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.
God is liefde (1)
Onlangs had ik een gesprek met mijn buurman over het geloof in God. Wat mijn buurman zei kwam ongeveer hier op neer: “In jouw geloof blijft God altijd de baas. Hij staat altijd boven jou en jij moet hem gehoorzamen. Als je God, je Vader, niet gehoorzaamt krijg je met zijn toorn te maken. Gelukkig ben ik zelf anders. Ik ben juist blij als mijn kinderen boven mij staan. Ik er blij mee als ze meer bereiken en het veel beter doen dan ik zelf ooit heb kunnen doen. Daar beleef ik juist veel plezier aan”. Op het eerste gezicht lijkt dit een plausibel verhaal. Toch klopt er iets niet.
Want als je accepteert dat jouw kinderen boven jou staan, dan verleen je ze ook gezag om over jou de baas te spelen. Wat gebeurt er dan als die kinderen misbruik van dat gezag gaan maken? Als jij alles wat ze bereikt hebben, gefaciliteerd en betaald hebt, als je alles voor hen gegeven hebt om hen een goed leven te geven en toch spugen ze je in het gelaat, als ze geen enkel respect voor jou tonen, je naam belasteren en jou alleen als melkkoe willen gebruiken voor het financieren van hun eigen verslavingen wat gebeurt er dan? Dan zal er denk ik toch een moment komen waarop jij zegt: “Ik ben je Vader, dit kan je niet maken!. Dit is harteloos en liefdeloos, ik voel me verschrikkelijk misbruikt!”.
Laat nu dat laatste precies zijn wat wij als mensen God hebben aangedaan. En wat heeft God toen gedaan? Heeft Hij gezegd: “met jou wil ik niets meer te maken hebben?”. Daar had Hij het volste recht toe. Maar Hij heeft het niet gedaan. Hij bleef de mens lief hebben en opzoeken, ondanks zijn diep gekrenkte liefde. Hij ging zelf de schuld vereffenen die de mens gemaakt heeft. Zijn Zoon offerde zichzelf vrijwillig op om de schuld van de hele mensheid te betalen aan het kruis. Meer dan jezelf kan je nooit geven. Dat deed God. En daarvoor verdient Hij alle mogelijke respect. Gelukkig staat Hij boven mij. Want als “de Liefde” boven je staat – en God is liefde – dan weet je dat je altijd bij Hem geborgen bent. Het is een grote eer en genade om Hem te mogen gehoorzamen.
Bob Dylan’s “Mississippi” – an analysis by Kees de Graaf – Part 2.
Well, the devil’s in the alley, mule’s in the stall
Say anything you wanna, I have heard it all
I was thinking about the things that Rosie said
I was dreaming I was sleeping' in Rosie’s bed
This verse very much breathes the atmosphere of imprisonment. Imprisonment and hard labour because of some irreversible act of felony committed in the past. It is the same atmosphere which we already found in the chorus “Only one thing I did wrong, stayed in Mississippi a day too long”. This chorus seems to echo an old blues song from Alan Lomax recorded in the Parchman Farm Prison in 1947-1948. There seems to be a CD from these sessions called 'Prison Blues Of The South.' In the liner notes of the accompanying booklet, you read the words 'Only thing I did wrong was stayed in Mississippi a day too long' . Apparently, this is what the prisoners in the Mississippi Parchman Farm prison used to sing during hard labour. On that occasion Lomax also recorded a prison song called “Rosie” which is featured in this verse. Alan Lomax said that: "These songs belong to the musical tradition which Africans brought to the New World, but they are also as American as the Mississippi River … They tell us the story of the slave gang, the sharecropper system, the lawless work camp, the chain gang, the pen.". On the one hand, when you consider the harsh circumstances the prisoners were in and the lawlessness in the Mississippi Parchman Farm Prison camp, one is easily inclined to say that in this prison camp: “the devil’s in the alley”. The devil is always nearby in these prison labour camps; it looks as if the devil has it all his way, having no other purpose in the end but to chain these prisoners for ever and bereave them of all hope. On the other hand,- as so often in Dylan’s oeuvre - the words “the devil’s in the alley” may also have an apocalyptic sub-meaning. If so, it reminds us of a Dylan line which would later show up in his song “Thunder on the Mountains”. It says: “There is a ruckus in the alley and the sun (or Son) will be here soon”. This ruckus – in the alley - is at its most intense when the Latter Day is about to break through and the sudden arrival of the Son of Man on the clouds will make an end to this ruckus (Rev. 1:7).
When it says: “mule’s in the stall”, one should not forget that not only stubbornness is usually associated with mules, but also hardworking. “Mule’s – kicking – in the stall” not only has a rural connotation but also a connotation of those hard labouring prisoners in this Mississippi Parchman Farm prison, who during hard labour, just to distract their minds, chant those prison songs which Alan Lomax recorded.
When the poet goes on to say: “Say anything you wanna, I have heard it all” these words may again have a double meaning. First, it may apply to those inmates in the Parchman Farm Prison. When you have been an inmate in this prison – or any other prison for that matter - for a long time and you see the same inmates over and over again, during a long period of time, there are few new things you can tell one another; you have heard all the personal stories and you may conclude: “Say anything you wanna, I have heard it all”. Secondly, when you stick by an apocalyptic interpretation the words “Say anything you wanna, I have heard it all” have some sort of destiny and acquiescence in them. Destiny and resignation in the sense that there is no clever human thesis available in this world which could change the course of things and prevent doomsday from coming. The words also show weariness, just like it is said in the book of Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun and things go as they have been predetermined.
Some have argued that “Rosie” the words “I was thinking about the things that Rosie said, I was dreaming I was sleeping' in Rosie’s bed” refers to the ideal woman in the same as e.g. in France Marianne is a symbol for the Republic. If that were correct “Rosie” would be a symbol of love and not an actual woman. However, we feel it is more likely that “Rosie” is a reflection on the prison song “Rosie” which -as said above- Lomax recorded in the Mississippi Parchman Farm Prison in 1947-1948. The lyrics of “Rosie” go like : “Be my woman gal, I'll be your man. Every day’s Sunday dollar in your hand, In your hand lordy, in your hand. Everyday ‘s Sunday dollar in your hand. Stick to the promise girl that You made me. Won't got married til' uh I go free I go free lordy, I go free, won't got married til' uh I go free”. These words fit like a glove within the atmosphere of this verse which speaks of imprisonment. Even under the harsh circumstance of hard labour the longing and hope for a better future keeps these inmates going. Dreams about a promise a girl once made to them remain: “I was thinking about the things that Rosie said” and also hope for a happy matrimony in the future: “I was dreaming I was sleeping' in Rosie’s bed”, no matter how hopeless and idle these dreams usually prove to be.
Walking through the leaves, falling from the trees
Feeling like a stranger nobody sees
So many things that we never will undo
I know you’re sorry, I’m sorry too
This verse expatiates on the previous verse and also deals with the mental state of a prisoner. The thought seems not far away that, because we all sinned, we are all in a way prisoners. To live a life of sin and crime creates isolation -literally and figuratively - and is a lifestyle one should try to avoid, just like Dylan wrote in his song “Working Man Blues #2”: “I don't want to be forced Into a life of continual crime”. “Walking through the leaves, falling from the trees, feeling like a stranger nobody sees” expresses isolation and loneliness. Locked up in a prison camp, often bereft of all your next of kin, you feel quite alone. Walking amidst the dead leaves, falling from the trees, intensifies the feeling that your situation is hopeless and that you might as well be dead just like those leaves. Nobody cares for you and nobody looks after you, you have nobody left on this planet who is interested in you and cares what will happen to you, nobody knows you and nobody will miss you, you are “feeling like a stranger nobody sees”. In a prison camp there is plenty of time to think about the past. “So many things that we never will undo” means that you can’t turn back the clock, you can’t unring the bell, the sins you have done and the crimes you have committed are irreversible and they keep on haunting you. Often at this point of contemplation regret and remorse come stepping in: “I know you’re sorry, I’m sorry too”. “Love is all there is” Dylan once wrote in his song “I threw it all away” and love is all that really matters but at the same time love and passion are so delicate and vulnerable, that once there is a falling out, there is guilt and regret on both sides: “I know you’re sorry, I’m sorry too”. A falling out may easily lead to a “crime ‘passionel’ and you may end up in prison and – just like the Prodigal son once did in Luke 15:17- you may “come to yourself” and say “I know you’re sorry, I’m sorry too”.
Verse 7 and second bridge.
Some people will offer you their hand and some won’t
Last night I knew you, tonight I don’t
I need something strong to distract my mind
I’m gonna look at you ’til my eyes go blind
Just like in the first bridge, there is this ascending bass line in this verse which – as said above - very much increases the tension and the drama in the song and takes the song to a higher and more spiritual level. These words in this verse go beyond the words spoken by a prisoner in a prison camp in Mississippi. It is as if the camera zooms out from the prisoner in the Mississippi prison camp and now focusses on what goes on at a higher, ethereal, level. This higher level has to do with something we would like to call eternal separation. It seems that Dylan is grasped by this idea of eternal separation and it is a phenomenon we quite often see in Dylan’s works. By eternal separation, we mean eternal and absolute separation between good and evil; separation and distance between those who chose to be redeemed and those who chose to reject redemption. A separation which has its beginning on this earth and will be carried on eternally into a future world, a world – as Dylan puts it –“you can’t see”. This idea is worked out in two parables from Jesus which shimmer through in this verse. “Some people will offer you their hand and some won’t” reminds us of the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37).The first parable tells us that a man on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho was attacked by robbers who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. What you expected the least happened: an outlawed and despicable Samaritan and an unknown innkeeper took care of the man and they offered him their hand by dressing up the man’s wounds and paying for his lodgings in the inn. However, those people who were expected to come to the rescue of the man, the priest and the Levite, passed by and left the man to die. “Some people who will offer you’re their hand” are the Good Samaritan and the innkeeper, “some who won’t” are the priest and the Levite. This attitude, an unwillingness to offer your hand, may have some nasty consequences, we see this alluded to when it says: ”Last night I knew you, tonight I don’t” . We see that in the second parable, called the parable of “the five wise and the five foolish maidens” which we find in Mat. 25:1-13. The five foolish maidens negligently took not enough oil with them to keep their lamps burning and to welcome the arrival of the bridegroom. When these maidens subsequently went out to buy some additional oil, the bridegroom had arrived in the meantime, but then the five foolish maidens were too late for the wedding and the door to the wedding feast was shut. When these maidens said to the Lord- the bridegroom-: “Lord, Lord, open to us” (Mat. 25:11), the Lord refused the five foolish maidens entry to the wedding feast and said: “Truly I say to you, I do not know you”(Mat. 25:12).We find the same picture of a closed door and a householder who refuses entry for those knocking at the door, saying that he does not know them in Luke 13:25-27. It is as if the Lord Jesus now says to the maidens: “Of course, it is not that I do not know who you are because even last night we ate and we drank in the street (Luke 13:26), therefore “Last night I knew you” but tonight, now that the wedding feast has begun and the door is closed, I do not know where you come from, (Luke 13:27) I only know people in a special way, I only know those people who have rejoiced in my arrival and have taken precautions, these people I welcome to my wedding but you, you disrespected me, you were negligent, therefore I do not know you any more, therefore to you I say: “Last night I knew you, tonight I don’t”. This whole concept of eternal separation which is expressed here has such an overwhelming impact on the mind of the poet and fills him with so much awe and fear for this long and narrow way (Luke 13:24)that he feels he needs help from above and cries out: “I need something strong to distract my mind”. “To distract” may mean here that he wants draw attention away from what he is doing and focus on what is of the utmost importance to hang on. To do that he “needs something strong”. One is easily inclined to assume that “something strong” means some drug or substance but that is not self-evident. We rather feel that by “something strong” help from above is meant, a strong and helping hand, as Dylan wrote elsewhere: “Nothing can heal me now, but your touch”. Spiritually he does not want to belong to the five foolish maidens of Mat. 25 to whom is said: “Last night I knew you, tonight I don’t”. Remember that this song was originally composed for the album “Time out of Mind”, on which the theme of eternal separation is also very much present, especially in a song like “Trying to get to Heaven”. The chorus of this song is equally based on the parable of the five wise and foolish maidens when it says: “I’m trying to get to heaven before they close the door”. The “closed door” is the same door which the five foolish maidens found closed (Mat 25:10). The poet does not want to be refused entry into heaven and wants to stay focussed, and therefore he not only “needs something strong to distract his mind” but he also needs to keep his eyes fixed upon the promised land: “I’m gonna look at you ’til my eyes go blind”. Of course it is possible to interpret “I’m gonna look at you ’til my eyes go blind” -as many have done on the internet -as simply directed to some woman he frantically loves or fancies but we have to bear in mind that there are always these deeper spiritual layers in Dylan’s work. In fact, the difference between a romantic “down to earth” interpretation of “I’m gonna look at you ’til my eyes go blind” and a more spiritual interpretation of these words, is based upon the fact whether you feel that Dylan was serious or not, when, in his 2003 CBS interview, he said that it all “ goes back to the destiny thing”. “I’m gonna look at you ’til my eyes go blind” has to do with concentration. The poet does not want to be like Desolation Row’s Ophelia, who, although she had “her eyes fixed upon Noah’s great rainbow” it was of no avail to her. Here we see the same tenacity and perseverance as in Acts 3:4, when Peter and John directed their gaze at the lame man and said “Look at us” which led to the healing of the lame man. Only those survived the lethal bite of the serpent who had their eyes fixed upon the bronze serpent which Moses set on a pole (Numbers 21:9). Only if the poet sticks to his destiny and keeps his eyes fixed upon the promised land, only a concentration even “till his eyes go blind”, will enable him to pass the Narrow Way that ultimately leads to the promised land.
Well I got here following the southern star
I crossed that river just to be where you are
Only one thing I did wrong
Stayed in Mississippi a day too long
When it says“ Well, I got here following the southern star” it seems obvious that this Southern star is not followed with the same evil intentions king Herod once had in Mat. 2, when he tried to follow another star “the same one them three men followed from the East” ( see Dylan’s “Man of Peace”). Herod followed the star in order to track down the whereabouts of the new born child Jesus with the only purpose of killing the child (Mat.2:16).
The words“ Well, I got here following the southern star” seem much more reassuring. The poet is still on his way in southern direction, just as he wrote in “Trying to get to Heaven”: “I’m going down the river, down to New Orleans”. He follows the southern star which he can see in the sky going down the Mississippi river, till he finally reaches New Orleans in Louisiana. ”Following the southern star” also indicates that he has a mission to fulfil. This mission is to cross that river and “to be where you are”.
The words “to be where you are” represent the equivalent of what Dylan once said in his 2004 CBS interview. Dylan said he made a bargain with “destiny” and when asked: “What was your bargain?”, he said ”to get where I am”. “To be where you are” is the equivalent of “to get where I am”. Again it is possible to simply interpret “to be where you are” as addressed to some woman but – as so often in Dylan’s work- there may be a deeper layer. Therefore, when it says “to be where you are”, we cannot help thinking of the people of Israel miraculously crossing the river Jordan (Joshua 3) and entering the Promised Land, the land of God, the land where God wants them to be and the land where God is near (Joshua 3:7). Although the words ”to be where you are” fulfil a passionate longing to be near God in that Promised Land, there is at the same time also something preliminary in these words; he has not reached his final destination yet, the poet is still on his way, he is “trying to get to heaven”. As long as he is on his way, there still is this tragic and dark shadow of sin expressed in the chorus: “Only one thing I did wrong, stayed in Mississippi a day too long”. For more details on the analysis of the chorus we refer to part one of this series. Please feel free to comment on this article. To do so please press the button 'reacties' below.
Bob Dylan’s “Mississippi” – an analysis by Kees de Graaf – Part 1.
Dylan composed this masterpiece during the 1997 recording sessions for the album “Time out of Mind”. Dylan decided not to include this brilliant song on “Time out of mind” and obviously he had his reasons for this decision. However, little must he have realized at the time that it was destiny that caused this song to end up on the 2001 album “Love and Theft”. “Destiny” is a word often used by Dylan in his book “Chronicles”- Volume 1. When asked in his famous 2004 60 minutes CBS television interview why his still out there on stage after so many years he replies: ‘’It goes back to that destiny thing. I mean, I made a bargain with it, you know, long time ago. And I’m holding up my end’’. When asked whom he made that bargain with he replies: “With the Chief Commander, in this earth and in a world we can’t see”. The fact is that the album “Love and Theft” was released on September the 11th 2001, the day when those two planes crashed into two twin towers and the world stood still in shock and agony. “Mississippi” exactly put into words what happened on that dreadful day to all those unfortunate who were trapped in these towers: “We’re all boxed in, nowhere to escape, trapped in the heart of it, trying to get away, and “Sky full of fire, pain pouring down”. It was as if destiny- the powers from above- had instructed Dylan to hold this prophetic song in his portfolio for more than 4 years and not release it until September the 11th 2001. So when I listened for the first time to this song on September the 11th 2001, the lyrics hit me like a thunderbolt and I was deeply touched and every word of it rang true. But not only that: musically the song has an ascending bass line which very much adds to the tension and drama of the song. All of this was reason enough to make this song one of my favourite Dylan tunes. The are many layers in the song and this makes it not an easy task to analyse the song. There is an outtake of the song which at some points has different lyrics but we will focus on the lyrics of the official release. As said it was not only ‘destiny’’ that caused this song to be released on nine-eleven 2001 but apart from that there is also – as will outline below- a lot of ‘destiny’ in the lyrics of the song itself.
The song comprises 12 verses arranged in three sets of four verses and each of those three sets ends with a conclusion, the chorus of the song: "Only one thing I did wrong, stayed in Mississippi a day too long”. The chorus has no doubt the key to come to some sort of understanding of the meaning of the song and we will discuss the chorus in depth after the fourth verse but let’s here suffice it to say that in his 2001 Rolling Stone interview Dylan said that “Mississippi” has “knifelike lyrics trying to convey majesty and heroism”. Indeed there is majesty and heroism in the lyrics of this song but we will see that this majesty and heroism shows itself not so much in- what we would usually expect- in glamour and courage but in all vulnerability and ostensible weakness and fragility which the poet expresses in this song, just like the apostle Paul once said: “for when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor 12:10). We are going to find out in the analysis of this song that it is drenched in the imagery of the Biblical wisdom literature such as the Book of Job, the Psalms and the book of Ecclesiastes but also on the Pentateuch. So let’s see how we can piece all these things together and in a verse by verse analysis.
Every step of the way we walk the line
Your days are numbered, so are mine
Time is piling up, we struggle and we scrape
We’re all boxed in, nowhere to escape
First of all, when it says: “Every step of the way we walk the line” this line bears the marks of the main theme of the album “Time out of Mind” for which this song was originally composed. The main theme of “Time out of Mind” is “movement”. Movement in whatever direction so it is no surprise to begin the song with “Every step of the way”. This verse – and also other verses in this song for that matter - expresses ‘destiny’ but destiny not seen from a divine stance but destiny seen in a way as we- mortal beings- often experience destiny. We invariably experience destiny in a negative way, as some sort of fatality from which there is no escape. But we must not forget that this is not how God sees destiny. From a divine stance it is better to use the word ‘providence’. The word ‘providence’ has a positive meaning, it means that God protects, guides, and takes care of every step in our life in order to take us safely home, reassuring us so that we conclude: ”Every step of the way we walk the line”. This notion resembles what Paul says in Rom. 8:28: “We know that in everything God works for good”. But this seems by no means the feeling the poet intends to express in this verse. In this verse ”Every step of the way we walk the line” seems much more a statement of desperate resignation, everything has been predetermined and things go as they go. There is certainly a strong feeling of destiny here but at the same time there is this idea that there is nothing one can do against the destructing powers of destiny, there simply seems no escape from it. According to the English dictionary -the Wiktionary- one of the meanings of “To walk the line” is “To behave in an authorized or socially accepted manner, especially as prescribed by law or morality”. Some on the internet have argued that “Mississippi” is a socio- political song, depicting the status of American politics and social order. If this were right “To walk the line” would mean for citizens to act and behave exactly in accordance with whatever the ruling order prescribes you to do. Maybe these commentators were inclined to think into this direction because of what Dylan said in his 2001 Rolling Stone interview about “Mississippi”. Dylan, criticizing the attitude of Daniel Lanois towards the song, then said “that the song has more to do with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights than witch doctors, and just couldn't be thought of as some kind of ideological voodoo thing”. We all know that -especially in interviews- Dylan is fond of expressing himself cryptically, making it not easy to understand what exactly he may have had in mind, but our take on it is that Dylan intended to say that just like the foundation of the American nation is solidly and legally laid down in the official laws and documents, “Mississippi” likewise has a strong foundation, based on the hard facts laid down in the Scriptures rather than on some vague etherical voodoo ideology full of superstition. We conclude that when it says ”Every step of the way we walk the line” the poet may intend to say that every step we make in life is predetermined by the powers from above, by God. In this process it looks as if human responsibility is wiped out and that the human existence is nothing more than wind, like “The wind that blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course” ( Ecclesiastes 1:6 NIV).This sense of vanity is certainly how the human existence sometimes feels but it does not necessarily mean that in reality this is the case.
When the poet goes on to say that “Your days are numbered” this does not exactly express the same idea as in Dylan’s song “Every Grain of Sand” where it says: “then onward in my journey I come to understand that every hair is numbered”. This line echoes Mat. 10:30. But the statement from Jesus in Mat. 10:30 that “all the hairs of your head are numbered” is meant reassuringly, to take away fear. But here the words “Your days are numbered” have a much more ominous character. Here, when it says: “Your days are numbered” it reminds us of “the moving finger that is moving on” (Narrow Way) and also of “The writing's on the wall, come read it, come see what it say” (“Thunder on the Mountains”). Here it is what the moving finger wrote on the plaster of the wall of king Belshazzar’s palace (Daniel 5:5): “This is what these words mean: [Mene] means 'numbered'--God has numbered the days of your (Belshazzar’s) reign and has brought it to an end” (Daniel 5:26).Belshazzar had “lifted up himself against the Lord of heaven” (Daniel 5:23) and therefore God made an end to his rule. The days of all evil doers are numbered and will come to a predetermined end, but not only for them but the days of all mortal human beings are numbered, that is why the poet includes himself and says “so are mine”. This is the first moment in the song where the lyrics as Dylan puts it“ convey majesty and heroism”. When you are a celebrity the threat of “the disease of conceit” the thought that you are “too good to die” looms large in the background and it takes heroism for the poet to acknowledge that. It may have been the reason why he added: “so are mine”.
“Time is piling up” sees time go by not in a linear, everlasting, sequence of events but time seen in a sort of vertical way, as an edifice which is gradually erected. “Time is piling up” shows much more a feeling that time is limited, the end of time is near and there a sense of urgency. In Dylan’s sugar and candy’s “Handy Dandy” we see the opposite phenomenon. Handy Dandy is a typical end time personification, a person who “got all the time in the world”. Here “time” builds up ominously and it all seems so useless, “we struggle and we scrape”, that is all we can do. Life is hard, time is nearly up and we have to fight to get to the end of it all. There is just no let-up: “We’re all boxed in, nowhere to escape”. This notion comes close to what is says in the Book of Ecclesiastes Chapter 9:12(NLT): “People can never predict when hard times might come. Like fish in a net or birds in a trap, people are caught by sudden tragedy”.
City’s just a jungle; more games to play
Trapped in the heart of it, trying to get away
I was raised in the country, I been working’ in the town
I been in trouble ever since I set my suitcase down
It is said that the first cities were formed after the so-called Neolithic Revolution (10000 BC) which brought agriculture and made denser human populations possible. We have found that the events the narrator pictures in this and the following verse (including the chorus)very much resemble the history of Lot -Abraham’s nephew – written down in the book of Genesis. Let us follow this lead and see if there is a match and decide for yourself if this idea makes sense.
When it says: “City’s just a jungle” the poet may have had the city of Sodom in mind where Lot once dwelled (Gen 19:1-3).Now Genesis13:13 and 18:20 says that Sodom was a very wicked town indeed. The “City’s just a jungle” means that the law of the jungle ruled in the city of Sodom. The fittest literally played dirty tricks on you in that city and the narrator may allude to this when he says: “more games to play”. This appears specifically when two angels visit Sodom (Gen. 19:1). These two visiting angels where sexually harassed by a violent mob (Gen 19:4-14) and had Lot, his family and the two angels, trapped in their house, and although Lot tried to escape from this jam by offering his two daughters (Gen. 19:8)to protect his two visitors, there was no escape, that is why the narrator says: “Trapped in the heart of it, trying to get away” and if the two angels had not intervened by blinding the mob so that they could not find the door of the house (Gen.18:11), Lot and his family and the two visitors surely would have been sexually assaulted and abused and subsequently killed by the hostile and furious mob.
And now it is as if Lot retrospectively says: “I was raised in the country, I been working in the town, I been in trouble ever since I set my suitcase down". Lot -Abraham’s nephew Gen. 11:27- was indeed “raised in the country” when his grandfather Terah left Ur and took Abram and Lot with him and went into the land of Canaan to settle in the neighbourhood of Haran (Gen. 11:31). Later on Abram and Lot left the Haran region to roam about the countryside of Canaan (Gen 12:5) However, the two shepherds Abram and Lot separated and Lot thought he outsmarted Abram by choosing the fertile Jordan valley as his habitat (Gen.13:10) and finally ended up living in the town of Sodom (Gen 19:3) in which he got nearly killed. So when it says: “I been working in the town” Lot refers to the town of Sodom where he settled down and arranged his business. But as appears from Gen. 19:9 Lot was not a welcome guest at all in Sodom and regarded as a nuisance and the Sodomites said to Lot: “this fellow came to sojourn, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them”. It is the reason why it is as if Lot in retrospection says: “I been in trouble ever since I set my suitcase down”. “to set one’s suitcase down” is a metaphor for “ever since I settled down” in this case for Lot in Sodom. From the moment Lot arrived in Sodom, Lot knew he was in trouble. The reason for this is that Lot’s lifestyle did not match the lifestyle of the Sodomites at all, to say the least of it. Although Lot made a poor decision to go and live in such a wicked town as Sodom, 2 Peter 2:7,8 nevertheless says that “God also rescued Lot out of Sodom because he was a righteous man who was sick of the shameful immorality of the wicked people around him ,Yes, Lot was a righteous man who was tormented in his soul by the wickedness he saw and heard day after day”. Therefore, for the poet to have Lot say in retrospection: “I been in trouble ever since I set my suitcase down” is an accurate metaphor to describe what happened to Lot the moment he settled down in Sodom.
Verse 3 and first bridge
Got nothing for you, I had nothing before
Don’t even have anything for myself anymore
Sky full of fire, pain pouring down
Nothing you can sell me, I’ll see you around
Usually the bridge in a song is used to pause and to reflect on earlier parts of the song and to lead the listener to the climax – usually the chorus – of the song. However, in this bridge – and the following two bridges - there is also this ascending bass line which very much increases the tension and the drama in the song and serves at the same time as an indication that the following words are of the utmost importance and should not be ignored. If we follow our line of thinking in this verse, it may be again Lot who reflects here on what happened to him and what he learned from the apocalyptic destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. However, “Got nothing' for you, I had nothing before, don’t even have anything for myself anymore” may also – and maybe at the same time – a generic statement about the human condition. But let’s first find out how it may apply to Lot and see for yourself if it makes sense.
To escape the “sky full of fire” and “pain pouring down” – pain in the form of brimstone pouring down on Sodom (Gen. 19:24)-, Lot, in order to to save his life, had to leave Sodom in a hurry and fled to the town of Zoar (Gen 19:22). But Lot was afraid to live in Zoar, therefore Lot left Zoar and with his two daughters dwelt in a cave in the hills surrounding the Sodom valley (Gen 19:30). The fire and brimstone pouring down from the sky not only destroyed the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah but also the whole valley surrounding these towns (Gen.19:25) Like Abraham Lot had great possessions – flocks and herds and tents (Gen 13:6)- but lost all his possessions when fire and brimstone came from the sky and destroyed everything he owned. Therefore, “got nothing for you” literally became the naked truth when only Lot’s soul and the soul of his two daughters were saved but the rest of his family and all of his material belongings were destroyed. This was not the first time that Lot lost all of his possessions. ”I had nothing before” may refer to Genesis 14. In Gen. 14 we read that Lot and his family were captured and kidnapped by king Ched-or-laomer and his companions and they stole all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah and all their provisions and also everything Lot owned. (Gen.14: 11,12). That is why Lot exclaims: ”I had nothing before” .
Abraham however, came to Lot’s rescue and liberated Lot and returned his family and all of his possessions (Gen 14:16). But the worst of it all was when it was as if Lot exclaimed: “don’t even have anything for myself anymore”. Bereft of everything Lot once owned and left behind with only his two daughters, they had to take refuge in a cave in the desolate hills surrounding the Sodom valley (Gen.19:30). While living in solitude in this cave, the worst thing that happened to Lot was that he had no prospect of having any posterity which in that culture was the worst thing that could happen to a man, that is why it is as if Lot cries out in despair: my life is finished and I “don’t even have anything for myself anymore”.
But as said this verse may also be a general statement about the human condition. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah may only be a minor prelude to the great apocalypse that is to come on the Latter Day. The apocalypse has always been a main theme in Dylan’s work. Dylan was to the point when in his song “God Knows” he warned: “God knows there’s gonna be no more water, but fire next time”. Water destroyed the world in the days of Noah (Genesis 7). Next time it would be fire. Fire and pain pouring down on Sodom and Gomorrah as a prelude to the fire coming down on the Latter Day as prophesied by 2 Peter 3:10. When the apocalyptic fire comes down from the sky, there is no help you can offer to other people and other people cannot help you. On the Latter Day it will be like Dylan said in his apocalyptic song: “Crash On The Levee (Down In The Flood”): “You're gonna have to find yourself another best friend, somehow”. But is clear: another friend will not be available at that Day. On that Day you will be thrown on your own resources. Therefore, on that dreadful Day, when the: “Sky is full of fire, and “pain is pouring down” you cannot help anybody – not even your next of kin- to escape doomsday: In desperation you exclaim to your next of kin: “Got nothing for you” to save you.
Since man fell into sin, the condition of man is such that one can also say: “I had nothing before” and “Don’t even have anything for myself anymore”. On that Day man is entirely delivered to the mercy of the Lord. No human offering, concept or thesis will save you on that dreadful Day and the poet is fully aware of this when he says that there is: “Nothing you can sell me, I’ll see you around”. In verse 5 the poet is going to say: “Say anything you wanna, I have heard it all”. Basically that line expresses the same thing as “there is nothing you can sell me”. It is as if the poet says “I will not buy what you say because it brings no solution to the crisis we are in, in fact no human being is capable to come up with any solution to avoid apocalyptic destruction, it is going to happen anyway and soon you gonna find out, ”I’ll see you around” means that I will see you again soon and then you will acknowledge that I was right”.
Verse 4 and chorus.
All my powers of expression and thoughts so sublime
Could never do you justice in reason or rhyme
Only one thing I did wrong
Stayed in Mississippi a day too long
When it says “All my powers of expression and thoughts so sublime” these words may be autobiographically interpreted and quite rightly so. Dylan wrote about “his powers of expression and thoughts so sublime” in his song “In the Summertime”:“ I’m still carrying the gift you gave, it’s a part of me now, it’s been cherished and saved, It’ll be with me unto the grave, and then unto eternity”. His huge poetical “powers of expression and thoughts so sublime” must be seen as a special gift from God to be used within the framework of “destiny”, the “destiny thing” he elaborated on in his 2004 CBS 60 minutes interview. In this interview Dylan also said that the early songs he wrote (like “It’s all right Ma”) where almost magically written, admitting at the same time that nowadays (2004) he cannot write songs like that anymore but added: “I can do other things now”. One of the “other things” he certainly can do is write a brilliant song like “Mississippi” in which all his “powers of expression” and “thoughts so sublime” shine brilliantly. But no matter how graceful this special gift the poet has received may be, the poet wants to make it very clear that this gift pales into insignificance beside the One who gave this gift to him. The poet’s sublime words and thoughts come, as Dylan also said in his 2004 CBS interview, ”right out of that wellspring of creativity”. If this creative process, these words and thoughts, -his “powers of expression and thoughts so sublime”- are already so beautiful, how beautiful and beyond words must not be the Creator of all of this, the One who made this creative process possible, which cannot be anybody else but God? In other words, no matter how great his “powers of expression and thoughts so sublime” are ,these powers and thoughts will never be able to describe God’s greatness and sublimity adequately. Words and thoughts, no matter how powerful and sublime, will always fall short and “could never do you justice in reason or rhyme”. Within the context it seems obvious that this “you” is God. Human thought, reason and human rhyme can never do justice to God, and is unable to penetrate the depts of God’s wisdom, power and compassion A few examples from the Scriptures to back up this thought:
Job 37:23,24 (KJV): “Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out: he is excellent in power, and in judgment, and in plenty of justice: he will not afflict. Men do therefore fear him: he respecteth not any that are wise of heart".
Ecclesiastes 8:17 (NLT): “I realized that no one can discover everything God is doing under the sun. Not even the wisest people discover everything, no matter what they claim”.
Romans 11:33-36 (KJV): “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen”.
It is said that the chorus “Only one thing I did wrong, stayed in Mississippi a day too long” echoes an old blues song which Alan Lomax recorded in the Mississippi Parchman Farm prison in 1947- 1948. The prisoners used to sing 'Only thing I did wrong was stayed in Mississippi a day too long'. No doubt that in the chorus of the song we may find an important clue to grasp the comprehensive meaning of the song. Some have argued on the internet that the song – and especially the chorus- is about the death of Dylan’s friend Jeff Buckley. On may 29th 1997 Jeff Buckley went swimming in Wolf River Harbour, which is a slack water channel of the Mississippi river, and was drowned. The interpretation is that Buckley made a fatal mistake and if he had not been in Mississippi on that particular date, he would have stayed alive but Buckley “stayed in Mississippi a day too long” and lost his life.
Others argue that he song may have something to do with the story of the great Mississippi Flood of 1927 which caused death and widespread destruction throughout the lower Mississippi Valley. If at the time in 1927, one was not evacuated in time from the Mississippi Valley, and became trapped in the rising waters, one could say of oneself that the “Only one thing I did wrong, stayed in Mississippi a day too long”.
However, as far as Dylan is concerned, things are never what they seem.Therefore,we feel that we should not focus too much on what the use of the word “Mississippi” may mean in this chorus. ”Mississippi” should not be taken too literal but may be just a metaphor to lead you to deeper waters. This seems a common phenomenon in Dylan’s work, e.g. “Roll on John” looks like as if it is about John Lennon, but closer examination will learn you that the focus point is actually somebody else, another “John” namely John the Apostle of light.(For more details on this, see my analysis of this song elsewhere on this website).
We feel that the main thought expressed here is: if you stay somewhere too long, the consequences will be devastating. When you stand at the cross- roads, when fire and pain is about to pour down from the sky, you have to make a choice: either flee while you still can or otherwise you will have to brace yourself for elimination. When it says “Only one thing I did wrong” it seems obvious that the “thing” done “wrong” is a life changing event. When this thing was done wrong life will never be the same again. The classic example of this idea is, when the devil in the shape of a serpent approached Eve in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3), Eve did not flee from him as she should have, but stayed on, making it possible for the serpent to seduce her. She stayed on for too long a time and man fell into sin. And indeed, If there is one event in history which changed everything and of which one truly may say that this is “the only thing (man) did wrong” it is this catastrophic decision in the garden of Eden. However, if you resist the devil, the opposite will happen and the devil will flee from you (James 4:7). Joseph in Gen. 39 did the right thing and fled. When Joseph was seduced by Potiphar’s wife (Gen.39:7-23) Joseph did not stay on but fled, leaving his garment in her hand and got out of the house (Gen. 39:12). When the “Sky was full of fire and pain pouring down” on Sodom (Gen. 19:24), Lot reluctantly fled from Sodom and was saved but Lot’s wife spiritually stayed on in Sodom, looked back and turned into a salt pillar (Gen. 19:26).In a way one could say that in her mind Lot’s wife “stayed in Mississippi(Sodom) a day too long”. Jesus prophesizing the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70: “let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak (Mat. 24:16-18 NIV). In other words: don’t stay a day too long, otherwise you will be eliminated. These are indeed knifelike lyrics, just as Dylan said.
Below you are invited to comment on this article. You can do so by following the link 'reacties' below.
Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin” – an analysis by Kees de Graaf.
This Dylan song has the magnitude and power of an anthem. For reasons we will explain later in this article, it is important to pinpoint the exact time of its recording. This song was recorded on October 23rd and 24th 1963. The session of the 24th produced the version that became the title song of Dylan's third album with the same name. This song was written and recorded in the wake of the ‘March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom’ which took place on August 28th 1963, so less than two months after this famous event.
To get down to business at once, there is a lot of paradox in this song. The greatest paradox of the song is that we receive the prophecy “The Times They Are A-Changin” but without any preaching. There is no indication in the song whatsoever what these new times will bring us in comparison with the old order. We are simply told that that the times will change and that we have to accommodate to and accept the new order or else we will drown and perish. But we are not told what this new order comprises, nor are we told what is wrong with the present order or ‘old’ order and what we are expected to do, to establish a new and better order, except to get out of the way. One may ask the question what the sense is of protesting anything when there is nothing one can do to prevent the coming of this new age. Over and over the song says that change is inevitable and there is nothing one can do to stop it.
To unwrap this, we first we have to take note of the fact that this song is written in the stylings of the late Biblical prophets. Prophets like Isaiah and also the Biblical prophet John the Baptist. We hear John the Baptist say in Mat. 3: 2: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”. Jesus confirms John’s prophecy in Mark 1: 15: “The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in the gospel”. It is as if we hear both John the Baptist and Jesus say: “The Times They Are A-Changin”. But there is one major discrepancy between the words of John the Baptist on the one hand and the speaker in our song on the other hand. John the Baptist tells exactly what people are expected to do to escape from the axe which – as he says - has already been laid to the root of the trees and which is ready to cut down any tree that does not bear good fruit and to throw it into the fire (Luke 3:9) .The multitude asks John: “What then shall we do?”(Luke 3:10). John says: “He who has two coats let him share with him who has none, and he who has food, let him do likewise”. John – in the tradition of the later prophets of the Old Testament – in order to get ready for the times that are a-changing - calls for social justice and ethical integrity when he addresses the multitude, tax collectors and soldiers (Luke 3: 10-13).But none of such preaching comes from the prophet in our song when he prophesizes that “The Times They Are A-Changin”. There is only the prophecy that times will change but there is no preaching at all.
The same paradox you may read in the Scriptures is also present in this song. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven is an operation that is entirely conducted by Powers from above and there is nothing and nobody in this universe that can stop it. Yet those who try to stop it are held responsible for their obstruction. Providence and predestination do not wipe out human responsibility. We see this same paradox in this song.
Change may be inevitable, but that does not mean that all change is good. Goodness and inevitability are however not mutually exclusive. One can have change that is both inevitable and good. The German philosopher G.W.F Hegel (1770-1831) believed that change and progress are inherently entwined and that history is moving upwards simply by moving forward. But you cannot find this Hegelian idea in the literal lyrics of “The Times They Are A-Changin”. On the face of it, again when you look at the literal words - and not to the context in which this song was written- the song seems more inspired by the political philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) who was more concerned by what is true than with what ought to be true. Such a worldview exhorts us to gauge which way the wind is blowing and act accordingly, in the same sense as Dylan wrote in his song “Subterranean Homesick Blues”: “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows” or in his song “Floater”: ’They say times are hard, if you don’t believe it, you can just follow your nose”. Truth in this song is that change is coming but the song does not express what ought to be the truth.
There is no specific moral ground in Dylan’ speaker, at least so it seems. Without any contradiction the lyrics of “The Times They Are A- Changin” may function as a banner not only for peaceful anti-war protesters but also for blood thirsty revolutionaries and for Nazi dead squads. So Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and ISIS may all take the words of this song in their mouth and say “The Times They Are A-Changin” without any contradiction. At one time also Dylan himself used these words as a banner for his theological stance. In a stage rap during a concert in the fall of 1979 Dylan said: “I told you "The Times They Are A-Changing'" and they did. I said the answer was "Blowing in the Wind" and it was. I'm telling you now Jesus is coming back, and He is! And there is no other way of salvation”.
One could argue with good reasons that, once you tear the song out of its original context, the song is more descriptive than prescriptive. The song would be prescriptive if the speaker would say to you that the upcoming change is good. And because it is good, the speaker would exactly tell you what you are required to do to embrace this change. That might be his intention of the speaker but it is not what he says. In fact the song is more descriptive: change is happening and that is an irreversible fact, whether you like it or not.
Again, on the face of it, the prophet in this song looks like an amoral, neutral commentator of a wrestling match between two amoral fist fighters. One of these two fighters will eventually win and destroy his opponent and the song exhorts us to join the side of the winner, whoever it might be.
Any social progress or higher transcendent values are not apparent in the lyrics and must therefore be read into the text. We think that Dylan invites you to read these values into the text. It seems unlikely that it was Dylan’s intention that, as far as change is concerned, we should act like some moral chameleon, and adjust our sails in accordance with the prevailing winds, no matter how amoral or wicked these winds may be.
So then, if these higher moral and transcendent values have to be read into the text, then the context in which this song was written becomes very important. We should calibrate our ears to the original milieu in which this song was written to find out what sort of change Dylan is implicitly alluding to. To find out we have to go back to the sixties. You will have a hard time finding any decade in American history which is more culturally charged than the sixties. In that decade there was the rise of the civil rights movement, the counter culture movement, the anti-Vietnam war protests, an emerging environmental awareness, the struggle against poverty, the start of the space race to the moon, the upcoming the gay rights movement and an outburst of feminism.
As said above this song was written in the wake of the famous ‘March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom’, which was held in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, August 28, 1963. The purpose of the march was to stand up for and claim civil and economic rights for African Americans. At the march, Martin Luther King Jr., standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial, delivered his historic "I Have a Dream" speech in which he called for an end to racism. At the time Dylan was known to be a strong supporter of the Civil Rights Movement and one can safely say that he wrote this song to support this movement. However, this song is not a protest song. Dylan has said himself that he didn't protest. He showed his support for various things but it was never his intention to protest anything.
No matter how amoral the lyrics of “The Times They Are A-Changin” may sound in itself when read out of the cultural context of the sixties, in certain circumstances the performance of the song may feel as an embarrassment, even in the sixties, not only for the audience but also for Dylan himself. This happened to Dylan when, less than a month after Dylan recorded the song, President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, on November the 22nd 1963. The next night, Dylan opened his concert with "The Times They Are a-Changing'’; in an interview Dylan told biographer Anthony Scaduto, "I thought, 'Wow, how can I open with that song? I'll get rocks thrown at me.' But I had to sing it, my whole concert takes off from there. I know I had no understanding of anything. Something had just gone haywire in the country and they were applauding the song. And I couldn't understand why they were clapping, or why I wrote the song. I couldn't understand anything. For me, it was just insane”. This statement shows that Dylan never meant this song to be a pass par tout, just to describe the inevitable but amoral process of change but that there are defined underlying moral and ethical values in this song which do fit in certain circumstances – the Civil Rights Movement with its ‘March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom’- but which in other circumstances – just after the assassination of J.F. Kennedy- do not fit in at all.
Let us now take a detailed look at the lyrics of this song in a verse by verse analysis.
Come gather ’round people, wherever you roam
And admit that the waters around you have grown
And accept it that soon you’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’
The opening line “Come gather ’round people” is typical language used by the Biblical prophets such as Joel and Isaiah (see e.g. Joel 3:11, Isaiah 60:4) and also used in the folk traditions of telling villagers to gather around to announce new – and in this case ominous - things that are about to happen. Dylan more or less has the same opening lines in his song “North Country Blues” where it says: “Come gather round friends”.
When it says “Admit that the waters around you have grown and accept it that soon you’ll be drenched to the bone” the speaker immediately draws our attention to an apocalyptical image of an upcoming flood. Destructive floods are seen by some as an archetypal symbol of the cyclical nature of destruction and restoration, an amoral event, something that will happen over and over again in the history of mankind. The Biblical prophetical backdrop of a flood however, is that of divine judgement, like in the days of Noah’s great sin flood (Genesis 7). This flood is occasionally referred in the New Testament as a warning sign not to be caught off guard but to be vigilant and ready for the sudden arrival of change- the arrival of the Son of Man on the clouds. (Mat. 24:37-39).Dylan repeatedly uses the apocalyptic image of floods in his works and this is clearly Biblically inspired. Songs like “Crash on the Levee”, “High Water” and “The Levee’s gonna break” are some good examples. Dylan seems to be well aware of the double function water has in this respect. It is a destructive power on the one hand and it has a cleansing function – of sin - on the other hand. Fire also has this double function. Fire may destroy and purify. No matter how important floods are in Dylan’s work, Dylan seems well aware of the fact that not water is the ultimate apocalyptic sign but fire. The fire on the Latter Day is a purifying fire. Dylan writes in “God Knows”: “God knows there’s gonna be no more water, but fire next time”.
One of the characteristics of a flood is its suddenness. When there is a big flood, the waters rise so quickly that you have little time to escape. However, it is remarkable that the poet does not instantly urge you to leave for higher and dryer grounds but instead asks you to “admit” that the waters around you have grown and to “accept” that soon you’ll be drenched to the bone. In other words, there is no possibility to escape this flood of change. You have to accept the new reality and swim along with the tide and run along with the bulls in a direction which is already predestined. Resistance will kill you and resignation will save you, at least that is to say “If your time to you is worth savin’. You are part of a lost generation if you do no value your time and if you are not willing to read the writing on the wall. The speaker sees only one way out of this jam and says: “Then you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone” which again means that when the “wind of changes shift” you’d better adjust your sails to the wind and swim along with the tide or otherwise you will definitely drown and perish. The speaker sums all of this up in the refrain of the song: ’For the times they are a-changin’ . Dylan writes “A-changing” instead of simply “Changing” and in doing so he follows the traditional approach used in the 18th century English folk ballads. He may have done this to render the song an ancient cachet and maybe also for rhythmical reasons.
Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide the chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon for the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no telling’ who that it’s naming’
For the loser now will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’
There is an ironic undertone in this verse when writers and critics are addressed. When the speaker says: “Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pen”, the press as a whole is targeted and the speaker expresses doubt whether the media will be able to read the writing on the wall. It is as if he says: ‘you so-called prophets, you who think that you’ve got it always right, most of the time your predictions are wrong, I give you one last chance not to miss this once only, life changing event, that is about to begin, therefore, “keep your eyes wide the chance won’t come again”. When the speaker goes on to say: “And don’t speak too soon for the wheel’s still in spin, and there’s no telling’ who that it’s naming’ it seems as if we are placed at the whims of an ordinary spinning wheel - like a roulette - which seems no less arbitrary than divine mandate. But the poet may have had something else in mind. As said, the song is written in the style of the Biblical prophets, in this case the prophet Ezekiel. In Ezekiel chapter 10, the prophet Ezekiel has a vision and sees whirling, spinning wheels (verse 2 and onwards). A man clothed in linen is ordered to scatter destructive fire from among the whirling wheels over the city of Jerusalem. Later on in the sixties, Dylan would write a parody on this vision from Ezekiel in a song called “This wheel’s on Fire” in which he admonishes to take heed of the apocalyptic fire coming from those wheels: “Best notify my next of kin, this wheel shall explode”. But it is not only the destructive fire of these wheels that is highlighted in Ezekiel 10. Within the wheel (verse 10) there are four other wheels. The rims and the spokes of the wheels are round about full of eyes (verse 12). The wheels had the ability to move in any of the four directions without turning as they went (verse 11). In this respect the wheel denotes the all seeing eye of the Spirit of God moving in all directions through history to its final destination. The Spirit sees all and knows everything that will happen in the future. Therefore, when it says: “And don’t speak too soon for the wheel’s still in spin, and there’s no telling’ who that it’s naming’ it may be this foretelling function of the wheel (the Spirit) that may be meant here. The outcome of this divinely inspired wheel is unknown to mortal souls and is usually against all odds. That is why it now says: “there’s no telling who that it’s naming”. You may think that the wheel of time and change may move into a certain direction when in fact it moves in quite an unexpected and opposite direction. An ostensibly hopeless quest may turn into a great victory in the end. That’s why the speaker concludes: ‘’For the loser now will be later to win”. This line comes close to a quote from Jesus in Mark 8:35: “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it”. Those who are now beggars will soon become kings because “the times they are a-changing”.
Come senators, congressmen please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside and it is raging
It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’
On the face of it, this song can be a pass par tout in any political or social situation which calls for change. However, when it says “Come senators, congressmen please heed the call” the song is linked to the specific American political system where you have a congress and a senate and therefore senators and congressmen. For this reason, the original milieu in which the song was written becomes of some importance. Remember that this song was written in the wake of the famous ‘March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom’, which was held in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, August 28, 1963. As said the purpose of the march was to stand up for and claim civil and economic rights for African Americans. It is therefore fair to assume that the members of American Senate and Congress are implicitly summoned here to give political support to this movement and “to heed the call” and not obstruct legislation that grants these civil and economic rights. The status quo in this verse is represented by a house standing the middle of a battlefield. The Senators and Congressmen are inside this house, change is knocking at their door and is on the doorstep of their house and wants to come in. The status quo often has a tendency to be on the safe side, whereas change is often chaotic, disruptive and uncertain. Politicians, representing the status quo, have a tendency to be on this safe side of things and are usually not inclined to take chances. The speaker has a premonition that Senators and Congressmen will oppose this new movement of change or at least delay it and he warns them to get of the way by saying: “Don’t stand in the doorway don’t block up the hall”. When the speaker goes on to say: “For he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled”, this may sound quite revolutionary, words which would not be unbecoming if they were used and practiced during the bloody French (1789-1799) and Russian revolution (1917). Therefore, although it is probably not the intention of the speaker, yet underneath these words there may be an implicit threat that the use of violence cannot be avoided for those who obstruct change. In the words “For he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled” there may be the Machiavellian connotation of the prince who must “ do whatever circumstances require”, as if it says: ‘ the end justifies the means and therefore, if you do not collaborate freely, we will have to resort to the use of force and in this process you may get hurt or even killed’. For this process of change is serious business and remember: “There’s a battle outside and it is raging, it’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls”. Although there is no direct hint in the lyrics that the battle outside the house is waged by freedom fighters and that those inside are corrupt bureaucrats, yet it seems clear that the speaker is on the side of those who are in battle outside this edifice. As said the song is written in the stylings of the Biblical prophets and here it is as if the prophet Ezekiel bursts upon the scene and says: “The sword is without, and the pestilence and the famine within: he that is in the field shall die with the sword; and he that is in the city, famine and pestilence shall devour him”. (Ezekiel 7:15 KJV).
