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

Visitors to this website today: 14Total number of visitors to this website: 512864
Welcome to the website of Kees de Graaf
Kees de Graaf keesdegraaf.com

Is Dylan's "Murder Most Foul" a Red Herring? - by Kees de Graaf

bob_dylan_london_6[1].jpg

When we heard Dylan’s latest monumental masterpiece ‘Murder Most Foul’ for the first time, we immediately associated the song with Tempest’s closing masterpiece “Roll on John”. Now it has been seven years since we first analysed “Roll on John” on this website. Now after seven years of contemplation we have come to the conclusion that “Roll on John” is actually not at all about John Lennon and the Beatles, no matter how obvious the references to Lennon and the Beatles in the song are. We found strong arguments to assume that the words about John Lennon and the Beatles function as some sort of a lightning-conductor or a red herring and that in reality the song focusses on John the Apostle, the apostle of light who wrote the Gospel according to John and of course Dylan’s favourite book The Revelations of St. John. See for yourself if my arguments are compelling and read my analysis of “Roll on John” on my Bob Dylan song analysis page, elsewhere on this website.

The question that now intrigues is: can the same thing be said of ‘Murder Most Foul”? Is ‘Murder Most Foul’ really all about the murder of JFK and its impact on the American society or is it a red herring, is there somebody else lurking in the background to whom the poet actually refers? In some sort of a way “Murder Most Foul” reminds us of Dylan’s album “Knocked Out Loaded”(1986) on which Dylan covered a song called “They Killed Him” written by Kris Kristofferson. The refrain of the song “ My God, they killed Him” draws a bizarre and stunning conclusion to the murder of Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Jesus Christ. If the murder of JFK is to be qualified as “Murder Most Foul”, then certainly the murder of holy men like Gandhi and Martin Luther King must be defined as “Murder Most Foul” but what about the murder, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ whom the song calls “The only Son of God Almighty, the holy one called Jesus Christ”, is this not “Murder Most Foul” in its most extremis? Below we will list 10 instances of possible Christ references in “Murder Most Foul” hidden underneath the surface of the song. But the list is not complete ,there are more.
1.“Tomorrow is Friday, we’ll see what it brings” Dylan says in “Early Roman Kings”. MMF hints at Good Friday, the day Jesus was crucified: “A good day to be living and a good day to die”. “Good Friday” a good day to die indeed…. MMF goes on to say: “Being led to the slaughter like a sacrificial lamb”. It was John the Baptist wo in John 1:29 proclaimed Jesus to be the ”Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” and Jesus thereby fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy “he opened not his mouth, like a lamb that is led to the slaughter” (Isaiah 53:7 RSV).
2.“Say wait a minute boys, do you know who I am? Of course we do, we know who you are” reminds us of a man with an unclean spirit in the synagogue of Capernaum, the daemon of whom shouts out to Jesus: “I know who you are, the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24 RSV).
3.“It was a matter of timing and the timing was right” reflects Romans 5: 6 (NLT): “When we were utterly helpless, Christ came at just the right time and died for us sinners”.
4.“You got unpaid debts and we’ve come to collect” on the one hand represents all the hatred and vengeance from the Sanhedrin which led to Jesus ‘death sentence because of blasphemy but on the other hand- and at the same time- it shows God’s providential hand so that the debts – the sins- of the whole world were laid upon Jesus and could be reconciled.
5.“We’re gon’ kill you with hatred and without any respect, we’ll mock you and shock you, we’ll grin in your face, we’ve already got someone here to take your place, the day that they blew out the brains of the king”. Although they did not blow out the brain of Jesus like they did to JFK, this scene strikingly resembles to what happened to Jesus Christ when he was crucified. We read of this in Matthew 27:28-32 (BSB): “They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him. And they twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on His head. They put a staff in His right hand and knelt down before Him to mock Him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!”. Then they spat on Him and took the staff and struck Him on the head repeatedly. After they had mocked Him, they removed the robe and put His own clothes back on Him. Then they led Him away to crucify Him. Along the way they found a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross of Jesus”.
6. “We’ve already got someone here to take your place” represents Simon of Cyrene who was requisitioned by the Romans soldiers to take the place of Jesus and carry the cross, not as a token of compassion for Jesus but with the intention to add insult to injury to Jesus as if they said: “Look at this king, this King of the Jews, he has only one subject, one servant to carry his belongings”. It all happened the day when they blew out the life of the king of the Jews. The plot to kill Jesus was in a bizarre way “perfectly executed, skilfully done”. 
7. In verse 3 we find: “But his soul was not there where it was supposed to be at, for the last fifty years they’ve been searching for that. Freedom, oh freedom, freedom over me, hate to tell you, Mister, but only dead men are free”. Jesus says in Matthew 10: 28 that people can only kill your body but not your soul: “Don’t be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot touch your soul. Fear only God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (NLT). God the Father allowed people to kill the body of Jesus but they could not touch His soul. Psalm 16:10 is fulfilled in Jesus “For you will not leave my soul among the dead or allow your holy one to rot in the grave” NLT). When it says: “Freedom, oh freedom, freedom over me, hate to tell you, Mister, but only dead men are free” this not only a general statement saying that death relieves a man of his earthly duties and bondage like in the case of JFK but when we take a look at the death and resurrection of Christ, there may be more to it. Romans 6:8-10 says: “And since we died with Christ, we know we will also live with him. We are sure of this because Christ was raised from the dead, and he will never die again. Death no longer has any power over him. When he died, he died once to break the power of sin. But now that he lives, he lives for the glory of God. So you also should consider yourselves to be dead to the power of sin and alive to God through Christ Jesus”. The message is that all those who identify with the death and resurrection of Christ are set free in the true sense of the word and death loses its grip on people.
8. Then there is Zapruder’s 8mm film eye witness account: ”Zapruder’s film, I’ve seen that before, seen it thirty three times, maybe more, it’s vile and deceitful - it’s cruel and it’s mean, ugliest thing that you ever have seen”. Why does the poet say that he watched this film “thirty three times, maybe more”?. Nowadays there seems to be consensus among historians and theologians that Jesus Christ was 33 years old when he died on the Cross, but there is a margin of uncertainty, it may be a few years more. It may be the reason why it says here, “maybe more”. The poet takes one year of the life of Christ for each time he watched the film as if alluding to the 33 years of suffering of Jesus Christ and he specifically alludes to the end of Jesus’ life, which was ‘deceitful’ (Judas’s betrayal) and his trial and crucifixion which was “cruel and mean, the uglies thing that you have ever seen”.
9. They “killed him like a human sacrifice” echoes John 11:49-51 (NLT) Caiaphas, who was high priest at that time, said, “You don’t know what you’re talking about! You don’t realize that it’s better for you that one man should die for the people than for the whole nation to be destroyed. He did not say this on his own; as high priest at that time he was led to prophesy that Jesus would die for the entire nation”. To hold on to the power of the Sanhedrin, Caiaphas offered Jesus as ‘a human sacrifice’.
10. “The day that they killed him, someone said to me, “Son, the age of the anti-Christ has just only begun.” takes us back all the way to Revelation chapter 12:5-9 (NLT). After the victory of Christ, his crucifixion, resurrection and ascension into heaven, poetically summarized as “the day they killed him” Rev. 12:5 depicts the Ascension of Jesus into heaven: ”Her child (the child by which is meant Jesus) was snatched away from the dragon and was caught up to God and to his throne” . This caused the defeat of the dragon and he was forced out of heaven (Rev. 12:8) and when that happened this might be called the day when “the age of the anti-Christ had only just begun”. Peter says that the anti-Christ (the devil), in the shape of a roaring lion, is still raging on earth: “ Stay alert! Watch out for your great enemy, the devil. He prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8 NLT).”Stay alert” which are basically the same words Dylan used introducing MMF on his website: “Stay observant”. Paul makes it clear in his second letter to the Thessalonians Chapter 2 that as Judgement Day approaches the activity of the anti-Christ will come to a head (2 Thes.2:1-12) in a scorched earth policy.

We know that there are a lot of Dylan fans out there who will not be amused by this kind of interpretation. If so, please do not hesitate to comment on this article.

