Perhaps, he used that term in relation to Ezekiel 24:11 “Then set it empty upon the coals thereof, that the brass of it may be hot, and may burn, and that the filthiness of it may be molten In It, that the scum of It may be consumed. ” Done didn’t particularly display a specific setting however one could assume based off of his knowledge of the Tarantella God-head (which Is the Father, Son, and Holy Spiral) that he Indeed knew God and may have even been a Christian. The true setting may be implied differently based upon the reader.

As I read this poem, I thought it was a prayer more so than a poem. It seemed to me that he was addressing God but also searching for a response from God. In this sonnet, the quatrain or four lines went together. Upon reading it, one could assume that each thought is one in itself, however based on the syntactical structure of the poem in the first stanza; the sentence was not concluded until the last line of the poem. According to Pearson this poem is an attempt at opening the door to a better Christian life after being overthrown by the flesh.

The mood of the poem Is contradicting. It seems as though in the beginning of the poem the speaker Is very direct with what he wants. “Batter my heart, three-person’s God ; for you As yet but knock; breathe, shine, and seek to mend; That I may rise, and stand, rhetoric me, and bend Your force, to break, blow, burn, and make me new. ” The speaker seems to want to be made new. With the terms and expressions used, for example, break, blow, and burn, one would believe hat he was ready to divorce anything that he needed to in order to be pleasing in the eyes of God. L, like an usurped town, to another due, Labor to admit you, but O, to no end. Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend, But is captivated, and proves weak or untrue. ” The mood changes when the speaker has an epiphany. It’s almost as if he desired all of these things to happen in his life, but the voice of God was too weak to stop him from doing all of the things that he knew were wrong. Although he never went Into detail on what those things were, it was apparent that they had a throng hold on him. It brings me to the story of Paul In Romans 7:15.

Paul discussed the war between his spiral and his flesh. Although his spiral wanted to rule, obviously, his spiritual ears were keener to the fleshly voice than the spiritual. “For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do l. ” The speaker another analyst. The speaker says in the second stanza “l, like an usurped town, to another due, Labor to admit you, but O, to no end. Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend, But is captivated, and proves weak or untrue. Basically at this point he recognizes that he is a lost cause.

He knows exactly what he should be doing, however, he is too weak spiritually to fight against his fleshly desires. Meet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,But am betrothed unto your enemy ; Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again” Clearly at this point the speaker feels entrapped by this wrong that he endeavors in. He feels married to God’s enemy and the only way that he can get a divorce is by God forcing the divorce. Pearson explained this by saying that because only God could truly grant a divorce it would take God to operate the two. This is called imagery.

He used the imagery of marriage to describe his binding to sin. Finally the speaker uses a paradox/contradiction when he basically says I can’t be free unless you captivate me. That’s ironic but also contradicting. How can one be free if they are captivated? He even went as far as to say that the only way I can be pure is if you rape me. Because he used the term “again” in the previous stanza, one could say that he has already been down this road and has gotten himself once again involved with this thing that easily besets him and his time it is worse.

In conclusion, if I were to ask myself what the outcome was I would say that he probably never allowed himself to truly be free. It’s almost like he was asking God to take away his cross instead of asking for strength to carry it. I would describe him as an unstable person who has struggled repeatedly with the same issues and now has to find enough security in God to know that if he would draw near to God, God will draw near unto him but not the other way around. God did all that he was going to do on the cross and now it is his turn to follow God.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *