from the dead and continued his quest to find His bride. 

In our next and final article we will deal with Charlotte, Mary, The Fairy Queen and Two-Timing Slim and we will wrap this whole thing up. Please feel free to comment on this article.



Bob Dylan's 'Roll on John' - an analysis - Part 5 (final part).


In this 5th and final installment we review the final two verse of this song.

Verse 7.
The seventh verse of this song:  ‘Roll on, John, roll through the rain and snow, take the right-hand road and go where the buffalo roam, they'll trap you in an ambush 'fore you know, too late now to sail back home’ seems to be one of the obscurest verses of the song. The verse seems no tot refer to any event that can be connected to the real life of John Lennon or to the life of John the Apostle, or to any other ‘John’ for that matter. It is as if the poet invites you to evoke moods in you, to feel the mood of the song and to put you in a state of mind in which you draw inferences and make connections, even if these interferences or connections are not actually there in the text of the song. We have to remember that quite often Dylan does not use language in the same way that ‘normal’ people use language. Dylan increasingly makes poetry by borrowing words and making collages, using phrases, images and quotes from other people and sources and then blending them together until in the end they mean something entirely different.  Why does Dylan refer to animals in this verse –the buffalo – and to a tiger in the final verse when there seems to be no real connection to any ‘John’?
Although the words "They'll trap you in an ambush before you know" maybe vaguely inspired by Robert Fagles translation of ‘The Odyssey’ which on page 139 has: "Which god, Menelaus, conspired with you to trap me in an ambush?”, one might wonder if there is any lose connection to the American semi-biographical comedy film ‘Where the Buffalo Roam’?This film, made in 1980, depicts Hunter S. Thompson’s rise to fame in the 1970s and his relationship with Chicano attorney and activist Oscar Zeta Acosta. Music in the film included rock and R&B songs by Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, The Temptations, the Four Tops and Credence Clearwater Revival. Additionally, characters played by Bill Murray and Rene Auberjonois sing lyrics from the Sergeant Pepper’s track “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”.
We have to bear in mind that what many people call the American buffalo is actually an animal named the American bison. The Buffalo is an inseparable part of the American history; no other wild animal has played such an important role in human affairs.The tribes of the American plains relied for many centuries on bison for food, shelter, clothing, and also as a powerful spiritual symbol. American bison are associated closely with the American Old West.They once roamed the grasslands of North America in massive herds. In the 19th century, however, they nearly became extinct due to widespread commercial hunting.
So the first mood this verse evokes in me personally is that of the Wild West. Herds of buffalo, gun shooting, cowboys trapped in ambushes etc. It brings back to memory the atmosphere of the western movie ‘Patt Garret and Billy the Kid’ including anti-violence songs like ‘Knocking on Heaven’s Door’, an atmosphere where the bad memory of ‘they shot him in the back and down he went’ still lingers. You might hear the echo of Steve Tilston’s song ‘Slip Jig and Reel’ where it says: ‘A train to St Louis, just one jump ahead, he slept one eye open a gun 'neath his head, but he dreamed of the green fields and mountains of home while crossing the plains where the buffalo roam and further on in the song:’ In the deadliest ambush near old Santa Fe, a young buck was taken, togged up in a coat’.
The second mood this verse evokes in me personally is in what is expressed in the words: ‘too late now to sail back home’.  In my imagination I once again see John the Apostle, trapped in his house in the town of Ephesus in 95 AD where he was finally arrested by the Roman Emperor and banished to the island of Patmos. For John the Apostle it was too late then to ‘sail back home’, to his home land Palestine, he had to undergo all the pain and suffering on the island of Patmos to make it possible for the light of the Apocalypse to emerge and to burn so brightly. It is as if in this song two types of violence and suffering are pictured. The one type is ostensibly senseless and at random: the bullets of the Wild West and the bullet of some lunatic shooting you in the back. What good will it do? The other type of violence and suffering seems to be more submissive and meek, the sufferings of John the Apostle.This suffering however has produced something quite good: the enduring light of the Apocalypse that shines forever.
I want to give special thanks to Dave Richards (see his comments below|) who pointed out to me that the ‘John’ referred to this verse may refer to John Smith, (1580-1631) who was an Admiral of New England, a soldier, explorer, and author. Smith is said to have played an important role in the establishment of the first permanent English settlement in North America. Apart from the Indian tribes the local weather is said to have been the biggest threat for these early Jamestown settlers. That is why it says ‘roll on John through the rain and snow’. Dave Richardson pointed out to me that ‘ Pocahontas, daughter of the chief of the Powhatan Indian tribe, warned Smith about her tribe’s plot to ambush and kill John Smith in 1608, when this Powhatan tribe invited them to their land on supposedly friendly terms’. This may be the reason why it says: ‘they trap you in an ambush before you know’.‘John’ Lennon and ‘John’ Smith and ‘John’ the Apostle may have in common that their lifetime work was done far away from their home land, across the sea and both Smith and Lennon led a sort of British invasion. The invasion that John the Apostle led was of much greater importance, it hugely set up the invasion of the gospel throughout the entire world.