Bob Dylan's "Where Teardrops Fall" - an analysis by Kees de Graaf

20191229_082920.jpg

 Introduction
In ‘Chronicles’- Volume 1- Dylan devotes chapter 4 to the creative process that led to his exquisite come-back album ‘Oh Mercy’ (1989) and where we can find this precious gem ‘Where Teardrops Fall’. Dylan writes in ‘Chronicles’ that in this creative process, it felt as if parts of his soul received messages from angels, there was a big fire burning in the fireplace and the wind let it roar. Dylan writes of another song on ‘Oh Mercy’ , the song ‘Disease of Conceit’ that it ‘definitely has gospel overtones’. We not only believe that ‘Where Teardrops Fall’ has the same gospel overtones, in fact it is a downright gospel song. The song may be read as a solemn prayer to God. As we will outline below, lyrically “Where Teardrops Fall” shows quite some resemblance with Dylan’s “Beyond the Horizon” from the album “Modern Times”. These gospel overtones are not only apparent in the lyrics of the song but can also be subconsciously felt in the heartfelt saxophone solo John Hart plays near the end of the song. Dylan writes about this solo in ‘Chronicles’ Volume 1: ‘John Hart, played a sobbing solo that nearly took my breath away. The man was the spitting image of Blind Gary Davis, the singing reverend that I’d known years earlier. What was he doing here? Same guy, same cheeks and chin, fedora, dark glasses. Same build, same height, same long black coat, the works. …..like he’d been raised upright and was watching over things, keeping constant vigilance over what was happening……all of a sudden I know that I’m in the right place., doing the right things at the right time… felt like I had turned a corner and was seeing the sight of a god’s face…..”. Dylan was certainly inspired by Gary Davis, the gospel and blues singer and Dylan covered a few songs from him. Let’s see how we can piece all these things together in a detailed analysis of this song.
Verse 1.
Far away where the soft winds blow
Far away from it all
There is a place you go
Where teardrops fall
It seems obvious that by far “far way” the place is meant where God has His residence, far away in heaven.(Psalm 115:3). “Far away” does not mean that God cannot be close by at the same time (Phil. 4:5). It is God’s ultimate purpose to remove this distance and to dwell with man on the new earth to come (Rev. 21:3). Sometimes God reveals himself to man in a soft wind, a gentle breeze, like we find in Genesis 3:8 “When the cool evening breezes were blowing, the man and his wife heard the LORD God walking about in the garden”.(NLT). A “Soft wind” is sometimes no more than a low whisper, just like when God revealed himself to Elijah (1 Kings 19:12). This quiet place in heaven is “far away from it all”, it is far away from society’s every day’s bustle and hustle, far away from a world where there is no compassion. “There is a place to go” where there is “Shelter from the Storm”, (Isaiah 25:4 NIV) - a place “where it is always safe and warm”. “There is a place to go” where you are always welcome and this cannot be any other place than in heaven. In his song ‘Highlands’ – which might well be a metaphor for heaven – the poet calls this place the ‘Only place left to go’ and also the place ‘where I’ll be when I get called home’, that is the place where he will go when he dies. Now the poet qualifies this place -heaven- as the place “where teardrops fall”. At first glance, it may seem odd to qualify heaven as a place “where teardrops fall”. Is heaven not the place where tears are not supposed to fall but are instead dried?, because just like Rev. 21: 4 says : ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever.” (NLT). However, before tears can be dried, they must first fall. Heaven welcomes these tears. In his song ‘If you ever go to Houston’ Dylan says: ‘Put my tears in a bottle, screw the top on tight’. Dylan exactly echoes in that line what it says in Psalm 56: 8 “You keep track of all my sorrows. You have collected all my tears in your bottle. You have recorded each one in your book”. (NLT). Tears are precious in the eyes of God and worthy to be collected in a bottle and to be remembered into eternity for anyone who finds this bottle on some distant shore and reads the book of God. God sheds tears Himself and Jesus shows these tears. In the shortest verse in the Bible (John 14:35) it says: “Jesus wept”. Jesus wept and shed tears because of the death of his dear friend Lazarus. That is how God, how Jesus is, He is full of compassion and therefore He encourages us to shed our tears with him. Therefore heaven is the perfect place for teardrops to fall.
Verse 2.
Far away in the stormy night
Far away and over the wall
You are there in the flickering light
Where teardrops fall
God not only reveals Himself in “soft winds” such as in a gentle breeze -like we saw in the first verse- but also sometimes in a storm, “in a stormy night” just like it says in Job 38:31: “Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm”. (NIV).”Far away in the stormy night, far away over the wall” seems to suggest that to reach the place where God dwells, you should first go through a dark and “stormy night” and you should leap “over the wall”. At the same time – amidst all hardship - you may feel God’s presence, power and guidance very close to you, also “when the storms are raging on the rolling seas”(Make you Feel my love”). Isaiah 25:4 sums up the feeling of the poet: “You have been a refuge for the poor, a refuge for the needy in their distress, a shelter from the storm and a shade from the heat. For the breath of the ruthless is like a storm driving against a wall” (NIV).
“You are there in the flickering light” refers to the appearance of the glory of God as expressed in Ezekiel 1:27 “From what appeared to be his waist up, he looked like gleaming amber, flickering like a fire. And from his waist down, he looked like a burning flame, shining with splendour”.(NLT) Although like it says in 1 Tim.6:16 “He (God) alone can never die, and he lives in light so brilliant that no human can approach him” (NLT), nevertheless His appearance -majestic as it is - is not terrifying but comforting because at the same time near Him is the place “where teardrops fall”.
Verse 3 and first bridge.
We banged the drum slowly
And played the fife lowly
You know the song in my heart
In the turning of twilight
In the shadows of moonlight
You can show me a new place to start
The words “We banged the drum slowly, and played the fife lowly” echo an old traditional song called “Streets of Laredo” (or ”Cowboy’s Lament”) written by Duane Eddy and recorded a.o. by Johnny Cash.
Some of the lyrics read: “Then beat the drum slowly, play the Fife lowly, play the dead march as you carry me along”. In this song we are taken to a funeral of a cowboy – who knows he has done wrong- and to the accompanying funeral march. At a funeral march, you may here a slow drumbeat, mostly using a bodhran. A bodhran is said to be a goat-skin drum used in the playing of traditional Irish music. According to Wikipedia a fife is a small, high-pitched, transverse aerophone that is similar to the piccolo. The music at a funeral march is usually played in a minor key, in a slow and simple duple metre, imitating the solemn pace of a funeral procession. The slow beat of the drum and the low tones of the fife conveys the feeling of sadness and mourning caused by the death of a beloved one who is laid to rest. In “Beyond the Horizon” the poet basically expresses the same feeling as we find here: “I lost my true lover, in the dusk, in the dawn I have to recover , get up and go on”.
However, it looks as if the following joyful words “you know the song in my heart” are in contradiction with the sad words “we banged the drum slowly, and played the fife lowly” but things are not what they seem. Though confronted with deep sadness -the loss and death of a beloved - yet the poet finds solace in this joyful and comforting song in his heart, a joy that cannot be erased, not even by death and personal loss. This joyful song cannot be erased in his heart because it is a song that God has given to him to comfort him, a comfort that is stronger than any man can give. As his beloved is laid to rest, he feels his personal mortality, just like he says in his song ‘Til I fell in love with you’: ‘Now I feel like I’m coming to the end of my way, but I know God is my shield and he won’t lead me astray’, this line brightly reflects Psalm 28:7 where it says: “The LORD is my strength and shield. I trust him with all my heart. He helps me, and my heart is filled with joy. I burst out in songs of thanksgiving’.(NLT).Likewise, in his song ‘Mississippi’, mourning over paradise lost, cannot prevent the poet from rejoicing: ‘but my heart is not weary, it is light and its free’. The body may die, but the heart, the soul, lives on and on and is immortal. The hope which is drawn from the notion of immortality of the soul makes the poet shout for joy: “you know the song in my heart,” a joy that will never end.
It is “In the turning of twilight and “In the shadows of moonlight”, in the beautiful colours of dawn and dusk that God shows his glory and fidelity over mankind. When night turns into day, and day into night, God reveals himself to be eternally the same, also when times and seasons change. Also, even when “the moon is almost hidden” (Desolation Row) and “the shadows of moonlight” foretell nothing but doom, yet the poet knows that God takes care of him and that he always can come back to God and make a fresh start. It is the reason why he adds: “You can show me a new place to start”. The twilight, the start of a brand-new day symbolizes that -no matter how much you have done wrong - you can always make a new start with God.
Verse 4.
I’ve torn my clothes and I’ve drained the cup
Strippin’ away at it all
Thinking of you when the sun comes up
Where teardrops fall
To tear one’s clothes” is a Biblical expression. Sometimes this expression indicates bewilderment, exasperation and anger, just as in the case of the high priest in Matthew 26:65. Jesus – during his trial - declared Himself to be the Son of God and this is how the high priest responded to this statement: “then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy”. But more often and especially in the Old Testament “To tear one’s clothes” is an expression of deep sadness and mourning. This is how king David reacted when he heard the news that all of his sons were slain by Absalom: “The king stood up, tore his clothes and lay down on the ground; and all his attendants stood by with their clothes torn”.( 2 Sam. 13:31NIV). Within the context of the song “I’ve torn my clothes” may be a metaphor to express all the damage he has suffered, all the pain of mourning and regret, all the hardships the poet endured and which still show, presumably because of the loss of some beloved one. Likewise , “I’ve drained the cup” is another metaphor for ultimate suffering. “To drink the cup” is also a Biblical expression expressing preordained suffering e.g. John 18:11 where it says “Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" “To drain the cup” instead of “drink the cup” pictures an intensification of suffering. We find that in Rev. 14:10 where it says: “they, too, will drink the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath”. Therefore, when the poet says: “I’ve drained the cup” he intends to say that he has experienced suffering over a long period of time and descended to great depths of suffering. This personal and existential agony is best expressed in Dylan’s song ‘Not Dark Yet’, even to such an extent that he says ‘that behind every beautiful thing, there’s been some kind of pain’ a pain which afflicts both body and mind to the effect that he says: ‘every nerve in my body is so vacant and numb’. Only a person who has drained the cup of suffering to the bottom is entitled say such things.