Come mothers and fathers throughout the land
And don’t criticize what you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly aging
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’
Also in this verse, when mothers and fathers are addressed, the figure of speech again very much resembles the Biblical prophets. When these prophets prophesize about ‘the times a-changing’ which will be caused by the upcoming appearance of the Kingdom of God on earth, the incarnation of God in the flesh, the prophet Malachi, like the speaker in this verse, talks about mothers and fathers and their children by saying: “and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse" (Malachi 4:6 KJV).In this quotation we see that Malachi threatens the world with a ‘curse’ and Dylan also speaks of a curse when in the final verse it says: “the curse it is cast”. Whereas Malachi admonishes both parents and children to turn their hearts to each other, in this verse only mothers and fathers are summoned to pay attention and to stop criticizing their children. Although this is not expressed literally in the lyrics and must therefore be read between the lines, it is the status quo here, the status quo represented by the older generation, which opposes the new social movement of change initiated by the younger generation. Certainly at the beginning of the sixties, when society was much more hierarchically organized than nowadays, words like “don’t criticize what you can’t understand, your sons and your daughters are beyond your command, your old road is rapidly aging” were seen by many – law abiding people - as breaking parental control and authority and violating the 5th Commandment which commands you to honor your father and mother. However, if change is not only inevitable but also good, all authority, both parents and children have to bow their knees in obedience to this new order (Phil 2:9). What is ‘good’ is a matter of debate however. The speaker in this song seems convinced that this new road is not only inevitable but also good and also seems to believe that there is an absolute distance between (the) right and (the) wrong (way). You are either with it or against. You are invited to accommodate and if you can’t, you are politely urged: “Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand”. If you don’t support the younger generation initiating change and if “you can’t lend your hand”, the least you could do as parents is to make room “to get out of the way”, because one thing is sure: “your old road is rapidly aging”, a new era is coming “For the times they are a-changin’ .
The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast
The slow one now will later be fast
As the present now will later be past
The order is rapidly fading
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changing
This final verse once again sums it all up. There is no turning back now: “The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast”. When the Biblical prophet Malachi says: “and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse" (Malachi 4:6 KJV) it looks like that the threat “to smite the earth with a curse” is conditional. But that is only partly the case. Even if mothers and fathers and their children are unwilling to listen to the prophet, the prophesied world changing events will take place anyway. This is even more the case so here in this final verse. It is not said: “the line will be drawn and the curse will be cast unless”….. but the “the line is drawn and the curse it is cast”, therefore this statement has more of a proclamation than of a theat. The least you can say of a “curse” is that it is often cast by those who have or claim to have divine powers. The lyrics do not explicitly say that this curse comes from above, therefore this likely notion, that in fact this curse comes from God, has to be read into the text of the lyrics. When it says: “The slow one now will later be fast” this may reflect Ecclesiastes 9:11: “I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all” (KJV). Dylan echoes this notion in his song “I and I”: ”Took an untrodden path once, where the swift don’t win the race”. It is as if the poet wants to say: ‘the process of change that is now underway will take place against all odds. Things are not what they seem. The process of change may now seem to come very slowly into effect, but this slow tempo will be rewarded later”. “As the present now will later be past” may call for patience and endurance. The present labors of birth of this new order will soon be forgotten and past, once the new era of change is born. The words “As the present now will later be past” may also be an attempt to tone down high pitched expectations. If that is what is intended, then this also reflects the book of Ecclesiastes when it says: “That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past” (Ecclesiastes 3:15). All labors of birth, brining forth this new era, will soon be over because : “The order is rapidly fading”. Though not expressed, it is clear that it is the “old” order, whatever this old order may be, which is “rapidly fading”. The words “And the first one now will later be last” is reminiscent of a quote from Jesus in Mark 10: 31, where Jesus says: “But many that are first shall be last; and the last first” (KJV). Within the context of this quote Jesus intends to say that those - like Peter and the other apostles -who gave up everything in life to follow Jesus will be rewarded later and those who have everything now – the glory and adoration of people like the Pharisees- will be dismissed when the Kingdom comes when the times are a-changing. However, here in the song Dylan only quotes the first part of this saying from Jesus: “And the first one now will later be last”. At the time when he wrote this song in 1963,within the social and political context at that time and which we outlined above, it may mean that those who are now in power, the government, those who are in society’s driving seat, will lose their power and significance and will ‘’later be last” once the new political order of social justice has been established, just because ‘’the times they are a-changing”.
DId I miss or overlook something, or do you not agree at all, please comment on this article by just pushing the button 'reacties' below
Dylan’s “Trouble No More” and Greil Marcus’s view on “Slow Train” – by Kees de Graaf.
Having read most of the press reviews of Bob Dylan’s “Trouble No More: The Bootleg Series, Vol. 13 / 1979-1981”, we may safely conclude that this release was received with much eulogy by the vast majority of critics in the musical world, not only – and not surprisingly - by believers but also by non-believers and atheists. That was quite a different story when Dylan released his first album in the period “Trouble No More” covers: “Slow Train Coming” in 1979. Although musically “Slow Train Coming” received quite a lot of appraisal at the time, from a lyrical point of view however, most of the critics -and fans as well - were shocked and horrified by what they heard and were completely taken aback. At the time, those critics and fans had to deal not only with his conversion to Christianity but also with the fact that this conversion – in their opinion - showed itself in an uncompromising and relentless way in the lyrics of this new album.
Now more than 38 years later in 2017, it looks as if things have changed. Why is that? First of course, there is the wear and tear of time. As time goes by controversies tend to lose their sharp edges and people are more and more inclined to see and understand in a more objective way what really happened in a certain situation at a certain time. Listening to and watching “Trouble No More”, what do most people now hear and see what they did not – and some of them maybe were not willing to - hear and see at the time in 1979-1981?. What they now see and hear is first of all the craftmanship of Dylan and his band and the back-up singers. This was really a good and tight band. It rocked and it had soul!. The second thing might be Dylan’s commitment and sincerity. Listening to and watching “Trouble No More” you can feel and sense that Dylan had gone through a life changing experience and felt a sincere vocation to share this experience with his audience and the rest of the world. There is no guile in these performances. The third thing is that people now begin to realize that a firm conviction such as the Christian faith is capable of producing some of the finest art, also in the case of Bob Dylan. Take e.g. Johan Sebastian Bach’s (1685-1785) masterpiece the St. Matthew Passion. No matter how confrontational the Christian lyrics of this masterpiece may be at some points, there is no one in our times who is offended by these lyrics. We accept these lyrics as they are and both believers and non-believers equally enjoy this music, in spite of the fact that it must be assumed that Bach’s wellspring of creativity was fed by his Christian faith.
Now to Greil Marcus. Marcus published a book in 2011 called “Bob Dylan: Writings 1968-2010”. In this book Marcus comments on “Slow Train Coming”. Marcus writes on Page 95: “What we’re faced with here is really very ugly” and “The songs on Slow Train are monolithic, Jesus is the answer, and if you don’t believe it, you’re fucked”. On page 96: “Dylan’s songs have nothing of the sanctified quest in them: they’re arrogant, intolerant. Much of the writing is insultingly shoddy – some of the songs are no more than glorified lists”. These are pretty harsh words from Marcus. It even gets worse when Marcus goes on to say on page 96: “In “Do right to me Baby”, the devastating entreaties of Mat. 5:44 are corrupted: “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you” turns into you- scratch-my – back- I’ll-scratch -yours. Dylan is promoting a very modern kind of gospel: safe, self-satisfied and utilitarian. There is no sense of his own sin on Slow Train, no humility, and less God than Dylan’ own choice that’s celebrated”. When we read this we wonder: has Greil Marcus done his homework?. Because when we take a close look at the lyrics of “Do Right to Me Baby (Do unto others)” we see that this song is a parody on Matthew 7: 12 where Jesus says “So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets”. Dylan writes in “Do Right to Me Baby”: “But if you do right to me, baby, I’ll do right to you, too. Ya got to do unto others, like you’d have them, like you’d have them, do unto you”. This parody exactly reflects what Jesus intended to say in Mat.7:12. Dylan himself indirectly returned to this subject in his in 2003 rewritten version of another Slow Train track: “Gonna change my way of thinking” where he writes “we‘re living by the golden rule, whoever got the gold rules”. The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity basically says that ‘one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself’. We find this Golden Rule in the modern concept of human rights and in a wide range of world cultures and in all the major world religions. Therefore, within the context of this song and in “Do Right to Me Baby” Dylan no doubt refers to the Christian Golden Rule of Mat. 7:12: “So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets”.
So when Marcus says:“ In Do right to me Baby”, the devastating entreaties of Mat. 5:44 are corrupted. “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you” turns into you- scratch-my – back- I’ll-scratch -yours”, Marcus is fully mistaken. Dylan does not deal with the subject of how one should treat one’s enemies in “Do right to me Baby” but deals with the Golden Rule taught by Jesus. How you should treat your enemies and the Golden Rule of ethic reciprocity are two different subjects.
Marcus goes on to say: “There is no sense of his own sin on Slow Train, no humility, and less God than Dylan’ own choice that’s celebrated” and further on: “What Dylan does not understand are the hard spiritual facts that have always formed the bedrock of traditional American faith. What he does not understand is that by accepting Christ, one does not achieve grace, but accepts a terrible , lifelong struggle to be worthy of grace, a struggle to live in a way that contradicts one’s natural impulses, one’s innately depraved soul. Sin does not vanish, it remains constant, but now one cannot hide from it, and one must accept the suffering recognition brings”.
First of all, this statement from Marcus is wrong from a Biblical point of view. The Bible teaches that the love of God through Jesus Christ is unconditional. One needs not to be “worthy of grace” to be accepted by God as Marcus writes. Those who believe in Christ and accept Him receive unconditional grace(John 1:12, Roman 3:24).It is true, a lifelong struggle against sin remains. Is Dylan really not aware of this lifelong struggle against sin as Marcus seems to suggest? Look at what he writes in “Solid Rock” : “It’s the ways of the flesh to war against the spirit, twenty four hours a day you can feel it you can hear it, using all devices under the sun, and He never give up till the battle ‘s lost or won” What Marcus seems not to understand is that a convert passes through various successive phases of inner renewal. The first phase is the acceptance of the newly found faith and the confrontation with the ‘old’ way of thinking and living: “Make myself a different set of rules” in “Gonna change my way of thinking”. This first phase is marked by a high degree of apologetics. Confrontation with the outside world cannot be avoided and if it appears that you are serious, you may expect that the outside world will be critical of the steps you have taken and questions you: “They ask me how I feel, and if my love is real” (I Believe in You). You meet with a lot of hostility from the press and your fans who cannot get their neck around what they regard as a sudden and incomprehensible turnaround. We feel therefore that the album “Slow Train Coming” is marked by these apologetics. Here we find Dylan defencing his newly found expression of faith. The price he paid for it was high and that was not at all an easy affair, like Marcus suggests, when Marcus writes that: “One never claims, as Dylan does throughout Slow Train, that redemption is a simple affair.
When Marcus says: “Dylan is promoting a very modern kind of gospel: safe, self-satisfied and utilitarian. There is no sense of his own sin on Slow Train, no humility, and less God than Dylan’ own choice that’s celebrated” he does not do justice to Dylan and to the songs on Slow Train. It is true, the certainty of his religious conviction shines through on Slow Train. The conviction that there is only one road to salvation. And it would seem that the expression of this certainty is the main source of all the repugnance like that of Marcus’s. For Marcus the expression of this religious certainty is synonymous to following a map. This appears when Marcus writes: “American piety is a deep mine, and in the past, without following any maps Dylan has gone into it and returned with real treasures: John Wesley Harding is the best example, but there are many others”. But who is without any maps in life? Atheism, Liberalism, Nihilism, all sorts of ism’s, they all have maps. Christianity is also one of them. All these maps are capable of producing great art. But not for Marcus. It seems that for Marcus all maps are allowed and may produce great art, but apparently not the map Dylan follows in Slow Train, this map is abhorrent, condemned, and cannot produce great art in the eyes of Marcus. In other words: only if you follow my map you can make great art.
Apart from this, when you study the lyrics of Slow Train carefully you will find a lot of vulnerability, compassion, pain and fear which has nothing to do with self-satisfaction and lack of his own sin: “What you have given me today is worth more than I could pay” is that self-satisfaction? When Dylan addresses himself in “When He returns” and says: “Can I cast aside, all this loyalty and pride?” is that not an expression of his own sin and an expression of the mother of all sin: pride?.
Moreover, Marcus completely ignores the successor of Slow Train, the album “Saved”. One may say that “Saved” represents a second phase a convert is going through. The first phase “Slow Train” was marked by the doctrinal fixation of the faith and the apologetics as a result of that. The second phase “Saved” is marked by joy and gratitude for salvation. There are plenty of examples, we give a few: “Saved”: “I’m so glad, so glad, I want to thank you Lord”. In “What can I do for You”: “You have given everything to me, You have given all there is to give”. By the way, how can Marcus say that that there is no sense of his own sin: “If you find it in your heart, can I be forgiven?” (“Saving Grace”).
The third phase a convert is going through is marked by the integration of one’s specific secular skills of song writing. By ‘secular’ skills we do not intend to suggest that there is a contrast between ‘secular’ skills of writing and ‘spiritual’ or ‘religious’ skills of writing. There is no antithesis between nature and grace. The message in this third phase is therefore basically still the same but to understand the message fellow believers will have to read between the lines. This style of communication is more or less comparable with Jesus’ style of preaching and communication by means of parables. People no longer wanted to listen to the overt and outspoken message of the coming Kingdom of Heaven (Mat. 13:10-15) so Jesus started to preach in parables. The message is no longer outspoken but hidden in a parable. To understand the message you have to make an effort which was only given to his (real) disciples (Mat 13:11). Something comparable happened to Dylan’s song writing. The message of “Slow Train Coming” and “Saved” was unequivocal and outspoken. At the time this was necessary for phase one and two of his conversion. In “Shot of Love” however, we see a transition to the third phase a convert is going through. Some of the songs like e.g. “Property of Jesus” and “Dead Man, Dead Man” still belong to phase one or two but songs like “Heart of Mine” or “Lenny Bruce” and even more so “Every Grain of Sand” belong to the third phase of his conversion. To understand the lyrics of songs like that, you have to make an effort and read the message between the lines, in the same way as the disciples had to do when Jesus told them parables. This third phase makes his song writing acceptable to believers and(again) non-believers, the lyrics are open for debate and contemplation and can be interpreted in multiple ways, but that does not mean that these lyrics are without a message and make sense no more. The basic message is still the same but the packing is different. Now in 2018 we are more or less still in this third phase, albeit the learning process still goes on. Layer is built upon layer, “Love and Theft” is quite different from “Infidels” and “Tempest” is quite different from “Oh Mercy”. We cannot go into details here but lyrics like in “Pay In Blood” simply had to be made.
This also implies that things cannot and will not be duplicated or repeated. “Slow Train Coming”, “Saved” and “Shot of Love” were unique and once-only. Dylan has never repeated a creative phase in his career and also never denounced a creative phase in his oeuvre. ”I did all I could , I did it right there and then (1979-1981?) I’ve already confessed, no need to confess again” Dylan stresses in “Thunder of the Mountains”.
We guess that as much as Dylan despised to be pinned down as a ‘protest’ singer or ‘voice of a generation’ he may also despise his 1979-1981 phase to be pinned down as ‘a Christian’ or ‘born-again’ phase, as some bygone whim which actually does not belong to the true Dylan, a stance which is adopted and advocated by the overwhelming majority of his critics and followers. In our opinion his oeuvre forms a unity, an edifice in which layer is built upon layer. You cannot break lose a layer of bricks – like his so-called ‘Christian phase’ or any other phase for that matter- without the whole building collapsing. Sometimes we have to take Dylan interviews with a little pinch of salt but we feel that Dylan was serious when, in his Sixty Minutes interview in 2004, he said: “it goes back to the destiny thing. I made a bargain with it, you know, a long time ago. And I'm holding up my end”. In this ‘destiny thing’ there is right time and place for everything. We strongly believe that the release of “Trouble No More” has everything to do with this ‘destiny thing’. With the release of “Trouble No More” Dylan made a statement. He made this statement at the right time. It is part of the bargain he made.
Your response to this article is welcomed. Please press the button ''reacties" below and write a response.
Whoever has followed the recent political events in the USA, the inauguration of the 45th President of the United States, may agree that if there is one Dylan song from the eighties which has lost none of its topicality than it is the ‘Disease of Conceit’. Populism is rampant, not only in the USA but also in Europe.
