Love

 

This semester I have a British Literature class in which we learn about how British Literature influenced the coming of the English language and other impacts it made.  We have some essays due this semester and I thought it would be good to post them and see what others thought about them.  This essay is on George Herbert’s “Love.” 

Love

The Koine Greek language has three words for our one word love.  One is φιλεο (phileo) which is our “brotherly love” type of love.  This type of love is an “I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine” type of love.  A second type of love is ερος (eros) which is more of a sexual type of love, but means more or less “I will take whatever I want and you will give to me without questions.” And a third type of love is αγαπη (agape) which is equivalent to our unconditional love.  This is the most perfect form of love because it says “Here you are. No questions asked.”  But after hearing what “love” is, how can this be explained in the poem “Love” by George Herbert?   

Love is explained as a verb.  A verb is what shows the action in a sentence.  This is a concept that people learn in the second grade when they are taught what a sentence is; and yet when Herbert opened this poem with “Love bade me welcome” Love is not expressed as a verb.  On the contrary, Love is used as a noun.  Nouns are, of course, a person, place, thing or idea.  Yes, it could be argued that love is an idea, but Herbert wasn’t portraying love as an idea when he wrote this poem. If one reads it as an idea the poem doesn’t make much sense.  According to dictionary.com an idea is “any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity.” (idea)  In this context do ideas speak out loud? Absolutely not.  An idea only exists in one’s mind.  Therefore we can rule out an “idea” as being an explanation for what Love is in this poem.   

Since we have ruled out that “Love” is not an idea, the only possible explanation is that Love is a person.  This makes perfect sense because if one substituted his name for the name Love in the poem, the poem would still make sense.  For example, one could say, “Stephen bade me welcome” or “‘You must sit down,’ says Stephen”  and as stated before the poem would still make sense.  Now that we have answered what Love is the next question would be who is Love?  We know from the book that Herbert was an ordained minister and because of this his poems were heavily influenced by his relationship with Christ.  The only explanation for who Love is, is that Love is God.  In I John 4:8b the Bible says “… God is love.” (Blue)  There is no other explanation for what and who is Love in this poem by George Herbert. 

This brings us a third question, according to the Bible God has three persons:  God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, so which of these entities are the One displayed in this poem?  It could be argued that God the Son is the person being displayed in this poem, and while, on the surface that argument is plausible it is not the best excuse for this poem.  Of course, this leaves me with two other choices and neither of them makes any more sense than the first.  So, who is it?  I see that it is all three.  The first paragraph portrays God the Father.  He is the one who asks “What d’ye lack?” and when you respond he gives you what you lack.  The second paragraph is portraying God the Holy Spirit because it is only through Him that we can “look on thee (God).”  And the last paragraph portrays Jesus because it is His “meat” that we eat and remember when taking communion.  

To conclude, George Herbert wrote this poem to show what Love truly is.  He shows that God is Love and that His love is manifested in the three persons of God.  God is the αγαπη (agape) form of love as explained in the introduction.  He gives us what we lack, He gives us a relationship with God and ultimately He gave His life.     

 

Sources

“idea.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 09 Nov. 2008. <Dictionary.com <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idea>.

 Blue Letter Bible. “1 John 4 – English Standard Version.” Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2008. 9 Nov 2008. < http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Jo&c=4&t=ESV >

Dream of the Rood

This semester I have a British Literature class in which we learn about how British Literature influenced the coming of the English language and other impacts it made.  We have some essays due this semester and I thought it would be good to post them and see what others thought about them.  This first one is on Dream of the Rood which is one of the oldest pieces on literature.  The question I was answering was whether of not Dream of the Rood was a secular piece with religious themes or if it was religious with secular themes.  Without further adieu here is the essay.

 

DREAM OF THE ROOD

 

Dream of the Rood is one of the oldest pieces of literature known to mankind.  We do not know who wrote it or if multiple people wrote it.  In Dream of the Rood we read about a crucifixion of a man.  We do not know who the man is because we are not given a name, but after reading the poem we are able to conclude that the man dying on the cross in none other than Jesus Christ the Messiah.  Dream of the Rood is a Christian piece of literature with some, if any, pagan themes.

The first thing that made me realize this is a Christian portrayal is on line 10 the poet says “fair through predestiny.”  This use of predestiny is mentioned in the Bible on multiple occasions.  The main use in the Bible about predestiny has to do with God predetermining His children (i.e. Romans 8:29, Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians 1:11), but that’s beside the point and could take years to explain.  My point being that ever since the fall of man God had been promising Israel a sacrifice to take away their sins and ultimately it was Jesus. God could not make a promise to a people he wasn’t ready to fulfill, so it was all in God’s timing on when the Messiah came to earth.  Since God cannot break a promise he had to have had a plan before he made it.  And before Jesus came to the earth He knew what He had to do.  So, all of this being said this is the first reason I believe that that this is a Christian work and not pagan. 

The second reason (for me, not the poem itself) is the imagery of a marriage and Christ.  This is my favorite point of the entire post.  In the Old Testament we read passages such as “For your Maker is your husband” and “And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy.” In the same way in the New Testament we read John 3:28-29 when John the Baptizer says “You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.’ The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice.”  And Paul in Ephesians 5 says “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.” 

We see this imagery in The Dream of the Rood especially when the cross says “Then dared I not against the Lord’s word/ bend or break when I saw the earth’s field shake” or “I dared, still, not bow to earth,/ fall to earth’s field, but had to stand fast.  I love how John Canuteson says in reference to line 39-41 “Then He takes off His clothes and embraces the cross.  Christ is strang (strong) as well as stiomod (stoutminded); he is also modig (passionate) all the things that a woman would see and appreciate in a husband.  The cross, moreover, is demure – she trembles when she is embraced.  This whole passage is simply a logical extension of the implications of the marriage of Christ to the Church.”  (Canuteson) 

The third and final reason I found when reading the article “The Crucifixion and the Second Coming in ‘Dream of the Rood.’”  This article comes from the Journal of Modern Philology.  Throughout the poem we see imagery of not only the Death of Jesus Christ, but we also see themes of His second coming. For instance, in lines 6-17 the poet is talking about the tree.  But Jesus hasn’t died on the tree, so why would there be any reason in line 13 for the cross to explain that the tree was stained with sins and wounds of disgrace?  On the one hand we see this imagery of death and destruction, but on the other we see “gems stood/ fair at earth’s corners” and “decked with gold; gems had/ wrapped that forest tree”.  Why?  This can only point to the second coming of Christ as described in Revelation 21:11.

   

Works Cited

Canuteson, J. (1969). The Crucifixion and the Second Coming in Dream of the Rood. Modern Philology , 66 (4), 293-297.Crossway. (2001). 

ESV Bible Online. Retrieved September 05, 2008, from ESV Bible Online: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/