According to the Cambridge Dictionary “to strip away something” means “to gradually reduce something important or something that has existed for a long time”. Therefore, within the context of the song, when it says “stripping away at it all” he intends to say that although he has gone through a long period of pain and suffering, he now, as time goes by, has more and more learnt to let things go and to come to terms with the situation he is in. They say that time cures all things and this is what at least to some degree has happened to the poet. But it seems clear the poet would never have come this far if he would not have received help from the powers above, from God. Therefore, the “you” in “thinking of you when the sun comes up” can best be understood as addressed to God. The poet finds great comfort in God’s presence and he is especially aware of this presence “when the sun comes up”. When the poet sees the beautiful colours of the sunrise in the sky, he is reminded of God’s continuous faithfulness, in the same way as when Noah saw the rainbow in the skies as proof of God’s faithfulness to his promises. “Thinking of you”, the “you” being the same God with whom Dylan made a covenant, just like Dylan cryptically hinted at in his 2004 CBS interview: ‘’It goes back to that destiny thing. I mean, I made a bargain with it, you know, long time ago’’. This contemplation of God fills him with great comfort and consolation because his tears are welcomed at a place “where teardrops fall” and which is also a place where tears will ultimately be dried.
Verse 5 and second bridge.
By rivers of blindness
In love and with kindness
We could hold up a toast if we meet
To the cuttin’ of fences
To sharpen the senses
That linger in the fireball heat
Remember what we wrote in the introductory remarks above about the spiritual presence in the studio of the late Blind Gary Davis, the singing reverend. While recording “Where teardrops fall” it felt as if Blind Gary Davis was there in the studio. Dylan writes in ‘Chronicles’ …..”like he’d been raised upright and was watching over things, keeping constant vigilance over what was happening”. Does this verse express a sub-consciousness longing to meet Blind Gary Davis “at the rivers of blindness” in the hereafter?. The late Gary Davis once wrote a song about the hereafter called "Going' to Sit Down on the Banks of the River". Some of the lyrics of this song read: “I'm gonna sit down on the banks of the river, and I won't be back no more, we're gonna have a good time when we all get there”. Note that in a way this resembles: “By rivers of blindness, in love and with kindness, we could hold up a toast if we meet”.
However, what fits much better we think is, that in the mind of the poet, this verse hints at an encounter between Jesus and the apostle Paul in the hereafter when they “hold up a toast” and look back on their work here on earth. During their first encounter here on earth as described in Acts 9:3-9, the apostle Paul – on his road to Damascus to persecute Christians - was made blind by Jesus for a period of three days. Now they meet again in the hereafter “by rivers of blindness” which is a poetic expression to remind the apostle how it all started with this blindness and how his blindness was healed and Paul subsequently became the elected apostle to spread the gospel of Jesus all over the world. As we learn from Rev. 22:2 a ‘river’ is a symbol for ultimate healing. It is as if at this river Paul is cured from his lifelong thorn in his flesh – a messenger from Satan who harassed him all his life (2 Cor.12:7)-. But now cured from this satanic teaser, Jesus and Paul meet again “in love and with kindness”, which means that they meet in a state of perfect – sinless- mutual love and kindness. Jesus’ and Paul’s work is now finished and they now hold up a toast to celebrate victory. The poet sees it all happening in his mind, that is why it now says: “We could hold up a toast if we meet”. It may sound weird that Jesus would “hold up a toast” when he would meet with his people but it is no so weird when we consider a text like Matt. 26:29 where Jesus says: “Mark my words—I will not drink wine again until the day I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”(NLT). By the end of his stay on earth Jesus -for the sake of his followers - subdued his joy in such a way that he voluntarily refrained from drinking the communal wine with his disciples until his work would be finished in his father’s kingdom. But when his work will be finished he will meet again with Paul and all of his brothers and sisters and start the eternal wedding by “holding up a toast” of new wine.
The following words “To the cutting’ of fences” elaborates on this theme. It is as if Paul is still in Jesus’ presence in the hereafter and that Jesus now looks back on his work on earth. It is Paul who – in different words - in Ephesians 2:14 elaborates on this ”cutting of fences”: “For Christ himself has brought peace to us. He united Jews and Gentiles into one people when, in his own body on the cross, he broke down the wall of hostility that separated us”(NLT). It was Jesus himself who broke down the wall, who“ cut the fences “of hostility between the Jews and the gentiles, blending all people, all races and sexes, into one peaceful nation and “holding up a toast” in celebration of this unification. But Jesus not only came “To the cutting’ of fences” but subsequently also “to sharpen the senses that linger in the fireball heat”. “To sharpen the senses that linger in the fireball heat” may hint at the descent of the Holy Spirit on all people during the Jewish Pentecost, on Whitsuntide (Acts 2:1-13). To understand what is meant here, it may be useful to take a look at another song where Dylan also alludes to the work of the Holy Spirit. It is in his song “Summer Days” Dylan would again refer to the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost as described in the book of Acts. “Summer Days” says: “Well, I’m leaving in the morning as soon as the dark clouds lift, Yes, I’m leaving in the morning just as soon as the dark clouds lift, gonna break in the roof—set fire to the place as a parting gift”. When it says: I’m leaving as soon as the dark clouds lift”, it seems obvious here that the poet speaks of Jesus’ Ascension into heaven as described in Acts 1:4-11. It alludes to Acts 1:9 where it says: “After saying this, he (Jesus) was taken up into a cloud while they were watching, and they could no longer see him” (NLT). Jesus had promised that after his Ascension into heaven he would send the Holy Spirit (e.g. John 14:15-17,25) as a “gift”. Acts 2:38 confirms this: “Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”. The Holy Spirit is Jesus’ ‘parting gift’.
The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit usually reveals Himself by means of wind and fire. We read of wind in Act 2:2: “Suddenly, there was a sound from heaven like the roaring of a mighty windstorm, and it filled the house where they were sitting”(NLT). This wind “filled the house”, the windstorm and the fire- so to say -broke through the roof of the house, that’s why “Summer Days” says: “gonna break in the roof”. We read of fire in Acts 2:3. We see the Spirit descend into the house in the shape of “tongues of fire”. Acts 2:3: “then, what looked like flames or tongues of fire appeared and settled on each of them”(NLT). This very much corresponds with “set fire to the place as a parting gift”.
In the same way, “fire” in the “fireball heat” in is a poetic allusion to the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit- seen at Pentecost as “tongues of fire”- is seen here as a “fireball” that has been rolling all over the world since Pentecost. The “heat” in the fireball represents the zeal of the Holy Spirit to distribute al which Jesus has accomplished to all his followers.
Therefore, when it says “to sharpen the senses” that linger in the fireball heat, the poet may refer to the gift of discernment which the Spirit gives to the believers, just like Paul says in Phil.1:9,10: “And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent”(RSV). It is the Holy Spirit who sharpens the senses of the believer to discern between right and wrong, good and evil. This gift of discernment “lingers” in the fireball heat. “To linger” may mean that this gift abides in the Holy Spirit and is continuously waiting to be given to all who pray for it.
Verse 6.
Roses are red, violets are blue
And time is beginning to crawl
I just might have to come see you
Where teardrops fall
According to Wikipedia "Roses Are Red" can refer to a specific poem, or a class of poems inspired by that poem”. Wikipedia also states that “The origins of the poem may be traced at least as far back as to the following lines written in 1590 by Sir Edmund Spenser from his epic The Faerie Queene (Book Three, Canto 6, Stanza 6.”, where it says: “In a fresh fountaine, farre from all mens vew, She bath'd her brest, the boyling heat t'allay; She bath'd with roses red, and violets blew, and all the sweetest flowres, that in the forrest grew”. “Roses are red and violets are blue” has appeared in all sorts of nursery rhyme and here in this song it presumably expresses the beauty of these flowers, a beauty for which the poet stands in awe of its creator. It reminds us seeing Dylan meticulously examining a rose on the sleeve of the album “Shot of Love”. Likewise, on that same album, in his masterpiece “Every Grain of Sand” Dylan observes: “I can see the Master’s hand in every leaf that trembles and in every grain of sand”.
“And time is beginning to crawl” means that time is beginning to pass by slowly. When you have good time, time seems to go by very fast. When you are in great pain, times seems to go by very slowly. Dylan expresses both notions in his song ‘Standing in the Doorway’: “Yesterday everything was going too fast, today, it’s moving too slow”. Here, the poet has “drained the cup” of suffering and he just can’t wait to be released and relieved and meet his Saviour and Creator. In “Can’t Wait” the poet is “standing at the gate” of heaven and as if in despair cries out “I don’t know how much longer I can wait” but here it is not so much despair but rather resignation and joyful surrender because he knows that at any minute he can be released and meet God. This notion is expressed in “I just might have to come see you”. These words express both necessity and longing. Necessity on the one hand because as 2 Cor. 5:10 says “For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ (RSV)”. And longing on the other hand because the poet is not afraid for this encounter, he longs to see God because it is also the place “Where teardrops fall”. It is the place where mercy prevails.