We feel that certain aspects of populism are a fertile soil for the disease of conceit to flourish, and it shows, not only in the USA as we have seen, but also in Europe, where in a number of countries elections are coming up this year. For this reason it would be very appropriate if Dylan would reintroduce this song in his upcoming European Tour. You never know.
‘Disease of Conceit’ is one of those little precious gems from the album ‘Oh Mercy’ (1989). On page 170 (page 184 of the Dutch edition) of ‘Chronicles’ (2004), Dylan offers us some useful background information about the way in which this song came about. In ‘Chronicles’ Dylan emphasizes that ‘Disease of Conceit’ definitely has gospel overtones. By the way, we feel that this does not only apply to ‘Disease of Conceit’ but almost to any other song on this album. Undoubtedly the main theme on this album is compassion. This compassion is, reflected in the album’s title ‘Oh Mercy’, shines through in all the songs on the album and particularly in the way in which Dylan deals with conceit here. We will say more on this below.
The first question we have to try and answer is: what is this ‘disease of conceit’? In ‘Chronicles’ Dylan gives us some sort of a clue when he says: ‘Conceit is not necessarily a disease. It’s more of a weakness. A conceited person could be set up easily and brought down accordingly. Let’s face it, a conceited person has a false sense of self-worth, an inflated opinion of himself. A person like this can be controlled and manipulated if you know what buttons to push’. The first thing Dylan invites us to consider is that we should not take the word ‘disease’ in this respect too literally but more metamorphically. That is why Dylan says that conceit is not necessarily a disease. The disease of conceit certainly has some characteristics of a ‘real’ infectious disease like e.g. the flu. You can’t see the flu, it seems to come out of nowhere, it spreads easily and it is very hard to control. What also strikes us in this quote from ‘Chronicles’ is that Dylan looks at the disease of conceit from the reverse side of the medal. Although it is true what Dylan writes that one of the main characteristics of a conceited person is that he ’can be controlled and manipulated if you know what buttons to push’ but it is also true- and even more so - that a conceited person exactly knows how he or she can control and manipulate other persons and even whole nations and such a person knows exactly what buttons he or she has to push to do so. What is beyond doubt is, that a famous person who suffers from the disease of conceit produces some very bad fruit which, often for political reasons and/or for protection of public image, is kept secret to the public at large. But once this bad fruit becomes known to insiders, such a conceited person can sometimes be easily controlled and manipulated, if not blackmailed. A main characteristic of a conceited person is that such a person turns a blind eye to the damage he or she causes to other people because of one’s actions and also turns a blind eye to the risks one runs, once one’s actions come home to roost. Pride goes before a fall. Dylan correctly says that a conceited person ‘has a false sense of self-worth’ and ‘an inflated opinion of himself’. The result of this attitude is that a conceited person feels that he or she is above the law and that certain moral standards do not apply to him or her but only to other people.
Deceit is more of a weakness Dylan says. We feel that deceit and therefore also the disease of conceit, is part of the human condition. But where does conceit originate from? Dylan gives us a clue by saying that the song has gospel overtones, so this time nobody will disagree that we have to look for an answer in the Gospel, in the Bible. Although it does not use the word ‘deceit’ literally, nevertheless the Jewish and Christian tradition teaches us that the origin of conceit goes back to the very beginning of mankind, to what happened in the Garden of Eden as described in Genesis 3. In the garden of Eden man was deceived by Satan into believing that if he would become disobedient and rebellious to God by eating from the forbidden fruit, man could be like God. God had said to man that if he would eat from the forbidden fruit, man would die (Gen. 3:3). Satan immediately waved away the penalty, saying a blatant lie to man:"You shall not die" (Gen.3:4). To encourage man’s obedience Satan offered a reward by saying: "You shall be like God" (Gen. 3:5). This was an offer man should have refused, but man unfortunately chose not to do so. Satan’s offer to man meant a complete reorientation of the focus of man’s live. The ‘self’ of man would from now on become the predominant focus of life: ’You shall be God’. From now on man would be independent from God, having standards of his own to determine what is right and wrong. The focus of man turned away from obedience to God to disobedience. From that point on, the mind of mankind was driven by deceit, hatred, anger, competition, destruction, all encompassed within an overweening pride. (I borrowed these thoughts from John W. Ritenbaugh’s Bible Tools). It was here, in the Garden of Eden where and when the ‘disease of conceit’ was borne and it has been an integral part of the human condition ever since.
Although every human being suffers from the disease of conceit, not all do suffer in the same degree. First of all, God has restrained the efficacy of the disease of conceit. If there were no restraint, every human being would swallow the other and – and after Cain slew Abel- the world would soon have become an unliveable place. Secondly, the gravity s of the disease of conceit is largely determined by the individual traits of character of each human being. An intelligent, strong, arrogant and dominant personality with charismatic leadership capacities - especially when such a person has despotic and/or dictatorial power - has all the ingredients it takes to suffer from the disease of conceit in its extremity . The result is devastating.
Apart from this, we feel that the disease of conceit shows a lot of the characteristics of NPD. NPD stands for ‘Narcissistic Personality Disorder’. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), offers a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. According to DSM-IV NPD is characterized by:
"a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behaviour), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning in early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
(4) requires excessive admiration.
(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.
(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.
(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings or needs of others.
(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes”.
It is said that an estimated 1% of the American population suffers from this disorder. Many successful people like businessmen, lawyers, doctors and academics are said to suffer from it. Back to ‘Chronicles’ and the ‘Disease of Conceit’.
In ‘Chronicles’’ it seems obvious that the fallen televangelist Jimmy Swaggart somehow suffered from the ‘Disease of Conceit’ which eventually led to his downfall. The evangelist Swaggart- as Dylan puts it - had been ‘linked to a prostitute, caught on camera leaving her motel room in sweatpants’. ‘This incident’ -Dylan goes on to say -might have had something to do with inspiring the song but then again, it is hard to say’. We may safely conclude that yes, Dylan – when he wrote this song in 1988- was somehow inspired by this incident. What strikes us is Dylan’s clemency, if not compassion with the fallen Jimmy Swaggart. Dylan feels no need to expose Swaggart. In covert terms Dylan hints at the fact that those who are eager to expose Swaggart, are equally suffering from the ‘Disease of Conceit’ and that there is a lot of hypocrisy involved in this story.
Although the ‘Disease of Conceit’ is written in C major, a key which is frequently used for grand musical statements, and although it is obvious that Dylan condemns the disease, yet there is the same compassion in the song as there is in ‘Chronicles’ for Swaggart. We find no sneer or guile or unholy glee in the lyrics but Dylan’s voice is full of mercy for the victims of the ‘Disease of Conceit’. This makes the song perfectly fit in with the main theme of the album ‘Oh Mercy’. The dramatic and emphatic piano chords strikes at the beginning of the song, immediately give you the feeling that important and dramatic news is coming up, news which you’d better not ignore if you want to survive the devastating consequences of this disease. The way in which the news comes to us reminds us of the beginning of the book of Job. In the book of Job, one after the other bad news messenger bursts upon the scene to report new victims on the battlefield. But with every successive messenger arriving, things get worse, till finally even Job’s children are killed. This also happens in this song. It all ends with: ‘Then they bury you from your head to your feet from the disease of conceit’. Having all said this, let us now take a more detailed look at the lyrics of this outstanding masterpiece.
The first messenger arrives and reports: ‘There’s a whole lot of people suffering tonight from the disease of conceit, whole lot of people struggling tonight from the disease of conceit’. The way in which the messenger reports what he has seen, again reminds us of the book of Job. Job 1: 7: ‘The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.". Here in the song it is as if the messenger roams the earth and reports to God the devastating effects on earth which the disease of conceit causes. It is as if God asks: ‘What have you seen, my blue eyed Son?’. The messenger reports to God: ‘There’s a whole lot of people suffering tonight from the disease of conceit, whole lot of people struggling tonight from the disease of conceit’. The first thing we have to take note of is that you cannot see the symptoms of the disease of conceit with the naked eye in the same way as you can see the symptoms of a ‘real’ disease e.g. the plague. When the plague is about the country, you can literally see many people physically die from the plague all around you. However, you cannot see the disease of conceit in the same way. At the beginning the disease of conceit seems harmless, the disease of conceit is much more a part of your mindset and usually seems to cause no direct physical or spiritual damage. Yet the disease of conceit is much more killing than a ‘real’ disease like e.g. the plague, because the disease of conceit may result in a spiritual (second) death which in the end is much and much worse than a physical death. (Rev.20: 6 and 14). The Bible sees the physical death as a temporal separation of the body and the soul (the first death) but the second death as a permanent alienation from God (called ‘the second death’). The five-word line ‘from the disease of conceit’ comes back in the song over and over again, with its preposition ‘from’ which refers to the infection, the cause’ of the disease. However, the song not only deals with those who ‘suffer’ from the disease of conceit, those who are infected by the disease, but even more so with those who are the victims of these sufferers. The sufferers of the disease of conceit cause a lot of – collateral - damage to people in their surroundings. They cause a lot of damage not only to people in their surroundings but even to whole nations and to the creation as a whole. This phenomenon is expressed in the first four lines of each verse. So when people are ‘suffering’ and ‘struggling’(verse 1), when people’s ‘hearts are 'breaking’ and ‘shaking’(verse 2), when people are ‘dying’ and ‘crying’ (verse 3) and when people are ‘in trouble’ and ‘seeing it double’(verse 4) the poet primarily thinks of what the sufferers of the disease cause to other people. Others are suffering, struggling, other people’s hearts are breaking and shaking and other people are dying and crying and are in trouble and are seeing it double, all because of what those sufferers of the disease of conceit do to them. So when it says: ‘There’s a whole lot of people suffering tonight from the disease of conceit, whole lot of people struggling tonight from the disease of conceit’ it is as if the poet says: ‘I not only see a lot of people who show the symptoms of the disease of conceit, they suffer from this disease, but I also see a lot of people who suffer because of what these sufferers do to them. Likewise I see a lot of people ’struggling from the disease of conceit’ ,these people desperately try to get away from what these sufferers try to do to them’. Usually you struggle ‘with’ or ‘against’’ something, not ‘from’ something, but Dylan nevertheless deliberately seems to use the preposition ‘from’ to focus on the collateral damage which the disease of conceit causes on other people. Life becomes a struggle for many people and the disease of conceit is responsible for that.
In the next four lines (of each verse) Dylan describes the working procedure of the disease of conceit. Here in the first verse it says of the disease of conceit: ‘Comes right down the highway, straight down the line’. The disease of conceit does not know what modesty is. It does not stealthily creep in through by-roads to catch a person by surprise but ‘right down the highway’ with much aplomb and ‘straight down the line’. There is no restraint in the disease of conceit, it reveals itself fully out in the open. Wisdom proceeds with caution but the disease of conceit has no prudence. Patience is a divine characteristic but the disease of conceit has none of that, it cannot wait. The disease of conceit enters a man with brutal and arrogant force like a Blitzkrieg and it is unstoppable when it ‘comes right down the highway’ through the great walks of life and ‘straight down the line’ into your life, presenting itself as something you can’t do without, it gives you no time to think, it ‘rips into your senses, through your body and your mind’. According to the Cambridge Dictionary ‘To rip into somebody’ means: ‘ to attack or criticize somebody with great force’ and that is exactly what the disease of conceit does. ‘It rips into your senses’ and affects your senses, your senses that is your ability to understand, recognize, value, or react to something, but it also affects the five physical abilities to see, hear, smell, taste, and feel. This ripper rips ’through your body and your mind’ and from now tells you what you must think and believe and how you should react and prescribes exactly what you should hear and smell and taste and feel. Both the human mind and body are from now on occupied territory. When the disease of conceit enters into your body and into your mind it cons you into believing that from now on you are really free to say and to do whatever you please; it all seems so sweet, but the harsh reality is that the disease of conceit enslaves you completely. Although Mr. Disease of Conceit promises you total freedom, he secretly laughs in his sleeve and he knows exactly what he is going to do(just like Dylan said in ‘Pay in Blood’) : ‘I'll put you in a chain that you never will break, legs and arms and body and bone’. No wonder that the conclusion of verse one is: ‘Nothing about it that’s sweet, the disease of conceit’. The disease of conceit is just like the little book of which John says: ’I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter’. (Rev. 10:10).When the disease of conceit presents itself to your body and your mind it seems so sweet, but once it has entered your body and you mind, people all around you will soon find out that there is ‘Nothing about it that’s sweet, the disease of conceit’ and that the bitter taste remains.
In verse 2 the second messenger arrives on the scene and this messenger reports about further and deeper infiltration of the disease of conceit. Again there is no anger or wrath but compassion in the messenger’s voice. In verse one the senses, the mind and the body, are affected but now the disease of conceit penetrates deeper into the emotional life if its victims; in fact the disease now penetrates into the spiritual life of its victims. Here in verse two the soul is affected and that is serious business. The soul is the place where matters of life and death are decided. But first this verse further outlines what damage the disease causes to other people. It does so when it says: ‘There’s a whole lot of hearts breaking tonight from the disease of conceit, whole lot of hearts shaking tonight from the disease of conceit’. In various degrees sufferers from the disease of conceit show some, if not all, the symptoms of NPD as we stated above. Some of the symptoms of NPD are really heartbreakers. In the spectrum of NPD, some narcists are ‘interpersonally exploitative, i.e., they take advantage of others to achieve their ends. Others ‘lack empathy and are unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings or needs of others’. Again others ‘show arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes’. These behaviours and attitudes have broken and shaken many a heart and the messengers sees it all unfold when he reports: ‘There’s a whole lot of hearts breaking tonight from the disease of conceit, whole lot of hearts shaking tonight from the disease of conceit’. The working procedure of the disease of conceit in this verse is that it ‘steps into your room, eats your soul’. There seems to be no defence against this disease, without permission it enters your house and ‘steps into your room’ as if it is fully entitled to be there. In the first verse the disease rips into your body and your mind which is already bad enough, but here things further deteriorate and you get in very critical position when the disease penetrates into your soul and even ‘eats your soul’. The Cambridge dictionary defines the soul as: ‘the spiritual part of a person that some people believe continues to exist in some form after their body has died, or the part of a person that is not physical and experiences deep feelings and emotions’ What happens when something ‘eats your soul’? At the beginning of this process, when something ‘eats your soul,’ you have a strong feeling that something is wrong with you, something is bothering you deep inside. It may be a pain, something that hurts, often something immoral or sinful. At this early stage your conscience, which is part of your soul, starts to bother you, you are conscience-stricken but there is still a way back to recovery. However, if you do not mend your ways and you allow this process of eating your soul to continue, it gets harder and harder to find a cure. Your conscience is more and more seared up and stigmatized. Once your soul is completely eaten, you may end up doing the most horrible things and not even be bothered by your conscience. At this stage the feeling that you have done something wrong is completely blurred. A lot of those who committed all those terrible atrocities during the Holocaust testified afterwards that they had a free conscience and that they were not troubled at all by their conscience. It is as if the messenger implicitly admonishes us here and says: ‘mend you ways when you still can, otherwise you will come to a point of no return and your soul will be completely eaten and the words of the song ‘Foot of Pride’ will come true: ‘Well, there ain't no going back when your foot of pride come down, ain't no going back’. Elsewhere - in ‘TV Talking Song’ -Dylan says: ‘Your mind is your temple, keep it beautiful and free, don’t let an egg laid in by someone you can’t see’. If this applies to the human mind, the more so it applies to the human soul. The alternative is that when you do not mend your ways and if you let this process of eating your soul go on to the very end, you will more and more lose control over your senses. That’s why the poet concludes: ‘Over your senses you have no control’. In these words ‘Over your senses you have no control’ there is some kind of a paradox, because on the one hand the deceit of conceit deceives you into firmly believing that you are fully in control over your senses and that you can think and do whatever you please and that you are free to take whatever decision you like to take. On the other hand, the reality is that this is a blatant lie. Once you let the disease of conceit in, it more and more subjects you to its will and in the end you will lose all control over your senses and you are completely subjected to its whims, resulting in huge damage, not only to your own soul but also to other people. The disease of conceit makes a public appearance without any restraint whatsoever, it boasts and it brags, both in the public and the private domain, that is why Dylan concludes: ‘Ain’t nothing too discreet, about the disease of conceit’. There is not much discretion in the appearance of the disease of conceit, it does not know what modesty is, its voice is ringing loud and it is takes unholy pleasure in exposing others, exposing to the public what may be regarded as ‘discreet’. It may have to do with the fact that all those who really suffer from the disease pretend that they do not suffer from the disease at all, they feel there is nothing wrong with them. But they pretend that only others do suffer from it and that they have right to poke their nose into other people’s affairs, even in the most private things which may rightly be regarded as ‘discreet’ . They always cheek other people and never point the finger at themselves, the perpetrator is always somebody else. The disease of conceit does not know of any self-reflection whatsoever. Hypocrisy is never discreet and it is Dylan who hints at this hypocrisy in ‘Chronicles’ as we have seen above.