Verse 8.
The final verse: ‘Tyger, tyger, burning bright, I pray the Lord my soul to keep. In the forest of the night, cover him over and let him sleep’ is undoubtedly the most significant and intriguing verse of the song, it gives the impression of some sort of an epilogue and retrospectively colors the meaning of the whole song.This last verse is mainly made up of quotations but we feel that it is the collage of quotations which renders the verse its deeper meaning. 

The words ‘Tyger, tyger, burning bright ‘and ‘In the forest of the night’ are literally quoted from the famous poem “The Tyger" by the English poet William Blake. It was published as part of his collection Songs of Experience in 1794. Within the context it says: ‘Tyger! Tyger! burning bright, in the forest of the night, what immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful symmetry?
The words ‘I pray the Lord my soul to keep’ are quoted from a classic children's bedtime prayer from the 18th century called:‘Now I lay me down to sleep’.The earliest version is said to be written by Joseph Addison in an essay appearing in The Spectator on March 8, 1711.One of the later versions printed in The New England Primer goes: ’Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep, If I shall die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take. Amen’
When the Dylan says ‘Tyger, Tyger’ the first question we have to answer is: who does Dylan address here and why does he address this person as ‘Tyger, Tyger,’ a person who apparently has some of the characteristics of a tiger and is ‘tiger-like’? To answer this question we first take a closer look at the poem ‘The Tyger’. In this poem Blake elaborates on the wide spread and conventional idea that nature is a work of art and consequently nature must in some sort of a way represent and reflect its creator. The tiger is strikingly beautiful and at the same time awesome and horrific in its capacity for extreme violence.  Blake implicitly raises an existential and moral issue about the nature of the deity: who is this God and what kind of a God is He who could or would design and create such a terrifying wild beast as the Tyger? In other words:  what does the undeniable fact that evil and violence exist in this world tell us about the nature and intentions of God and how should we deal with a world where a  single being can at once be full of beauty and full of horror? Blake pictures a tiger which is at once perfectly beautiful and nevertheless perfectly destructive. For Blake it is obvious that only a very strong and powerful Creator can be capable of such a creation. The “forging” of the tiger - as Blake calls it-triggers off also moral questions not only about the presence of evil in this world but also about the origin of evil. The words ‘burning bright’ suggest the creation of destructive fire with all the implications of purification and destruction.
Blake, however, does not resolve the issue of the origin of evil but rather hints at a way to come to terms with this issue. This happens when in the same poem Blake contrasts the tiger with the lamb:
’Did he who made the lamb make thee?’. In contrast with ‘The Tyger’ Blake also wrote a poem called ‘The Lamb’:’ He is meek & he is mild, he became a little child: I a child & thou a lamb, we are called by his name.  Little Lamb God bless thee. Little Lamb God bless thee’.
The tiger and the lamb have been created by the same God. “The Tyger” consists of unanswered questions and leaves us to awe at the complexity of creation, the sheer magnitude of God’s power, the combination of the horrific and the beauty. The lamb on the other hand represents innocence, tenderness and submissiveness. The Lamb is God’s gift to a fallen world.The Lamb is His offering of reconciliation, to reconcile what would otherwise be irreconcilable, to conceive what would otherwise be inconceivable. We are invited to accept this great gift of God and we can do so, not by trying to understand but to accept what we cannot understand and to flee to the Lamb for comfort.
Dylan wrestles with the same problem of the origin of evil in this world elsewhere on this album, particularly in the previous song ‘Tempest’. When depicting the sinking of the Titanic Dylan first writes: ‘When the Reaper’s (Matt. 13:39) task had ended, sixteen hundred had gone to rest, the good, the bad, the rich, the poor, the loveliest and the best’. But then Dylan writes something very significant: ‘They waited at the landing, and they tried to understand, but there is no understanding for the judgment of God's hand’.  We see this same phenomenon in this final verse of ‘Roll on John’. We are invited not to try to understand what we cannot understand but to find comfort in the arms of the Almighty:’ I pray the Lord my soul to keep. In the forest of the night, cover him over and let him sleep’.
Therefore,‘Tyger, Tyger, burning bright’ may first of all have the connotation that the good and the evil, the beauty and the ugly exist side by side in this fallen world and senseless violence may lash out, ostensibly at random, as we have seen in the case of John Lennon when he was shot in the back.Yet,‘Tyger, Tyger, burning bright’ opens up another perspective.This may happen when the person addressed here as ‘Tyger, Tyger, burning bright’ is not John Lennon but in fact John the Apostle.