 

Voor wie ben je? Israel of de Palestijnen?

naamloos.png

Voor wie ben je? Israël of de Palestijnen?

In Jozua 5:13,14 (NBV) lezen we: 'Toen Jozua eens in de omgeving van Jericho liep, zag hij plotseling een man tegenover zich met een getrokken zwaard in de hand. Jozua ging op hem af en vroeg: ’Hoor je bij ons of bij de vijand?’. De man antwoordde: ‘Bij geen van beide, ik ben de aanvoerder van het leger van de HEER’.

Bob Dylan heeft in 1962 een lied geschreven met als titel ‘With God on our Side’. Hierin beschrijft hij hoe oorlogen en conflicten een spoor van bloed vergieten door de geschiedenis getrokken hebben. Of het nu de miljoenen Indianen waren die vermoord werden, de vele doden in de Amerikaanse burger oorlog, de miljoenen doden in de eerste en tweede wereld oorlog , iedere natie of bevolkingsgroep was er vast van overtuigd God aan zijn zijde te hebben in die oorlog of in dat conflict. ‘God wil het’ was de strijdkreet van de Kruisvaarders.
Als we nu naar bovenstaande tekst kijken, dan is het merkwaardig dat God door de aanvoerder van het leger van de HEER aan Jozua laat weten dat God in deze oorlog geen partij kiest. Hoe kan dat? Jericho moest toch in opdracht van de HEER op de Kanaänieten veroverd worden, dan kan het toch niet anders of God staat aan de zijde van Israël?
De NBV heeft hier vertaald ‘Bij geen van beide’. In het Hebreeuws staat er maar één woord : ‘Lo’. ‘Lo’ betekent letterlijk: ‘niet’, vaak vertaald met ‘Neen’ (SV). Toch geeft de vertaling van het NBV ‘Bij geen van beide’ de juiste bedoeling weer. Als aanvoerder in dit geval ‘Neen’ of ‘niet’ zegt, dan bedoelt de Engel dat hij geen partij kiest. In feite zegt hij dat God geen partij kiest. Jozua ziet deze oorlog kennelijk als een oorlog van Israël . Een oorlog om de Israëlitische belangen te dienen en dus moet God wel tegen de Kanaänieten zijn. Maar zo simpel ligt dat niet. God laat zich niet achter de wagens van mensen spannen die zo hun eigen bedoelingen hebben. Van eigen oorlogen gruwt God en Hij geeft daarvoor nooit sanctie, ook al ligt er een landbelofte van God zelf. Het is nl. Gods oorlog. En dat niet omdat God oorlog wil want God wil nooit een oorlog voeren zoals mensen een oorlog voeren. De Kanaänieten hebben God nl. de oorlog verklaard. Ze willen hoe dan ook voorkomen dat Israël het beloofde land binnen trekt. En daarachter zit een satanisch plan. Als dat volk vaste voet krijgt in het beloofde land, dan kan uiteindelijk de beloofde Messias komen. Dat willen die volken verhinderen, desnoods over hun lijk. Maar dat kan God niet laten gebeuren, want God wil zijn onuitsprekelijke liefde en barmhartigheid tonen in de Messias en Hij laat -net zoals destijds bij de uittocht uit Egypte - Zijn barmhartigheid niet tegenhouden.
Nu de Messias is gekomen verandert er veel. We leven sindsdien in de tijd dat zwaarden tot ploegscharen zijn omgesmeed. Zo behoort het althans te zijn. We hebben nu zicht op het hemelse Jeruzalem dat uit de hemel neerdaalt op aarde. Alle aardse landclaims op het land van een ander, komen hierdoor te vervallen. Nog méér dan voor de komst van Christus, geldt nu dat ieder volk een ander volk zijn plek op aarde moet gunnen. Dat geldt voor Indianen en Aboriginals, voor Koerden en Turken, voor Israëliërs en Palestijnen. Er bestaat daarom niet meer zoiets als een rechtvaardige oorlog. Zijn we daarmee Pacifist geworden. Weg met alle legers? Een soort ‘gebroken geweertje 2.0’? Nee , dat nu ook weer niet. We leven nl. nog steeds in een gebroken wereld. Agressie, landjepik, terreuraanslagen, ze blijven helaas voorkomen. Tegen agressie en terreur mag je je verdedigen. Sterker nog, een overheid moet zich daartegen verdedigen en zijn burgers beschermen. Het verschil wordt veelal bepaald door de vraag wat jouw land heeft: heeft het een Ministerie van Oorlog of een Ministerie van Defensie? Een Minister van Oorlog of een Minister van Defensie?.
‘Geen van beide’ was toen het antwoord aan Jozua, ondanks de landbelofte. Daarom als je nu vandaag weer die vraag stelt: voor wie ben je? Voor Israël of de Palestijnen?, dan moet weer het antwoord zijn: ‘Voor geen van beide’. We staan nu nl. voor een andere keuze, want Jezus zegt in Luc 11:23: ‘’Wie niet met mij is, is tegen mij”. Wie niet voor Jezus kiest, kiest voor Zijn tegenstander Beëlzebul. Hier moet je wel kiezen. Als dezelfde vraag die aan Jozua gesteld werd: : ’Hoor je bij ons of bij de vijand?’ nu ook vandaag aan ons gesteld wordt, dan moet ons antwoord zijn: “Ik hoor bij Hem, bij Jezus”. En daarmee kies je voor Zijn rijk van vrede.