In verse 3 the 3rd messenger arrives on the scene and with pain and compassion in his voice he reports: ‘There’s a whole lot of people dying tonight from the disease of conceit, whole lot of people crying tonight from the disease of conceit’. The focus in the first line ‘There’s a whole lot of people dying tonight from the disease of conceit’ may be on the real sufferers from the disease of conceit, rather than on the victims they make. In the second line ‘whole lot of people crying tonight from the disease of conceit’ it is the other way round; the focus is now on the victims the sufferers of the disease of conceit make, rather than on the real sufferers themselves. There may be a reason to put it like this.
When the poets says ‘There’s a whole lot of people dying tonight from the disease of conceit’ he may primarily not speak of a physical death but of a spiritual death. For those who suffer from the disease of conceit, as soon as the process of ‘eating your soul’, as outlined in verse two, is completed, your soul is lost and you will spiritually die, although you may physically be still alive and kicking and even prosper more than ever. Of course, other people may die because of what the sufferers of the disease of conceit do to them but we feel this is not what the poet primarily may have had on his mind when he wrote: ‘There’s a whole lot of people dying tonight from the disease of conceit’. However, when it says: ‘whole lot of people crying tonight from the disease of conceit’ we feel that the poet primarily may have those people on his mind who are crying because of what the sufferers of the disease of conceit do to them. They cause a lot of tears and sorrow to innocent people in their surroundings, or to the nation and to the creation as a whole. Paul says in 2 Cor. 7:10 about tears and sorrow: ‘Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death’. We feel that this is exactly what makes the difference here. The real sufferers of the disease of conceit do not care a damn about what they do to others, they are far from feeling any sorrow or shedding any tears because of all the wrongs they have done to others. Sufferers from the disease of conceit are sometimes crying but not from repentance because of what they have done to their neighbors, but they are rather crying from frustration when they do not immediately get what they want from others.
The way in which the disease of conceit operates is described in this verse as: ‘Comes right out of nowhere, and you’re down for the count’. The terminology used here is that of a pugilistic contest- a boxing match. The nearer we come to the climax – the end – of the song the more critical the condition of the patient becomes. The disease of conceit ‘comes right out of nowhere’ just like Dylan says in ‘Man of Peace’ the disease of conceit ‘could be standing next to you, the person that you noticed least’. Your opponent – the disease of conceit – catches you completely off your guard. Suddenly you are struck and you have no time to duck or weave. The punches of the disease of conceit are devastating and soon ‘you’re down for the count’. Eight….Nine… Ten… and you’re down and out. In this respect it is not without significance that each of the four verses has ten lines, the poet skillfully builds up the drama to its final catastrophe. The enemy is not only within the gates, in the body and the mind and soul of the sufferer of the disease of conceit, but there is also an external foe which feeds and encourages the enemy within. This foe is the ‘outside world’. That is why Dylan goes on to say that ‘From the outside world, the pressure will mount’. We are still witnessing a pugilistic contest. The public is yelling and screaming and wants to see blood. The fist fighters allow themselves to be carried away in an ever faster turning whirlpool of sweat and blood and they go to the very limit to wipe out their opponent. The tragic thing about the disease of conceit is that the outside world offers you no help in overcoming the disease of conceit but makes things worse. Talented (wannabe) public personalities easily contract the disease of conceit. In such cases, one of the symptoms of the disease of conceit is its morbid tendency to thrive on public adoration and acclaim. These (wannabe) famous public personalities constantly have to live up to the expectations of the public which creates mounting pressure. Public acclaim very often gives you the wrong answers to your problems and instead of combatting the disease it stifles you in your feelings of superiority and plunges you into ever bigger problems, even if you are not aware of it. It may even go that far that your addiction to popularity kills you and you become a puppet in the hands of the public. You must be strong personality, with a different purpose in life, to be immune for all of this and be able to handle this kind of pressure from the outside world. In this phase of the disease of conceit when ‘from the outside world, the pressure will mount’, the disease tightens its control over you and it ‘turns you into a piece of meat’. The image used here is still that of boxing-match. After the count, when you have lost the game, your face may end up looking like a bloody pulp. Your face may literally look like a piece of meat you buy at the butcher’s shop. However, ‘piece of meat’ predominantly has a metaphorical meaning here. You are considered ‘a piece of meat’ when someone feels useful only for the physical characteristics one may supply to other people. You are treated as ‘a piece of meat’ when people regard you as an object of lust rather than as a unique creation worthy of esteem. People may ‘turn you into a piece of meat’ when you always have to live up to their expectations and when they consider you to be their property which they may either praise into heaven or doom into hell. It all has to do with a lack of empathy. Also in this case the (meat) knife cuts both ways. Those who suffer from the disease of conceit may turn their neighbors and relations into a piece of meat and likewise others may turn the sufferers into a piece of meat when they allow themselves to be used as a puppet on a string. We already outlined above that one of the main symptoms of the disease of conceit is that those who suffer from it are not aware of the fact that they suffer from it. They think they are healthy and fine when in fact they are critically ill from the disease of conceit.
In the bridge of the song Dylan offers us a clinical observation of the disease of conceit. It says: ‘Conceit is a disease that the doctors got no cure, they’ve done a lot of research on it but what it is, they’re still not sure’. As we already explained at the beginning of this analysis, the disease of conceit is an inseparable part of the – fallen - human condition. Man is therefore unable to find a cure. It is the reason why it says: ‘Conceit is a disease that the doctors got no cure’. It is not that they have not tried to find a cure, on the contrary, cause ‘they’ve done a lot of research on it’. Throughout the centuries, countless volumes have been written on the origin and efficacy of evil and what man should do to overcome evil but all in vain. All along there has been a persistent belief that, in an evolutionary process, in the end man will be able to conquer evil but again and again all these attempts to wipe out evil have failed. Evil expresses itself in the disease of conceit and there is no cure available. When it says: ‘what it is, they’re still not sure’ this is meant as an understatement. What the poet intends to say is that although anthropologists, psychologists and psychiatrists have done a lot of research on it and have written countless volumes on this subject, they have not succeeded in mapping out the disease of conceit, they don’t know where it came from, they have no control over it and they did not find any effective therapy to overcome the disease of conceit. The truth is that they will never find the solution to the problem. That is to say, no cure is available under the sun. If no cure is available under the sun, here on this earth, then you may conclude that the solution of the problem must come from somewhere else, from another world or reality. But that is not the subject here and the poet does not deal with this question. He only reports what he sees happening before his eyes. It looks as if the poet deliberately puts it this way, to make you think and draw your own conclusion. Basically Dylan did the same thing in his masterpiece ‘Dignity’. In ‘Dignity’ Dylan concluded: ‘Sometimes I wonder what it’s gonna take to find dignity’. The poet searched everywhere to find dignity but could not find it under the sun, at least not on this earth. It did not say that dignity could not be found in another world or reality.
In verse four the fourth messenger wraps things up and we reach the climax of the song: the lethal outcome of the disease of conceit. The messenger reports: ‘There’s a whole lot of people in trouble tonight from the disease of conceit’. Again, there is sadness and compassion in the messenger’s voice. He sees a lot of people heading for disaster but there is nothing he can do to stop them now, they are in deep trouble and it is too late for them to turn back. The messenger goes on to report: ‘Whole lot of people seeing double tonight, from the disease of conceit’. Clinically, when you are ‘seeing double’ you have a problem with your eyes so that you see two of everything. This may be caused by exhaustion, alcohol or drugs or because you are ill. In this case you are ‘seeing double’ because you are suffering from the disease of conceit. It may be used metaphorically here to denote that you have lost your discernment, you have lost your sense of what is right or wrong and you can easily be deceived into believing and doing the wrong things which in the end will kill you. It is all just an illusion when you are ‘seeing double’ and a fertile soil for what now follows: it ‘Give ya delusions of grandeur’. When you have ‘delusions of grandeur’ you nurse the firm belief that you are more important or powerful than you really are. These ‘delusions of grandeur‘ as Dylan describes them here are exactly in accordance with indication 1 of DSM-IV’s description of a ‘Narcissistic Personality Disorder’. Indication 1 says that such a person ‘has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)’.It is not that the disease of conceit makes a man will-less so that the sufferer could decline all responsibility for his actions and hide behind his illness. The responsibility remains because the disease of conceit not only ‘gives you delusions of grandeur’ but also gives you, what goes hand in hand with it: ‘an evil eye’. The ‘evil eye’ is said to be ‘a look that someone gives other people that is believed to have the power to injure or harm them’. An ‘evil eye’ is an expression that occurs quite often in the Bible, both in the Old and New Testament. Jesus e.g. uses this expression in Mat. 6:23: ‘But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!’. An ‘evil eye’ comes straight from the prince of darkness and occupies your whole body and mind and makes you do a lot of harm to other people, that is why ‘an evil eye’ is one of the worst characteristics of the disease of conceit. Just like Jesus said, this evil eye produces total darkness in your body, so that you are not only looking at other people with ‘an evil eye’ but you will also lose your understanding of who you really are, you may think you are living when in fact you are dead. Even today man is prepared to believe that old lie from Satan in the Garden of Eden: ‘You shall not die’ (Gen 3:4). Those who suffer from the disease of conceit are willing to believe that others deserve to die but the sufferer says: ‘not me, I am too good for that’. The voice of the disease of conceit continuously whispers in your ears to ‘give you the idea that you’re too good to die’. The disease of conceit lulls you asleep with false promises so that you are not aware of the fact that you are in a critical condition and that the undertakers are already at your door’s steps. The conclusive line of the song drives the nail home: ‘Then they bury you from your head to your feet, from the disease of conceit’. The task of the reaper, the disease of conceit, ends here. Not the disease of conceit buries you but ‘they’ bury you. The disease of conceit has killed you. When it says that they ‘bury you from your head to your feet’ it is as if the poet intends to say that you are dead, not only physically but also spiritually. You are totally dead and completely buried. Implicitly a word from Jesus may resonate in the background: ‘And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell’ (Mat. 10:32). That is exactly what the of disease of conceit intends to do: kill both the body and the soul. The disease of conceit is pretty awesome. Respond to this article by pushing the button 'reacties' below.
In dit tiende en laatste hoofdstuk komen we tot een afronding van de bespreking van dit boek en zullen we enkele eindconclusies trekken. Eigenlijk levert dit laatste hoofdstuk niets nieuws op, eerder geformuleerde gedachten worden wat verder uitgewerkt. Paulus schrijft in 2 Kor 5: 18, 19 dat God Zichzelf door Christus met de wereld verzoend heeft en dat Hij de wereld haar overtredingen niet heeft aangerekend. Die verzoening is tot stand gekomen door het offer van Christus, Zijn enig geboren Zoon. Verzoening is dus in de Bijbel heel iets anders dan wat we lezen bij Tolle. Tolle zegt onder het kopje ‘Een nieuwe aarde’ ook het een en ander over wat in zijn ogen verzoening betekent. Tolle zegt dan: ‘Maar als je naar binnen kijkt in plaats van naar buiten, ontdek je dat je een innerlijk en een uiterlijk doel hebt, en omdat je een microscopische afspiegeling van de macrokosmos bent, volgt daaruit dat het heelal ook een innerlijk en een uiterlijk doel heeft, dat niet los gezien kan worden van het jouwe. Het uiterlijke doel van het heelal is vormen te scheppen en de interactie van vormen te ervaren – het spel, de droom, het drama, hoe je het maar wilt noemen. Het innerlijke doel ervan is zich bewust te worden van zijn vormloze essentie. Dan komt de verzoening van uiterlijk en innerlijk doel: die essentie – bewustzijn – in de wereld van vorm te brengen en daarmee de wereld totaal te veranderen. Het uiteindelijke doel van die transformatie gaat het menselijke voorstellings- en begripsvermogen ver te boven. En toch, op deze planeet, in deze tijd, is die transformatie de ons toegewezen taak. Dat is de verzoening van uiterlijk met innerlijk doel, de verzoening van de wereld met God’. Dit citaat is misleidend.
Het lijkt net alsof God bij dit proces van transformatie en verzoening persoonlijk betrokken is. Zijn naam wordt echter wel genoemd, maar toch wordt Hij niet bedoeld, dat is het misleidende in dit citaat en trouwens telkens wanneer Tolle het over ‘God’ heeft. Dat blijkt wanneer Tolle schrijft: ‘En toch, op deze planeet, in deze tijd, is die transformatie de ons toegewezen taak’. Anders gezegd: niet God als Persoon brengt volgens Tolle deze transformatie, deze verzoening, tot stand, maar dat doen wij, het is onze taak. Maar Tolle heeft er geen oog voor dat wij deze transformatie, deze verzoening, helemaal niet tot stand kunnen brengen. Door onze val in de zonde is ons egoïsme zo alles beheersend geworden, dat we onszelf daarvan niet zelf kunnen bevrijden. Het is waar, God damt gelukkig de doorwerking van het kwaad, dit alles vernietigende egoïsme, in. Als God dat niet zou doen, zouden alle mensen elkaar verscheuren en is er helemaal geen leven meer mogelijk op deze planeet. In de dogmatiek heet die goddelijke weerhouding ‘algemene genade’. Er zijn in deze door het kwaad beheerste wereld ook nog goede dingen te zien en te beleven. Die goede dingen geeft God aan goede mensen en aan slechte mensen, aan gelovigen en ongelovigen, zonder onderscheid. Jezus zegt in Mat.5:45: ‘Hij laat zijn zon immers opgaan over goede en slechte mensen en laat het regenen over rechtvaardigen en onrechtvaardigen’. Door deze goedheid van God en door Zijn schijnbaar oneindig geduld, kan de tijd nog voortduren, totdat er eensklaps op de jongste dag een einde aan zal komen. Maar de goede dingen die God in deze wereld aan de mens schenkt, kunnen de mens echter niet redden. De mens heeft een Verzoener nodig. God reikt deze Verzoener van de zonden aan. Jezus Christus is deze verlosser, deze Verzoener. Hij alleen overwint het egoïsme, de zonde die diep in ons binnenste woont. Dat deed Hij door in onze plaats te sterven. Alleen dat evangelie kan werkelijk verzoenen en redden. Door de kracht van de Heilige Geest, die in ons wil komen wonen, worden we nu al getransformeerd naar een nieuw leven. Het ‘ontwaken’ van Tolle, onze ‘Tegenwoordigheid’ ons leven in het ‘Nu’ kan ons ons nooit bevrijden. Dat is slechts een denkconcept van Tolle en dat denkconcept is gestoeld op eeuwenoude ketterijen die in een nieuw jasje gestoken worden.