We already noted that John the Apostle is called the ‘Apostle of Light’ and that much of St. John’s work – both his gospel and his letters - is suffused with light encountering darkness and overcoming it.Quite rightly one may therefore say that John was a light ‘burning bright’. It is also not without reason that the phrase ‘You burnt so bright’ appears eight times in the chorus of the song and it now repeated in the final verse of the song. It is meant to bring things to a conclusion and to combine the strength of the ‘The Tyger’ with the intensity of the light.  And there was certainly tiger like strength and determination in John the Apostle.  Jesus called John and his brother James ‘boanerges’  which means ‘Sons of Thunder’. (Mark 3:17). John and James had an explosive and destructive temper just like a tiger, as we may read in Luke 9:54 when John and James said to Jesus: "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?". But it would not stay like that because, after walking with Jesus for a lifetime, the “Son of Thunder” earned a new nickname: the “Apostle of Love.”The meekness and submissiveness of the Lamb (Christ) overwhelmed John the Apostle and softened and subdued his’ tiger like’ characteristics.  The contrast between strength and weakness - the Tyger and the Lamb -, a prominent motif in Blake’s poetry, is also a prominent motif in the Gospel and Apocalypse of John the Apostle. In the Book of Revelation John no less than 25 times refers to the Lamb. It all has to do with the fact the forces of strength and power on the one hand (represented by the lion), and meekness, submissiveness and surrender on the other hand (represented by the Lamb) are perfectly united in the person of Jesus. John testifies of this notion in Revelation 5:5-7, when in a vision John sees Jesus having both the shape of a lion and a lamb. John the Apostle has taught us that the issue of the existence and origin of evil can only be resolved and be laid to rest if we flee to the Lamb for comfort and that is exactly what the poet is now going to do. It is the very reason why Dylan goes on to say ‘I pray the Lord my soul to keep’.
When Dylan says ‘I pray the Lord my soul to keep’, we see something decisive happening in the song. ‘I pray the Lord my soul to keep’ is much more than a recitation of a classic children's bedtime prayer from the 18th century called: ‘Now I lay me down to sleep’.  First of all there is a change of subject. Dylan no longer speaks of John Lennon, John the Apostle or any other ‘John’ for that matter, but turns to himself and instead of saying: ‘I pray the Lord HIS soul to keep’ he prays: ‘I pray the Lord MY soul to keep’.  It is as if he now says: ‘I do know what happened to the soul of John the Apostle and I do not know what happened to Lennon´s soul. But what about me? What will happen to my soul?  In the end this question is much more important than how history will look back and judge on my life and my achievements, and no matter how much I may have achieved in this life, I cannot redeem myself, therefore I humbly flee to God for redemption of my soul and ‘I pray the Lord my soul to keep’. Dylan confirmed the answer to this question himself in his 2012 RT Interview. When asked, "Is (touring) a fulfilling way of life?” Dylan replied,"No kind of life is fulfilling if your soul hasn't been redeemed."
When in the final line of the verse, it says: ‘In the forest of the night, cover him over and let him sleep’, the perspective changes again into a more generic direction. It is not ‘cover me over and let me sleep’ but cover him over and let him sleep’. It seems that the focus is now again shifted to John the Apostle but its generic use also includes the poet himself as if he invites his audience  to say this prayer also for  him personally. 
William Blake’s poem quoted above:‘Tyger! Tyger! burning bright, in the forest of the night’, evokes  yet another image of the tiger. Not the image of the tiger as a strong hunter but of the tiger being hunted down. Not the image of the tiger as a destructive killer but as victim of poachers. In your imagination you see those poachers who seek to trap and kill the tiger in the forest, not only for sport of game, but also to sell the skin of this beautiful, almost extinct,  animal just for financial benefit.  It seems like a primordial instinct of man in this fallen world, to kill what is strong, proud and strikingly beautiful, to create a world where beauty goes unrecognized. How can you survive in such a world? The only way out of ‘the forest of the night’, the darkness of this fallen world, is to pray to God: ‘cover him over and let him sleep’.  Just what John the Apostle said in his Book of Revelation Chapter 14 verse 13: “And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this down: Blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on. Yes, says the Spirit, they are blessed indeed, for they will rest from their hard work; for their good deeds follow them!” They will be covered over and sleep peacefully in the arms of God till finally the Latter Day will arrive at the end of times. One day the contrast between the destructive power of the tiger and its beauty will be wiped out as we read in Isaiah 11:6 “In that day the wolf and the lamb will live together; the leopard will lie down with the baby goat. The calf and the yearling will be safe with the lion, and a little child will lead them all”.

If ‘Tempest’ would be Dylan’s last album and ‘Roll on John ‘his has last official song, this final verse would be a very worthy ending. It says it all.

As always, please comment on this article. To do so please scroll down and push the button ‘reacties’.



[1]      «      3   |   4   |   5   |   6   |   7      »      [14]