Bob Dylan's "Mississippi" - an analysis by Kees de Graaf - Part 3.

AlanSpeziale_Torino2015_2[1].jpg

 

Verse 9.
Well my ship’s been split to splinters and it’s sinking fast
I’m drowning in the poison, got no future, got no past
But my heart is not weary, it’s light and it’s free
I’ve got nothing but affection for all those who’ve sailed with me.
The beautiful ‘s’ alliteration in the first line is noteworthy. This ‘s’ alliteration in the first line combined with the use of ‘s’ in ‘poison’’, the ‘s’ like sound in ‘future’ and the ‘s’ in ‘past’ turns these first lines into a compact statement which very much expresses an atmosphere of mental alienation. It is the same feeling of alienation which is so emphatically present on the album “Time out of Mind” for which this song was originally composed in 1997. When you hear the words ”Well my ship’s been split to splinters and it’s sinking fast, and I’m drowning in the poison” you can imagine some lonesome pilgrim “going down the (Mississippi) river, down to New Orleans” (Trying to get to Heaven). Well, his ship has been split to splinters and it has sunk and now he is “ wading through the high muddy water with the heat rising in his eyes”. The words from ‘Standing in the Doorway’ echo: I “got no place left to turn, I got nothing left to burn”.
The poet adds: “got no future, got no past”. When the future looks harsh, grim and unpromising, one may say that a person has no future to look forward to. But it is much harder imagining a person with “no past”, no matter how dreadful this past may have been. Every living soul- more or less- has a past. When a person says that he has “no past” he intends to say that does not have past on which he can be proud. However, “got no future, got no past” is usually said of God and if this is intended, it may add a spiritual connotation to this stanza. Only God is said to have no future or past. To have a future or a past is to be temporally contingent. God is said to live in an eternal present. Here one may bring in a Christ like reference. Because, what can be said of God, can be said of Jesus too. He is God too (Phil. 2:6) and like of God the Father, Jesus, the Son of God, has no future or past. If we follow this track this whole stanza may tell us something of what Jesus once experienced. Jesus who – as Dylan hints at in ‘Not Dark Yet’ - had “not even room enough to be anywhere” (Luke 9:58) and was outlawed and bereft of everything. Therefore from a human point of view one may say that Jesus’ “ship has been split to splinters and it’s sinking fast” and, Jesus, constantly harassed by the Pharisees and falsely accused by the Sanhedrin, was “drowning in the poison” all around him.
The words “But my heart is not weary, it’s light and it’s free, I’ve got nothing but affection for all those who’ve sailed with me” are the first words in the song that -amidst all darkness- strike a positive note. The words may again hint at this lonesome pilgrim, who going down the Mississippi, down to New Orleans, who, amidst all hardships, has a free conscience and feels sympathetic towards all his fellow travellers who endure the same problems on this journey. If you continue following the spiritual train of thought, the words: “But my heart is not weary, it’s light and it’s free, I’ve got nothing but affection for all those who’ve sailed with me” can also make good spiritual sense. In the revised lyrics of ‘Pay in Blood’ Dylan now says: “My conscience is free, what about you?”. The poet’s free heart, his free conscience, has everything to do with the theme of the song ‘Pay in Blood’. Jesus voluntarily paid with his blood on the poet’s behalf which enabled Jesus to set the poet free and give him a free conscience. Jesus’ lightness and freedom became the poet’s lightness and freedom. Jesus took over his weariness and now the poet’s heart is no longer weary. Moreover, as a result of all this, there is now room in the poet’s heart for others, there is room for affection towards all of his fellow travellers: I’ve got nothing but affection for all those who’ve sailed with me”. Redemption leads to love for all those who are on the same road that leads to a bright future. Redemption leads to a strong brotherhood, to mutual love and affection, just like Dylan wrote in his song “Ain’t Talking”: “All my loyal and much-loved companions, they approve of me and share my code”.
Verse 10.
Everybody moving, if they ain’t already there
Everybody got to move somewhere
Stick with me baby, stick with me anyhow
Things should start to get interesting right about now
In the introductive lines above, we wrote that there is quite a lot of ‘destiny’ in this song. The words “Everybody moving, if they ain’t already there, everybody got to move somewhere” are exemplary for this destiny. This is a phenomenon we often see in Dylan’s work. The camera zooms out and we get a sort of helicopter view. You start to see things from a distance, a sort of heavenly time lapse in which you see all people of all ages move to their ultimate destiny. Likewise the poet says in “Cant Wait” that “ there are people all around, some on their way up, some on their way down”. The words “Everybody moving, if they ain’t already there, everybody got to move somewhere” express this idea of eternal separation we spoke about earlier. We give a few more examples to demonstrate this concept of eternal separation. In his song “Most Likely You Go Your Way (and I’ll Go Mine”) it says: “Then time will tell just who fell , and who’s been left behind, when you go your way and I go mine”. Or more recently from the song ”Tempest”: ‘’All the lords and ladies, heading for their eternal home”. Dylan sees this process of eternal separation occur as a result of the absolute distance there is between right and wrong. Ultimately the poet sees the Apocalyptic view of “the few who will judge the many” (1 Cor. 6:2) (“Ring them Bells”). “Everybody moving”, that is, some of the living are on their way to this judgement, “if they ain’t already there” that is, some have already died and are awaiting this judgement on the Latter Day. ”Everybody got to move somewhere” may mean that ultimately all will be judged and go to their eternal home. Does this whole process wipe out human moral responsibility?. No it doesn’t. But in the human mind there is always tension between divine predestination and human responsibility. The interaction between predestination and human responsibility is not transparent for the human mind, the human mind simply misses a dimension to see through all this, only God can see through all this. This makes this whole process of pre-destination and human responsibility not less interesting, on the contrary. It may be the reason why the poet goes on to say: “Stick with me baby, stick with me anyhow, things should start to get interesting right about now”. It is true, in his song “High Water(for Charley Patton)”, Dylan- dealing with Charles Darwin- has George Lewis say “don’t open up your mind boys to every conceivable point of view”. But here it is as if the poet encourages and begs his fellow companion to open up her mind: “Stick with me baby, stick with me anyhow” which means “stick with me”, don’t give up on me, now that things get not only complicated but also very interesting. The stakes are high here. “Things should start to get interesting right about now”, interesting things happen at the very moment when human decision and God’s predestination coincide, when you are on the cross roads of life and big decisions are made which way to go. Once you have made this decision, there is no turning back and the poet begs his companion not to leave him and go in an opposite direction even now when the poet is in a jam. The next verse speaks of the jam the poet is in.
Verse 11 and third bridge.
My clothes are wet, tight on my skin
Not as tight as the corner that I painted myself in
I know that fortune is waiting to be kind
So give me your hand and say you’ll be mine.
When it says here: “My clothes are wet, tight on my skin” the metaphor applied in verse 9 of a sinking ship that has been split to splinters, is continued in this verse. The poet metaphorically survived the shipwreck and had to swim for his life. He made it to the shore but now he is wet to the skin. Basically the same idea as expressed in the first bridge of the song is expressed here: “Got nothing for you, I had nothing before, don’t even have anything for myself anymore”, albeit, his soaked clothes are apparently the only thing he has left. “My clothes are wet, tight on my skin” may have something passive in it . In a way destiny brought the ship down and there is nothing he could do to stop it from sinking and the result is that “My clothes are wet, tight on my skin”. But the next line: “Not as tight as the corner that I painted myself in” is more active than passive. Personal responsibility for painting himself in a corner cannot be wiped out. “To paint oneself in a corner” is usually understood of a person who has got oneself into a difficulty from which one cannot extricate oneself, or according to Wiktionary it derives “From the idea that a person painting the floor of a room may inadvertently apply the paint everywhere except the corner that the person is standing in, so that to leave the room the person has no choice but to step on the freshly painted floor and damage it”. “Not as tight as the corner that I painted myself in” may say something about the human condition. Man’s disobedience led to his downfall and now man is unable to extricate himself from the precarious situation he is in. Man has painted himself in a corner, man is in a jam, and now the only thing that can save him is redemption. Elsewhere (Ain’t Talking) the poet hints at this redemption when he says: “Who says I can’t get heavenly aid”. In other words: heavenly aid is available, no matter what people think. Redemption may enable him to escape from the tight corner the poet has painted himself in. This is good news of which the next two lines testify: “I know that fortune is waiting to be kind, so give me your hand and say you’ll be mine”. Hope shimmers through in these words and the poet feels certain that whatever is in store for him will be materialized. “Fortune” here does not primarily mean “chance” or “good luck” and the way it effects one’s life. It seems to us that here “Fortune” much more stands for “Peace and harmony and the blessings of tranquillity” of Dylan’s song “Moonlight”. “Fortune is waiting to be kind” may mean that this peace, harmony and tranquillity has been in store for him all along and is now waiting to be unpacked. much in the same way as a bride anxiously waits for the arrival of the groom on the day of her wedding.