Onder ‘Een korte geschiedenis van je leven’ schrijft Tolle: ‘Deze twee bewegingen, uitgaan en terugkeren, komen ook tot uiting in de levenscyclus van ieder mens. Uit het niets, zeg maar, kom ‘je’ opeens ter wereld’. Wanneer je dat zo leest, lijkt het alsof hier bij Tolle geen plan achter zit. En dat is ook zo. ‘Uit het niets’ kom je volgens Tolle ter wereld. Dat kan niet anders dan blind toeval zijn. Maar je keert ook weer terug, je gaat dood, en ‘that’s it’. Aan de andere kant, verder op in dit hoofdstuk lijkt het net alsof Tolle in een bepaalde vorm van reïncarnatie gelooft. Dit blijkt uit een citaat als: ‘Als de leeuw het lichaam van de zebra verscheurt, maakt het bewustzijn dat geïncarneerd was in de zebravorm zich los van de uiteenvallende vorm en dan ontwaakt het een kort moment voor zijn wezenlijke onsterfelijke natuur als bewustzijn. Vervolgens valt het meteen weer in slaap en reïncarneert het in een andere vorm’. Maar de overheersende gedachte bij Tolle is toch: dood is dood. Dat blijkt wanneer hij verderop schrijft: ‘En op een dag verdwijn ook jij. Je leunstoel staat er nog. Maar jij zit er niet meer in; er is alleen een lege ruimte’. Wat een schrale troost is dit wat Tolle ons hier biedt. Niet dat de Bijbel geen oog heeft voor de vergankelijkheid van de mens. Psalm 103:15,16 zegt: ‘De mens – zijn dagen zijn als het gras. Hij is als een bloem die bloeit op het veld en verdwijnt zodra de wind hem verzengt, de plek waar hij stond kent hem niet meer’. Dit proces zou je kunnen vergelijken met wat Tolle noemt ‘uitgaan’ en ‘terugkeren’. Maar er is één belangrijk verschil. Want in de Bijbel is er hoop. Het volgende vers zegt: ‘Maar de HEER is trouw aan wie Hem vrezen, van eeuwigheid tot eeuwigheid’ (Psalm 103:17). Er is toekomst want God blijft getrouw. God kent zijn kinderen al van eeuwigheid en Hij blijft ze eeuwig trouw. Ondanks de vergankelijkheid in dit leven mogen we hoop hebben op het aanbreken van de onvergankelijkheid. God komt weer bij de mensen wonen. Voor eeuwig. Die dag zal aanbreken zoals God heeft beloofd. De dood is overwonnen dankzij de opstanding van Christus en daar mogen al zijn kinderen in delen (1 Kor 15: 51:-57). Deze christelijke hoop ontbreekt bij Tolle geheel en al. Tolle komt zoals gezegd niet verder dan deze troosteloze conclusie: ‘En op een dag verdwijn ook jij. Je leunstoel staat er nog. Maar jij zit er niet meer in; er is alleen een lege ruimte. Je bent teruggegaan naar waar je maar een paar jaar geleden vandaan bent gekomen. Het leven van ieder mens – eigenlijk van elke levensvorm – vertegenwoordigt een wereld, een unieke manier waarop het heelal zichzelf ervaart. En als je vorm uiteenvalt, komt er een einde aan een wereld – een van de ontelbare werelden’. Er zit geen greintje hoop in deze boodschap van Tolle, het is een troosteloos verhaal. Dood is bij Tolle dood, alle prachtige theorieën over ‘een nieuwe aarde’ ten spijt. Geef mij dan maar de boodschap van Jezus: ‘Wie in de Zoon van God gelooft heeft eeuwig leven’ (Joh. 3:36).Die boodschap heeft eeuwig durend perspectief. Dat eeuwige leven begint hier al. Als we door de kracht van de Heilige Geest worden vernieuwd gaan we nu al leven volgens het oorspronkelijke doel van God. Dat maakt ons blij en motiveert ons om dat nieuwe leven nu al vorm te gaan geven en de strijd aan te gaan met alle zonde en onrecht in ons leven en in de maatschappij om ons heen. Tolle wil van geen strijd voor recht en gerechtigheid weten. Dat is al vaker gebleken en dat blijkt ook nu weer als Tolle even later schrijft: ‘Worsteling of stress is een teken dat het ego teruggekeerd is, net zoals negatieve reacties wanneer we op hindernissen stuiten’. Wij zouden zeggen dat zolang er op deze aarde nog strijd is tegen onrecht en allerlei duivelse en kwade praktijken, dat er dan nog hoop is. Als dat verzet er niet meer is, zijn we totaal uitgeleverd aan de kwade machten. Dat is wat het menselijke ego wil. Het ego wil juist niet strijden tegen het kwade, maar het kwaad op zijn beloop laten en er heimelijk van profiteren. Het is waar, door zich over te geven aan het kwade roept het ego alsmaar nieuwe strijd en worsteling op. Maar dat is verkeerde strijd (Jac. 4:1,2). Maar er kan wel degelijk een goede strijd gestreden worden. Laten we nu ook Jezus eens citeren zoals Tolle dat zelf ook vaak doet. Jezus zegt in Luc. 13:24: ‘Strijd om in te gaan door de enge poort, want velen, zeg ik U, zullen trachten in te gaan, maar het niet kunnen’. Paulus roept ons voortdurend op om de goede strijd van het geloof te strijden(1 Tim. 6:12). Paulus is ons in die strijd voor gegaan (2 Tim. 4:7). De wapens die we bij deze worsteling gebruiken, zijn niet de wapens van deze wereld. De wapens van wereld bestaan uit brute kracht en geweld.. De wapens die wij gebruiken zijn de wapens van het Licht (Jezus). Die wapens bestaan uit liefde, barmhartigheid en dienstbaarheid. Hoezo is worsteling of strijd een teken dat het ego is terug gekeerd zoals Tolle ons wil laten geloven? Tolle heeft er geen oog voor dat we leven nog steeds in een gebroken wereld leven en dat verandering strijd kost. Dat betekent dat, ook als je iets moois tot stand wil brengen, er nog zoveel kwade machten zijn die het goede tegenwerken. Maar aan die machten komt ooit een keer een einde.
Onder het kopje ‘Bewustzijn’ schrijft Tolle: ‘Bewustzijn is al bewust. Het is het ongemanifesteerde, het eeuwige. Het heelal echter wordt zich slechts geleidelijk bewust. Bewustzijn zelf is tijdloos en evolueert daarom niet. Het is nooit geboren en sterft niet. Wanneer het bewustzijn het gemanifesteerde heelal wordt, lijkt het onderhevig te zijn aan tijd en een evolutieproces te ondergaan. Geen menselijk vernuft kan de reden voor dit proces helemaal doorgronden. Maar we kunnen er in onszelf wel een glimp van opvangen en er bewuste deelnemers van worden. Bewustzijn is de intelligentie, het organiserende principe achter de opkomst van vorm. Bewustzijn bereidt al miljoenen jaren vormen voor opdat het zich daardoor in het ongemanifesteerde kan uitdrukken. Hoewel je het ongemanifesteerde rijk van zuiver bewustzijn als een aparte dimensie zou kunnen beschouwen, staat het niet los van deze dimensie van vorm. Vorm en vormloosheid dringen in elkaar door. Het ongemanifesteerde dringt in deze dimensie door als bewust zijn, innerlijke ruimte, Tegenwoordigheid. Hoe doet het dat? Door de menselijke vorm die bewust wordt en zo zijn bestemming bereikt. De menselijke vorm werd voor dit hogere doel geschapen, en miljoenen andere vormen baanden de weg ervoor. Bewustzijn incarneert in de gemanifesteerde dimensie, dat wil zeggen, het wordt vorm. Als het dat doet, betreedt het een droomachtige toestand. De intelligentie blijft, maar het bewustzijn verliest het bewustzijn van zichzelf. Het verliest zich in vorm, identificeert zich met vormen. Dat zou je kunnen beschrijven als het afdalen van het goddelijke in de materie’. In bovenvermeld citaat hult Tolle zich in vaagheden. Allereerst kent Tolle aan ‘Bewustzijn’ goddelijke eigenschappen toe. Tolle zegt dat ‘Bewustzijn’ eeuwig is, dat het tijdloos is, dat het niet evolueert, dat het geen begin en geen einde heeft. Dat zijn eigenschappen die de Bijbel alleen voor God gereserveerd heeft. Tolle pakt die eigenschappen a.h.w. van de Schepper af en kent ze toe aan het geschapene. Dat noemt de Bijbel afgoderij en daarmee berooft Tolle God van zijn eer. Nu kan je natuurlijk stellen dat Tolle niet gelooft in het bestaan van een persoonlijk God. Dus vanuit zijn visie kan je iemand die niet bestaat ook niet van zijn eer beroven. Toch blijft Tolle de term ‘god’ en ‘goddelijk gebruiken en dat kweekt voortdurend misverstanden. Toch blijft hij over God spreken. Hij doet dat aarzelend en terloops, waarschijnlijk om zijn visie met een Bijbels sausje te overgieten en niet omdat hij in het bestaan van God gelooft. Dit blijkt wanneer Tolle in het volgende citaat zegt: ‘Bewustzijn incarneert in de gemanifesteerde dimensie, dat wil zeggen, het wordt vorm. Als het dat doet, betreedt het een droomachtige toestand. De intelligentie blijft, maar het bewustzijn verliest het bewustzijn van zichzelf. Het verliest zich in vorm, identificeert zich met vormen. Dat zou je kunnen beschrijven als het afdalen van het goddelijke in de materie’. Hoe dan ook is het niet waar wat Tolle zegt., ‘Bewustzijn’ is echter helemaal geen God en is ook niet ‘goddelijk’. ‘Bewustzijn’ is een middel dat God zelf door de Heilige Geest gebruikt om de mens van God bewust te maken. Niet alleen gebruikt God dit middel om de mens er bewust van te maken dat echt God bestaat, maar om de mens er ook de mens ervan bewust te maken dat hij God als redder en bevrijder nodig heeft.
Wat doet Tolle nu in bovenvermeld citaat?. Tolle laat het eeuwige, onsterfelijke ‘Bewustzijn’ doordringen in wat Tolle noemt ‘vorm’ , het ‘gemanifesteerde’, zeg maar ‘het zichtbare en tastbare’, de Schepping dus. Uiteindelijk gaat het ‘Bewustzijn’ daarin geheel en al op. Dat proces gaat volgens Tolle geleidelijk en daarom ‘lijkt’ het volgens Tolle alsof het ‘Bewustzijn’ zelf ook evolueert. Dat ‘lijkt’ zo zegt Tolle, maar niet echt want evolutie kan niet van toepassing op God zelf zijn. God kan evolutie in gang zetten, maar evolueert zelf niet. Op zich heeft Tolle daar gelijk in. Maar ‘Bewustzijn’ is geen God en daarom kan het op zich best evolueren. God evolueert inderdaad niet. Wel kent God een openbaringsgeschiedenis. God laat in de Bijbel steeds meer van Zichzelf zien en merken. Totdat Hij zich volledig kenbaar maakt in Jezus Christus. Wil je weten wie God is? Wil je ervan ‘bewust’ worden wie God is? Open dan de Bijbel en lees wie Jezus is. (Joh. 7:28,29; 8:19; 8:55; 17:3;17:25). Alleen door Jezus leer je God kennen en wordt je ervan bewust wie God is en wie je zelf bent.
We hebben het al eerder opgemerkt dat Tolle de zeer oude dwaling van het ‘pantheïsme’ predikt. Dat blijkt ook nu weer uit bovenvermeld citaat wanneer Tolle zegt: ‘Vorm en vormloosheid dringen in elkaar door. Het ongemanifesteerde dringt in deze dimensie door als bewust zijn, innerlijke ruimte, Tegenwoordigheid. Hoe doet het dat? Door de menselijke vorm die bewust wordt en zo zijn bestemming bereikt. De menselijke vorm werd voor dit hogere doel geschapen, en miljoenen andere vormen baanden de weg ervoor. Bewustzijn incarneert in de gemanifesteerde dimensie, dat wil zeggen, het wordt vorm’. Bovenvermeld citaat is duidelijk een voorbeeld van pantheïsme. Het Griekse woord ‘pan’ staat voor ‘alles’, en ‘theïsme’ voor ‘Goddelijkheid’. In die visie is alles God, zowel het vormloze als het gemanifesteerde. Het goddelijke ‘Bewustzijn’ dat staat voor ‘vormloosheid’ dringt door in de ‘vorm’ volgens Tolle. Zo vormen ze een eenheid en zijn ze beiden god. De ‘menselijke vorm’ die dan ‘mens’ genoemd kan worden, wordt volgens Tolle doordrongen van het goddelijke ‘Bewustzijn’ en wordt daarmee ook zelf God. Als de mens ‘bewust’ wordt van zijn goddelijkheid dan heeft hij volgens Tolle ‘zo zijn bestemming bereikt’. Tolle zegt: ‘De menselijke vorm werd voor dit hogere doel geschapen’. Maar wij vragen, door wie dan? Wie is die Schepper dan? Tolle zegt niet: die Schepper is de Almachtige God, de Schepper van hemel en aarde. Want als hij dat zou zeggen dan zou Tolle een onderscheid moeten maken tussen Schepper – dat is God Zelf – en het ‘schepsel’ dat altijd onder Hem staat en altijd van hem afhankelijk blijft. Hij zou dan van zijn pantheïstisch principe afstappen. Hij zou dan in het bestaan van God geloven. Maar Tolle maakt juist geen onderscheid tussen schepper en schepsel. En dan is typisch een kenmerk van het pantheïsme. Tolle praat wel over ‘scheppen’ maar heeft het nooit over de Schepper die los van het geschapene existeert. Die God bestaat bij Tolle niet. Als God niet echt bestaat dan is er ook geen echte troost en is er ook geen echt uitzicht op het eeuwige leven. Die echte troost die ontbreekt en dat blijkt als Tolle vervolgens gaat Tolle schrijven over wat hij noemt de ‘De modaliteiten van ontwaakt handelen’. Deze modaliteiten zijn volgens Tolle ‘aanvaarding, plezier en enthousiasme’. Tolle zegt dan: ‘Ze vertegenwoordigen allemaal een bepaalde trillingsfrequentie van bewustzijn. Je moet opletten dat een van de drie actief is als je wat dan ook aan het doen bent – van de eenvoudigste tot de meest complexe taak. Als je niet in de toestand van aanvaarding, plezier of enthousiasme bent, kijk dan goed, dan merk je dat je leed voor jezelf en voor andere mensen schept’. Die ‘trillingsfrequentie’ is al eerder aan de orde geweest in het vijfde hoofdstuk van dit boek. We schreven toen dat het bestaan van die z.g. ‘trillingsfrequentie’ op geen enkele wijze wetenschappelijk is vastgesteld. Deze opvatting van Tolle is dan ook puur gebaseerd op fantasie. Tolle laat in dit citaat de mens voor de zoveelste keer optreden als ‘schepper’. In dit geval echter als ‘schepper’ van leed voor zichzelf en anderen. Anders gezegd: luisteren naar Tolle want anders schep je kwaad voor jezelf en anderen. Laten we de drie modaliteiten van Tolle ‘aanvaarding, plezier en enthousiasme’ stuk voor stuk kort bespreken.
Over het onderwerp ‘Aanvaarding’ hebben we al eerder uitgebreid geschreven. Laten we om te beginnen stellen dat ‘aanvaarding’ soms noodzakelijk is en daarom een goede zaak kan zijn. Als God je een bepaalde last te dragen geeft waar je niet onderuit kunt, dan moet je leren die te aanvaarden en daar vrede in te vinden. Als je op God vertrouwt dan geeft Hij je daar de kracht ook voor om het te kunnen dragen. Maar dat is het punt hier niet. Tolle concludeert hier iets heel anders: ‘Als je iets niet met plezier kunt doen en er ook geen aanvaarding in kunt brengen, stop dan. Anders neem je geen verantwoordelijkheid voor het enige waarvoor je verantwoordelijkheid kunt nemen, wat ook het enige is dat werkelijk belangrijk is: je bewustzijnstoestand. En als je geen verantwoordelijkheid neemt voor je bewustzijnstoestand, neem je geen verantwoordelijkheid voor het leven’. Tolle strooit kwistig met citaten van Jezus om zijn opvattingen voor christenen aanvaardbaar te maken zoals we al zo vaak hebben gezien. Op cruciale punten echter staan de opvattingen van Tolle lijnrecht tegenover die van Jezus. Dat blijkt ook uit dit citaat van Tolle. Deed Jezus dit ook zo, zoals Tolle hier adviseert: ‘Als je iets niet met plezier kunt doen en er ook geen aanvaarding in kunt brengen, stop dan’?. Het gaat in deze handeling bij Tolle alleen maar om jezelf, hoe mooi de woorden van Tolle ook klinken. Want het gaat bij Tolle om jouw ‘plezier’ en om jouw ‘aanvaarding’ die je er zelf in moet brengen. Lukt je dat niet dan zegt Tolle: stoppen ermee. Jezus echter, had helemaal geen plezier in het lijden dat Hij moest ondergaan en kon daar totaal geen aanvaarding voor zichzelf in brengen. Dat bleek in de hof van Getsemane, toen Jezus vlak voor zijn lijden en sterven aan het kruis van Golgotha stond. Jezus zag daar de onbeschrijflijk diepe intensiteit van het lijden op zich afkomen. Jezus bad in die hof of God de drinkbeker van zijn lijden wilde wegnemen en bad: ‘Abba, Vader, neem deze beker van mij weg. Maar laat niet gebeuren wat ik wil, maar wat u wilt’ (Marc. 14:36). Jezus aanvaardde de beker van het lijden, niet omdat Hij ervoor zichzelf aanvaarding in bracht, maar omdat Jezus God gehoorzaam wilde zijn. Jezus aanvaardde welbewust het lijden om de wereld te bevrijden van schuld en zonde. Dat is een wilsbeschikking uit pure liefde genomen. Dat is heel wat anders dan er voor jezelf aanvaarding inbrengen. Elders hebben we al breedvoerig beschreven dat Tolle door zijn aanvaardingsideologie, de confrontatie met het kwaad in deze wereld consequent uit de weg gaat. In feite kan het kwaad daardoor ongestoord zijn gang gaan, terwijl Tolle ons maar blijft oproepen om ons in het schijnbaar veilige bastion van wat hij hier noemt je ‘bewustheidstoestand’ terug te trekken. Daar wordt de wereld niets beter van, integendeel, het kwaad kan ongestoord doorwoekeren. Want ‘de strijd tegen het kwade (bijv. tegen kinderslavernij en/of, kinderporno) die moet je volgens Tolle niet eens willen voeren, zoals hij al eerder in zijn boek heeft aangegeven. Maar het lijden en het onrecht in deze wereld worden alleen maar groter als je naar Tolle zou luisteren. Dat is de prijs die je betaalt als je het principe van de ’aanvaarding’ van Tolle aanvaard.