“I know that fortune is waiting to be kind” may lift your weary heart to contemplate how it will be in heaven, in the same way as Dylan says in “Ain’t Talking”: “It’s bright in the heavens and the wheels are flying ,fame and honour (fortune) never seem to fade, the fire’s gone out but the light is never dying”.
The main characteristic of a really exquisite thing is, that it always invites others to join in. So when the poet adds “give me your hand and say you’ll be mine”, the poet knows that the best is still to come and he invites his lover or companion to join in and to surrender to him. “Give me your hand and say you’ll be mine”, echoes Shakespeare’s “Measure for Measure”. In Act 5, Scene 1 Duke Vincentio says:
If he be like your brother, for his sake
Is he pardon’d; and, for your lovely sake,
Give me your hand and say you will be mine”.
A Christ like interpretation of “give me your hand and say you’ll be mine” is also possible. This is a phenomenon not at all unusual in the poetry of Dylan. Dylan’s “Make you feel My Love” is a classic example of this. One may say that in “Make you feel My Love” references to Christ are more explicit. For more details see my analysis of this song elsewhere on this website. Here in this song you have to read references to Christ between the lines and if you do, it can make good sense. Jesus compares his upcoming Kingdom of Heaven often with a treasure, a fortune, (Mat. 13,44-46), an imperishable, undefiled and unfading heritage which is kept in heaven (1 Peter1:4) and is waiting to be unpacked “for all those who sailed with me”. It is as if Jesus says: “I know that fortune is waiting to be kind, surrender to me, we go together through life to our destination, give me your hand ,I will protect and guide you, you are my property and I’m waiting for you to say that you’ll be mine”.
Verse 12.
Well, the emptiness is endless, cold as the clay
You can always come back, but you can’t come back all the way
Only one thing I did wrong
Stayed in Mississippi a day too long
Dylan here follows the style of the Biblical prophets who intersperse promises of future glory and fortune with threats for those who rebel. (compare e.g. Isaiah 66: 18-23 with Isaiah 66:24).Therefore, it is not unusual that promising words like “I know that fortune is waiting to be kind” are immediately followed by gloomy words like “Well, the emptiness is endless, cold as the clay”. The double alliteration in this line is striking and- again like in verse 9- renders this line into a compact statement. “The emptiness is endless” makes you think of an endless, lonesome, desolate and also hostile universe where no living creature can survive. This emptiness is said to be “cold as the clay”. The words “Cold as the clay” may be inspired by a book from Alvin Schwartz called ‘Scary stories to tell in the dark’ . In story eight called ‘Cold as Clay’, a farmer’s daughter put her hand on her lover’s forehead -named Jim - and says: “Why are you cold as clay”. “I hope you are not ill” and she wrapped her handkerchief around his head. Later on, her lover Jim died and was buried. For some reason they opened Jim’s grave and found her handkerchief around his head.
However, it seems more likely that the words “Cold as the clay” refer to a traditional Western cowboy ballad called ‘The Streets of Laredo” also known as the ”Cowboy’s Lament”. This song was also recorded by Johnny Cash. In this ballad a dying cowboy tells his story to a living one. The lyrics start with: “As I walked out on the streets of Laredo - As I walked out on Laredo one day, I spied a poor cowboy wrapped in white linen, wrapped in white linen as cold as the clay And onwards we read: “The streets of Laredo grew cold as the clay”. Both Alvin Schwartz’s book and the ballad ‘The streets of Laredo ’have this in common that they both deal with death. For that reason, it is possible to interpret the words “the emptiness is endless, cold as the clay” as belonging to a permanent status after death for which there is no turning back. Some people say that hell is a metaphor for a place where God is not present and has withdrawn, resulting in an extremist emptiness and loneliness. One may also say that the words “the emptiness is endless, cold as the clay” represent the polar opposite of words like ‘a place where it’s always safe and warm’ from Dylan’s ‘Shelter from the Storm’.
So, the words “the emptiness is endless, cold as the clay” may speak of an eternal and dreadful status quo after death, however, the promising and reassuring words that follow: “You can always come back, but you can’t come back all the way” are addressed not to those who are dead but to those who are still among the living. It is possible to interpret the words “You can always come back, but you can’t come back all the way” in a secular way as words directed to a lover with whom he apparently had a fallen out. Now he is ready to make it up with her and saysyou can always come back”. However, whenever you have had a serious break-up, you suffer damage and the scars caused by this break-up remain and still cause pain, even when you have become reconciled. It is the reason why the poet adds: “but you can’t come back all the way”. Here you may find the same mood as in Dylan’s song ‘Never gonna be the Same Again” where it says: “Now, I can’t go back to what was, baby, I can’t unring the bell”. “You can always come back, but you can’t come back all the way” can also be understood spiritually, in a Christ like way. If so, it is as if Christ says: “You need not end up in this endless emptiness, because as long as you are alive you can always come back to me; I’m always there and ready to forgive you, I paid in blood for you. However, in this life- although I have forgiven you - I cannot wipe out all the consequences of sin done the past and in this sense “you can’t come back all the way”. The words “ you can’t come back all the way” come close to what it says in ‘Not Dark Yet’: “I’ve still got the scars that the sun (or Son) didn’t heal”. Some have argued that the ‘sun’ cannot heal scars, in fact exposure of scars to the sun makes the scars worse, therefore when Dylan writes ‘sun’ here, he must have meant ‘Son’ in the sense of the Son of God, Jesus. When we apply this meaning here it is as if Jesus says: “You can always come back”, I’m ready to take you back and accept you because I have forgiven you, but I cannot take away the scars which sin has caused yet so “you can’t come back all the way”.
Then for the third and last time in the song the refrain follows: “Only one thing I did wrong, stayed in Mississippi a day too long”. We already explored the possible meaning of this refrain above under the first and second refrain, here we wrap things up by outlining the restriction which the refrain offers on the line immediately leading up to each of the three refrains.
The first refrain follows the words: “All my powers of expression and thoughts so sublime, could never do you justice in reason or rhyme”. One could conclude that because the poet stayed in Mississippi a day too long, he has become unable to do justice in reason or rhyme to his creator. Sin- staying on too long – bereft the poet of this capacity to do justice to his Creator.
The second refrain follows the words: “Well I got here following the southern star, I crossed that river just to be where you are”. One may conclude that because the poet stayed in Mississippi a day too long, redemption was necessary to bring relief. And relief came. It happened when the river was “crossed”. Some say that “crossed” may be a covered reference to the cross at Cavalry. We think this is farfetched. On the other hand, one may say that the ultimate goal of redemption is that God will dwell with men, just like Dylan’s favourite Bible book The Revelation of St. John says in Chapter 21:3 “Behold the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people”. God wants to be “just where you are.
The third refrain follows the words: “You can always come back, but you can’t come back all the way”.
One may conclude that because the poet stayed in Mississippi a day too long, he constantly needs to come back and is in need of redemption as long as he is here on this earth. However, because he stayed in Mississippi a day too long, he “can’t come back all the way” the consequences of sin cannot be wiped out and as long as you live and the scars remain.
You are invited to comment on this article by pressing the button 'reacties' below.

 

God is Liefde (5)

God is Liefde (5).
Mijn buurman heeft gereageerd op “God is Liefde” (4) en schrijft:
goed om te lezen dat jij een enorme stap in mijn richting doet. God is in jouw nieuwe verhaal niet meer de "almachtige" maar de "gezaghebbende". Een essentieel verschil wat mij betreft. De mens kan dus zelf bepalen of hij zich onderwerpt aan God en zich door hem laat straffen of dat hij God negeert omdat hij het gezag van God niet erkent”.
Natuurlijk wil ik graag een enorme stap in de richting van mijn buurman maken. God is zeker dé Gezaghebbende. En Hij heeft recht op dat gezag, op die lof en aanbidding. Maar ik heb daarmee beslist niet willen zeggen dat Hij niet tegelijkertijd ook dé “Almachtige” zou zijn. Integendeel. Zijn Liefde wordt voortgestuwd door Zijn Almacht. Hij wil- ondanks alle tegenstand - Zijn genade en barmhartigheid, liefde en rechtvaardigheid doorzetten en er is niets of niemand die Hem daarin kan tegenhouden. Zijn liefde zal de eindoverwinning op het kwade gaan behalen. Maar dat proces heeft Zijn tijd nodig.
En dan komt het woord “geduld” om de hoek kijken.
“Geduld” is een eigenschap die uit Gods liefde voortkomt. Hartstocht wil alles ogenblikkelijk, maar echte liefde kan wachten op het juiste moment. God laat het kwade in deze wereld nog toe omdat Hij geduld heeft. Die tijd gebruikt Hij om nog veel mensen naar zich toe te trekken. Maar er komt zeker een keer een einde aan.
Een eigenschap van de ware liefde is ook dat die liefde niet wil dwingen. Gods liefde nodigt uit maar dwingt nooit. Dus heeft mijn buurman in zekere zin gelijk wanneer hij boven stelt dat de mens zelf kan bepalen of hij zich al dan niet aan God onderwerpt of Zijn gezag al dan niet aanvaardt. God grijpt (nog) niet in, ook als mensen tegen Hem kiezen. Echte liefde is dus een keuze. God treedt in zekere zin terug om ons deze keuze te laten maken. De vraag is: Geef ik mij over aan Zijn liefde of niet?. Aanvaard ik Zijn liefdes aanbod of niet?. En iedereen die Zijn liefdesaanbod aanvaard zal tot de ontdekking komen dat God in deze liefdesrelatie altijd de eerste is. Het is Zijn initiatief. En dat is genade. Daarvan leven we. Daarvan leven we eeuwig. Van genade.

God is Liefde (4)

God is Liefde (4).
In “God is Liefde (3)”heb ik gezegd dat mijn buurman nog meer pijlen op zijn boog heeft. Ik citeer wat hij nog meer te zeggen heeft:
Verder heb ik gezegd dat het mij zou tegenvallen als de God die jij beschrijft bestaat o.a. omdat het leven dan zinloos is en op zijn hoogst leidt tot een bestaan in dienst van een despoot die alleen mensen onder zich duldt en niet naast hem. "Ik deel alles met je maar het is en blijft van mij" is niet wat ik onder delen versta en voor mij zeker geen liefde. "Je mag gratis in mijn huis wonen en alles in dit huis vrij gebruiken als je maar, uit vrije wil, doet wat ik zeg en mij als absolute macht boven je duldt", neigt voor mij eerder naar slavernij dan naar liefde”.
De buurman heeft vet gedrukt “die jij beschrijft”. Als ik inderdaad een eigen beschrijving van God heb gegeven dan heeft mijn buurman gelijk. Dan zou ik een beeld van God neerzetten wat niet in overeenstemming is met wat God over Zichzelf zegt in de Bijbel. Maar klopt dit wel?
Ik heb juist willen benadrukken dat God de mens onvoorwaardelijk lief heeft. God is liefde en daarom doet Hij alles uit liefde en kan en wil Hij niets anders dan lief hebben. God heeft die mens aan het begin – in de Hof van Eden – alles gegeven wat hij nodig had om heel de schepping te ontplooien en tot bloei te brengen. Om langs een evolutionaire weg alles te ontdekken wat er te ontdekken valt. De mens kreeg daarin de vrije hand. Maar het geheel krijgt alleen gestalte in een band van liefde en trouw aan zijn Schepper, kortom in een liefdesrelatie met zijn Schepper. En binnen die wederzijdse liefdes relatie past het de mens God te eren als zijn Schepper. Schepper en schepsel vloeien namelijk nooit in elkaar over. En zolang de mens God bleef lief hebben was de verhouding tussen Schepper en schepsel ook geen enkel probleem. integendeel, het deed de mens juist goed om God te eren, te danken en te prijzen voor zoveel liefde.
Als ik naar het bovenstaande citaat van mijn buurman bekijk, dan zie ik dat mijn buurman een gezagsprobleem ziet tussen God en mens; een probleem dat in het begin- toen de mens nog niet in zonde was gevallen - helemaal niet bestond.
Maar de mens viel in zonde en met hem zijn nl. allemaal gevallen mensen en dat geldt zowel voor mijzelf als mijn buurman. Het gevolg hiervan is dat als iemand anders gezag over ons uitoefent, wij de neiging hebben om vanuit onszelf dit ‘gezag’ als iets negatiefs zijn te zien, iemand speelt de baas over jou, jij moet er onderdoor en die ander gehoorzamen. Jij, vanuit jouw kant, probeert zoveel mogelijk onder dat gezag uit te komen.
Toch is dat niet het wezenlijke van het begrip ‘gezag’ zoals God dat bedoeld heeft. ‘Gezag’ is door onze val in zonden maar al te vaak verworden tot het terroriseren van de ander. Gezag zoals God dat oorspronkelijk bedoeld heeft is van een geheel andere aard. Het wezenlijke van ‘gezag’ zoals de Bijbel dat ziet, bestaat in de eerste plaats nl. uit ‘dienen’. ’Dienen’ betekent: Je stelt uit liefde alles wat je hebt ter beschikking van die ander. Om die ander te redden, te helpen en bij te staan. Jezus is daar het beste voorbeeld van. Omdat Jezus vrijwillig een slavendienst op zich genomen heeft om ons te kunnen redden, heeft God hem de allerhoogste plaats in de kosmos gegeven (Fil.2:8,9). Zijn gezag ontleent Hij aan Zijn ‘dienen’ voor ons.
Ook in het gewone leven hebben mensen ontzag voor een leider die zichzelf heeft opgeofferd voor het welzijn van het volk. En dergelijke leider heeft a.h.w. een natuurlijk gezag, juist omdat hij door alle pijn is heen gegaan die jij nu mee kan maken. Dat zijn de echte leiders. Maar een despoot of dictator die door geweld aan de macht is gekomen en alleen maar gericht is op eigen gewin, roem en glorie, interesseert het welzijn van zijn onderdanen geen snars. Zulk soort despoten en dictators zijn er hier op aarde maar al te veel.
Nu even terug naar bovenstaand citaat van mijn buurman. Mijn buurman zegt met zoveel woorden dat het leven geen zin heeft zolang hij op zijn minst niet gelijkwaardig is aan God, hij wil op gelijke voet met God staan. Wil hij niet zelf als God zijn?. Maar – even aangenomen dat dit mogelijk zou zijn – zou mijn buurman genoegen nemen met een positie naast God? Maar wat is zo’n positie waard als uiteindelijk God beslist?. Moet bij zo’n positie niet de bevoegdheid horen om God te kunnen kritiseren en eventueel de laan uit te sturen?. Heeft het leven dan pas zin? Is dat liefde?
Wat mijn buurman hier beschrijft is precies wat die eerste mens gedaan heeft: de oerzonde om als God te willen zijn. Dat verlangen ligt sindsdien op de bodem van ons aller hart, met alle desastreuze gevolgen van dien. Dat verlangen heeft echter niets met liefde te maken, dat verlangen om als God te zijn heeft juist de ultieme slavernij gebracht.
Ach ,wat verlang ik ernaar om onder de stralen van Zijn glans en luister te blijven, want daar is het veilig en warm. Pas daar is de echte vrijheid. Daarom wil ik niets liever Heer, dan U gehoorzamen.