Laten we vervolgens eens gaan kijken naar de tweede modaliteit van ontwaakt handelen die Tolle noemt: ‘Plezier’. Laten we vooraf stellen dat er niets op tegen is om plezier te hebben in het leven en de dingen met plezier te doen, integendeel. Daar staat tegenover dat er in het leven heel wat dingen kunnen gebeuren en dat je soms heel veel dingen moet doen, die niet direct als ‘plezierig’ te kwalificeren zijn. Op dit punt verschillen we niet van mening. Tolle gaat met ‘plezier’ echter een hele andere kant op. Hij schrijft: ‘Op de nieuwe aarde neemt plezier de plaats in van willen als drijfveer voor het menselijk handelen. Willen komt voor uit de misvatting van het ego dat je een alleenstaand fragment bent dat niet in verbinding staat met de kracht achter de schepping’. Voor de duidelijkheid moeten we hier eerst stellen dat wanneer Tolle het heeft over ‘de nieuwe aarde’ dan is dat heel wat anders dan de nieuwe aarde die God heeft belooft en die zal nederdalen uit de hemel en altijd zal blijven bestaan (Openb. 21:1,2). De nieuwe aarde van Tolle is het ontwaakte ‘Nu’ en daar komt helemaal geen persoonlijk God aan te pas. Het ‘plezier’ van Tolle, zo het er al is in je leven, eindigt dan ook altijd als je dood gaat. Eerder in dit hoofdstuk had Tolle immers al gezegd over de dood: ‘Je bent teruggegaan naar waar je maar een paar jaar geleden vandaan bent gekomen'. Dood is bij Tolle dood, er is geen hoop op een toekomst. Aan die gedachte is weinig plezier te beleven. ‘Plezier’ en ‘willen’ gaan volgens Tolle dus niet samen op zijn nieuwe aarde. Volgens ons gaan ‘plezier’ en ‘willen’ juist heel goed samen. Neem als voorbeeld een olympisch kampioen op de marathon. Om die gouden plak te kunnen winnen moet er talloze uren getraind worden. Die training is vaak hard en langdurig, met heel veel afzien. Je moet veel pijn willen verdragen om uiteindelijk in top conditie te komen en zo de eind overwinning te kunnen binnenslepen. Die hard bevochten overwinning is gebaseerd op pure wilskracht. En als die overwinning er dan eindelijk is, dan is de euforie, dan is het ‘plezier’ immens. ‘Willen’ is dus wel degelijk een goede drijfveer voor het menselijk handelen, juist omdat het tot mooie dingen kan leiden. ‘Liefde’ en ‘willen’ passen trouwens ook goed bij elkaar. Dat God de mens lief heeft, is gebaseerd op Zijn ‘wil’. Wij zijn als mens tegen God in opstand gekomen en wij hebben God aan alle kanten geschoffeerd. Toch heeft God de mens lief. God heeft de zondaar lief. Waarom? Omdat God de mens wil lief hebben, en Hij hem beloofd heeft dat Hij de mens zal redden. Dat is gebaseerd op Zijn wilsbeschikking. God is nl. ‘liefde’. Liefde is pas echt liefde als liefde onvoorwaardelijk is. Om die liefde waar te maken is wilskracht nodig. Jezus is ons hierin voorgegaan. In Joh. 13:1 lezen we over Jezus: ‘Hij had de mensen die hem in de wereld toebehoorden lief, en zijn liefde voor hen zou tot het uiterste gaan’. ‘Plezier’ en ‘willen’ en ‘liefde’ en ‘willen’ zijn dus onafscheidelijk aan elkaar verbonden.
De derde modaliteit van ontwaakt handelen die Tolle bespreekt is ‘Enthousiasme’. Tolle had eerder in dit hoofdstuk geschreven: ‘Alles wat er ooit is geweest of zal zijn is nu, buiten de tijd, die een mentale constructie is’. Met dit citaat concentreert Tolle alles op het ‘Nu’. In dat denken van Tolle is geen ruimte voor idealen die in de toekomst gerealiseerd worden. Jezelf opofferen in dit leven en jezelf dienstbaar opstellen, kortom jezelf doelen stellen omdat je weet dat er prachtige toekomst van God voor je ligt, is bij Tolle hetzelfde als vloeken in de kerk. Het is waar, de Bijbel roept ons op om de kracht van de opstanding van Christus nu al een nieuw leven te beginnen. We mogen nu al gaan bouwen aan het Koninkrijk dat komende is, in een leven van opoffering in liefde en dienstbaarheid aan de Heer en aan elkaar. Totdat straks de volkomenheid aanbreekt. Dat leven is niet alleen gericht op het ‘nu’ maar evenzeer met het oog op de toekomst. Nu gaat Tolle in deze paragraaf een merkwaardige draai maken. In de laatste paragraaf van dit boek schrijft Tolle: ‘In de kern van alle utopische visioenen zit een van de belangrijkste structurele stoornissen van het oude bewustzijn: verlossing verwachten van de toekomst'. Maar in deze paragraaf blijken er ineens toch toekomstige ‘doelen’ te zijn, dit terwijl hier en in het hele boek uitbazuint dat het alleen maar om het ‘Nu’ gaat. Kijk maar naar het volgende citaat van Tolle: ‘Ze hebben een geweldig visioen, een doel, en vanaf die dag werken ze naar het verwezenlijken van dat doel toe. Hun doel of visioen is meestal op een of andere manier verbonden met iets wat ze al op een kleinere schaal aan het doen zijn en met plezier doen. Daar verschijnt de derde modaliteit van ontwaakt handelen: enthousiasme. Enthousiasme betekent dat er diepe vreugde zit in wat je doet, met daarbij het toegevoegde element van een doel of visioen waar je naartoe werkt’. Ziet u de tegenstrijdigheid? ‘Verlossing verwachten van de toekomst’ is volgens Tolle een stoornis, ook al werk je nu al naar die volkomen verlossing toe. Paulus zegt in Rom. 8:18: ‘Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat het lijden van deze tijd in geen verhouding staat tot de luister die ons in de toekomst zal worden geopenbaard’. Voorts zegt Paulus dat de schepping nu nog onderworpen is aan zinloosheid (vers 20) maar de schepping heeft hoop gekregen omdat ‘ook de schepping zelf zal worden bevrijd uit de slavernij van de vergankelijkheid en zal delen in de vrijheid en luister die Gods kinderen geschonken wordt’ (Rom. 8:21). Zou Tolle mij kunnen vertellen waarom dit een stoornis zou zijn? Nu al enthousiast een nieuw leven leiden, om straks de volkomenheid te bereiken, wat is daar mis mee? Tolle blijkt echter ook niet zonder ‘doelen’ te kunnen. Waarom niet? Omdat er, als er geen doel is, er ook geen zinnige betekenis meer aan het leven gegeven kan worden. Tolle kan wel prachtige volzinnen schrijven over enthousiasme: ‘Ze hebben een geweldig visioen, een doel, en vanaf die dag werken ze naar het verwezenlijken van dat doel toe’, maar als het eindstation van ieder mens uiteindelijk de dood en het graf is, wat voor troost houd je dan uiteindelijk over? Geen enkele. Al die woorden van Tolle over plezier en enthousiasme, zijn uiteindelijk leeg en zinloos, omdat er geen toekomst in zit. Tolle praat wel over doelen maar heeft er feitelijk geen. Dat maakt dit boek troosteloos. Tolle laat het aanvankelijke enthousiasme snel bekoelen wanneer hij schrijft: ‘Als de terugkerende beweging naar het uiteenvallen van vormen in -zet, dient enthousiasme je niet meer. Enthousiasme hoort bij de uitgaande cyclus van het leven. Alleen door overgave kun je je afstemmen op de terugkerende beweging – de thuisreis’. Anders geformuleerd: als de afbraak van het leven begint, datgene wat Tolle aanduidt met ‘de terugkerende beweging’ en die uiteindelijk eindigt met de dood, dan helpt volgens Tolle enthousiasme je niet meer, je hebt volgens Tolle geen andere keus dan je over te geven aan ‘de thuisreis’. Die ‘thuisreis’ is bij Tolle een eufemisme voor niets anders dan de dood. Je lost op in het niets volgens Tolle, want zo schreef hij al eerder in dit hoofdstuk: ‘En op een dag verdwijn ook jij. Je leunstoel staat er nog. Maar jij zit er niet meer in; er is alleen een lege ruimte. Je bent teruggegaan naar waar je maar een paar jaar geleden vandaan bent gekomen’. Geef mij dan maar de troost van het evangelie. Het evangelie praat ook over de thuisreis. 2 Kor. 5:1 zegt hierover: ‘Wij weten dat onze aardse tent, het lichaam waarin wij wonen wordt afgebroken, we van God een woning krijgen, een eeuwige, niet door mensenhanden gemaakte woning in de hemel’. Bij Tolle echter is de dood einde verhaal, geloof in Jezus daarentegen schenkt het eeuwige leven. Nu al en straks volkomen.
Tenslotte nog iets over de laatste paragraaf in dit boek met als titel: ‘De nieuwe aarde is geen utopie’. Het is geen wonder dat iemand die alleen maar van het ‘Nu’ wil weten een hekel heeft aan utopieën. Als christenen zeggen wij in bepaald opzicht hetzelfde als Tolle. Ook wij zeggen: ‘De nieuwe aarde is geen utopie’. Een utopie is immers een illusie, een luchtkasteel en als christen geloven we dat de komst van de nieuwe aarde geen luchtkasteel is maar werkelijkheid is en zal gaan worden, geen utopie dus. Tolle schrijft: ‘Alle utopische visioenen hebben dit gemeen: de mentale projectie van een tijd in de toekomst waar alles goed met ons is, waar we gered worden, waar vrede is en het einde van onze problemen. Er zijn veel van zulke utopische visioenen geweest. Sommige ervan eindigden in teleurstelling, andere in een ramp. In de kern van alle utopische visioenen zit een van de belangrijkste structurele stoornissen van het oude bewustzijn: verlossing verwachten van de toekomst. Het enige bestaan dat de toekomst feitelijk heeft is als gedachtevorm in je verstand, dus als je verlossing verwacht van de toekomst, verwacht je die onbewust van je verstand. Je bent gevangen in vorm en dat is ego’. Het leidt geen twijfel dat Tolle ook het christelijk geloof schaart onder de utopische visioenen die volgens hem alleen maar teleurstellen of uitlopen op een regelrechte ramp. Maar Tolle vergist zich als hij zou denken dat de kern van het christelijk geloof alleen zou zijn ‘verlossing verwachten van de toekomst’. Die verlossing die is er nl. NU al. Die verlossing is tot stand gekomen doordat Jezus ons van de zonde en de dood heeft verlost. Daarmee is het Koninkrijk van God op aarde verschenen. We mogen daardoor een nieuw leven beginnen in Zijn koninkrijk, door de kracht van Zijn Geest. We worden nu al steeds meer en meer naar Zijn evenbeeld veranderd, om in liefde en trouw voor Hem en onze naasten te leven. Natuurlijk zit er ook een toekomstig element in het christelijk geloof. Het Koninkrijk is er al en tegelijk ook nog niet. We hebben nog een doel en dat doel is het bereiken van de volkomenheid, de volkomen harmonie van alles en allen. Die verlossing is niet een kwestie van alleen maar het verstand zoals Tolle wil beweren. Die verlossing bevrijdt de mens totaal, zowel zijn verstand, als zijn lichaam en ziel worden bevrijd door het geloof in Jezus. Nu hebben ook christenen nog te maken met zonde, ziekte, zwakheid en gebrek. Ons lichaam moet nog sterven. Maar straks als de grote dag aanbreekt, mogen we opstaan uit de doden en mogen we een vernieuwd en verheerlijkt lichaam krijgen dat niet langer onderhevig is aan ziekte en dood. Tolle ontkent dit alles. Tolle schrijft: ‘Niets gaat ons bevrijden, omdat alleen het huidige moment dat kan. Dat inzicht is het ontwaken. Ontwaken als toekomstige gebeurtenis heeft geen betekenis, omdat ontwaken de verwezenlijking van Tegenwoordigheid is. De nieuwe hemel, het ontwaakte bewustzijn, is dus niet een in de toekomst te verwezenlijken toestand. Een nieuwe hemel en een nieuwe aarde komen op dit moment in je op en als ze niet op dit moment in je opkomen, zijn ze niet meer dan een gedachte in je hoofd en komen ze dus helemaal niet op. Wat zei Jezus tegen zijn discipelen? ‘… het Koninkrijk Gods is bij u’. (Lucas 17:21). Tolle verdraait hier de woorden van Jezus. Lees de perikoop maar na, waarheen Tolle verwijst. Het is waar, met de komst van Christus op aarde is het Koninkrijk van God bij de mensen gekomen (Luc. 12:20). In die zin klopt het citaat van Tolle van Tolle ‘…het Koninkrijk Gods is bij u’. Maar daarmee is het Koninkrijk van God nog niet voltooid! Het koninkrijk Gods is tegelijkertijd net zo goed nog een zaak van de toekomst. Dat moffelt Tolle weg. Dat het Koninkrijk Gods OOK een toekomstige zaak is, dat blijkt niet alleen uit het vervolg van Lucas 17 (Lucas 17:21-37) maar ook uit vele andere Schriftplaatsen. Kijk bijv. eens naar Luc. 22:18 waar Jezus zegt: ‘Vanaf nu zal ik niet meer drinken van de vrucht van de wijnstok tot het koninkrijk van God gekomen is’. Zie ook Marc. 9:47, Luc. 13:28,29; 14:15 etc.. De Bijbel leert duidelijk dat met de komst van Christus de beslissende fase in de komst van het Koninkrijk Gods is aangebroken. maar de komst van dit Koninkrijk loopt door naar de jongste dag. Op de jongste dag zal Christus op de wolken verschijnen in heerlijkheid (Openb. 1:7) om dan Zijn rijk van recht en gerechtigheid voor eeuwig gestalte te geven. Een nieuwe aarde? Jazeker! Maar niet de nieuwe aarde van het ‘Nu’ van Tolle want dat is helemaal geen tastbare realiteit en dat is dus bedrog. Maar de wereld die beloofd wordt in de Bijbel in Openbaring 21: 1:4 is wel echt. Daar staat: ‘Toen zag ik een nieuwe hemel en een nieuwe aarde. De hemel en de aarde van vroeger waren verdwenen, en ook de zee was er niet meer. Ik zag uit de hemel een heilige stad naar beneden komen, het nieuwe Jeruzalem. Die stad kwam bij God vandaan. Ze leek op een bruid die zich mooi gemaakt heeft voor haar bruidegom. Uit de richting van de troon hoorde ik een luide stem, die zei: ‘Nu is God zelf op aarde. Vanaf nu zal hij bij de mensen wonen. De mensen zullen zijn volk zijn, en hij zal hun God zijn. Hij zal al hun tranen drogen. Niemand zal meer sterven, en er zal geen verdriet en geen pijn meer zijn. Want alles van vroeger is verdwenen.’
Tolle sluit het boek af met deze zin: ‘Er ontstaat een nieuwe soort op de planeet. Deze ontstaat nu en jij bent die nieuwe soort!’. Tolle schreef dit al meer dan 13 jaar geleden en we merken van het ontstaan van deze ‘nieuwe soort’ hoegenaamd niets. Dat is ook niet verwonderlijk want de ideeën van Tolle zijn bepaald niet nieuw, dus kan daar ook geen nieuw soort van mensen uit ontstaan. De theorieën van Tolle zijn een samenraapsel van oude gnostische dwalingen uit de eerste eeuwen van het christendom, vermengd met een scheut boeddhisme, hindoeïsme, en een behoorlijk aantal citaten van Jezus. Citaten van Jezus die totaal uit hun verband worden gerukt en zo bruikbaar gemaakt worden om ook aan christenen het gevoel te geven dat de ideeën van Tolle ‘compatible’ zijn met het evangelie. Maar de ideeën van Tolle zijn niet ‘compatible’ met het evangelie. De eerlijkheid gebied ons dat te stellen en Tolle zou er goed aan doen dat ook toe te geven. ’Echt’ en ‘nep’ lijken soms gevaarlijk op elkaar. Maar de echtheid van het evangelie wordt keer op keer bewezen doordat God betrouwbaar is en dat al Zijn beloften zijn uitgekomen.
We concluderen dat we het eens zijn met John Stackhouse, professor in de theologie en cultuur aan het Regent College in Vancouver, die over Tolle het volgende gezegd heeft: "Tolle gives a certain segment of the population exactly what they want: a sort of supreme religion that purports to draw from all sorts of lesser, that is, established religions". Vrij vertaald komt dit hier op neer: ‘Tolle geeft een bepaalde bevolkingsgroep precies wat ze willen: een soort van verheven religie die beweert te putten uit allerlei minderwaardige, d.w.z. gevestigde godsdiensten’.
Ook de conclusie van James Beverley onderschrijven we. James Beverley is professor in ‘Christian Thought and Ethics’ aan het Tyndale Seminary in Toronto. Beverley concludeert dat Tolle's wereldbeeld "is at odds with central Christian convictions" en dat "Tolle denies the core of Christianity by claiming there is no ultimate distinction between humans and God and Jesus". Vrij vertaald: ‘het wereldbeeld van Tolle staat haaks op de kerngedachten van het christelijk geloof’ en Tolle ‘verwerpt de kern van het christendom door te beweren dat er uiteindelijk geen verschil bestaat tussen mensen en God en Jezus’.
Kees de Graaf 2017.