God is Liefde (3)

God is Liefde (3).
Mijn buurman heeft schriftelijk gereageerd op mijn tweede artikel: God is Liefde. Ik heb mijn buurman niet goed begrepen want hij schrijft:
Nu heb je één statement uit zijn verband gerukt en één statement verkeerd verwoord. Ik heb gezegd dat ik aan niets op deze wereld kan zien dat God van de mens houdt en dat het bewust niet ingrijpen voor mij eerder op onverschilligheid wijst dan op liefde”.
Mijn excuses als ik e.e.a. niet goed heb begrepen en niet juist verwoord heb. Ik zal proberen antwoord te geven op wat mijn buurman hier schrijft. Want het probleem dat de buurman hier signaleert, leeft net zo goed bij christenen.
Als je goed om je heen kijkt, dan zie je in deze wereld veel lijden. Dat lijden zou je grofweg in twee categorieën kunnen verdelen. De eerste categorie is lijden dat ons overkomt. Op deze categorie van lijden kunnen we maar beperkte - of soms zelfs helemaal geen- invloed uitoefenen. Dat is lijden dat ons overkomt als gevolg van bijv. natuurrampen, epidemieën, ongelukken, handicaps en ziekten. Aan de vergankelijkheid van het leven ontkomt niemand . Elk nieuw geboren leven draagt de kiemen van de dood reeds in zich. Elk leven loopt uiteindelijk naar de dood met alle pijn en verdriet die daaraan verbonden is.
De tweede categorie van lijden wordt veroorzaakt door het lijden dat we onszelf en elkaar aan doen. Daar zijn we zelf verantwoordelijk voor. De bron daarvan is ons eigen hart. Innerlijke haat, boosheid, afgunst, begeerte, ontevredenheid, ontrouw, egoïsme en heerszucht worden omgezet in daden waar anderen het slachtoffer van worden. We kunnen een aantal gevolgen noemen: seks, alcohol of drugsverslavingen, huiselijk geweld, gebroken gezinnen, geweld verkrachting en moord. Ook kinderen worden hier het slachtoffer van. En op een globale schaal: heersers, bloeddorstige dictators en terorristen, volken die elkaar de oorlog aandoen en die miljoenen mensen de dood injagen. Door de geschiedenis heen zien we een enorme stroom van bloed vergieten.
En dan vragen velen zich af: als God dan van de mens houdt, waarom grijpt Hij dan niet in en laat Hij merken dat Hij aanwezig is? Schijnbaar laat Hij het allemaal maar gebeuren en houdt Hij zich afzijdig?.
Laat ik beginnen met te stellen dat God altijd veel groter, wijzer, liefdevoller en rechtvaardiger is dan wij ons ooit kunnen voorstellen. Ons verstand is simpelweg te klein om Hem te kunnen begrijpen en daarom past ons bescheidenheid en moeten we de hand op de mond leggen. Daar moeten we ons voortdurend van bewust zijn. Niet voor iedere vorm van lijden hebben wij een pasklaar antwoord. Dat wil niet zeggen dat we vanuit de Bijbel helemaal geen antwoord kunnen geven op deze vragen. Het antwoord zal echter nooit uitputtend zijn. Eén ding is zeker zegt de Bijbel: God is liefde en daarom heeft Hij het goede lief en wil Hij ook het goede voor de mens. Hij is rechtvaardig en daarom haat Hij het kwade en voert er een strijd tegen. En Hij heeft wel degelijk ingegrepen. In die strijd tegen het kwaad heeft Hij al de alles beslissende overwinning al behaald toen Zijn Zoon stierf aan het kruis en de zonde van de wereld op Zich genomen heeft. Zo heeft Hij de oorzaak van het kwaad al weg genomen en straks ook alle gevolgen.
Laten we eerlijk wezen. Achter die vraag waarom God niet ingrijpt zit eigenlijk vaak de eis dat God de gevolgen van het kwaad moet weg nemen zonder de oorzaak ervan in onszelf aan te pakken. De mens heeft van God in het begin een zeer ruim mandaat gekregen. Maar we hebben er een puinhoop van gemaakt. We hebben onze verantwoordelijkheid niet genomen maar misbruikt. We hebben gekozen voor het kwaad. Nu wuiven we onze eigen verantwoordelijkheid weg en willen we hebben dat God voortdurend puin ruimt zonder dat er iets verandert aan en in onszelf. We zijn als een drugsverslaafde (zondeverslaafde) die telkens een nieuwe shot eist om de gevolgen van de verslaving weg te nemen zonder de oorzaak aan te pakken. We zijn dodelijk ziek en hebben dringend hulp nodig. Het goede nieuws is dat God iedereen die om hulp vraagt wil helpen en zal genezen.
De vraag waarom God (nog) niet ingrijpt wordt ook in de Bijbel gesteld. Men vraagt (2 Petr. 3: 3) “Waar blijft Hij nu?” Maar dan is het antwoord: “voor de Heer is één dag als duizend jaar, en duizend jaar als één dag. De Heer is niet traag in het nakomen van Zijn belofte, Hij heeft alleen maar geduld met u, omdat Hij wil dat iedereen tot inkeer komt en niemand verloren gaat” (2Pet. 3:9).God heeft oneindig meer geduld dan wij hebben. Wij willen altijd alles meteen. Maar God duldt het kwade omdat Hij nog zo veel mogelijk mensen wil redden. Maar er komt een dag waarop alle onrecht recht zal worden getrokken en alle tranen van de ogen zullen worden afgewist.
Mijn buurman had nog meer te zeggen. Daarover in een volgende aflevering.

God is liefe (2)


God is liefde (2)
Mijn buurman heeft gereageerd op onderstaand artikel ‘God is Liefde’. Mijn buurman vroeg of ik kan bewijzen dat God de mens lief heeft. We gaan proberen om iets meer de zeggen over de liefde van God. De liefde van God is in de eerste plaats onvoorwaardelijk. Het is niet zo dat als wij God lief hebben, Hij ons ook lief heeft. Integendeel. Hij heeft ons lief ook als wij Hem niet lief hebben en Hem haten. Bekend is de uitdrukking: God heeft de zondaar lief maar haat de zonde.
De eerste mens kreeg het gehele beheer en de ontwikkeling van de schepping in handen. Hij kreeg a.h.w. carte blanche. Maar hij vond dat niet genoeg en wilde als God zijn en heeft God naar de kroon gestoken. Hij heeft Hem a.h.w. vermoord en is een vijand van God geworden en heeft zijn ziel verkocht aan Gods tegenstander de duivel.
Die eerste mens- die ons allen vertegenwoordigt - heeft de hele mensheid in zijn val meegesleept zodat het virus van die vijandschap tegen God in ons aller leven is door gedrongen. Of we dat nu beseffen of niet. Mijn buurman is hier eerlijk over. Mijn buurman heeft gezegd dat als voor hem onomstotelijk bewezen kan worden dat God echt bestaat, hij onaangenaam verrast zou zijn. Deze houding van de buurman is helemaal niet vreemd, van nature zijn we allemaal zo.
God had vanwege onze vijandschap vanaf het allereerste begin het project ‘mens’ kunnen opgeven en de mens kunnen wegvagen. Dat zou volkomen rechtvaardig geweest zijn. De mens was gewaarschuwd: “wanneer je daarvan eet, zul je onherroepelijk sterven” (Gen. 2:17). Maar toch gaf God de mens niet op. Hij ging in en door Zijn geliefde Zoon zelf sterven aan het kruis. De Zoon van God – zelf God- werd mens en stierf in onze plaats en verzoende God en mens. En Hij deed dat- zegt Rom. 5:10- “toen wij nog vijanden waren”. En nu krijgt iedereen die in de Zoon van God gelooft het eeuwige leven weer terug. Geheel gratis. Als dat geen liefde is, dan weet ik het niet meer. Hiermee hebben we ook meteen gezegd dat echte liefde de bereidheid in zich heeft om alles op te offeren om de ander te kunnen redden. Dat heeft God gedaan. Gods liefde is onvoorwaardelijk zeiden we. Gods liefde laat de hoogst mogelijke graaf van opofferingsgezindheid zien. Maar er is nog een ander aspect en dat is dat liefde een keuze is. Daarover in een volgend artikel.

1   |   2   |   3   |   4   |   5      »      [15]