A Song No One Knew Could Be About John the Baptist
I’ve recently come to the conclusion that “One More Try” by
George Michael could have one interpretation as being about John the Baptist.
This would indeed a highly compelling interpretation of the song. The song
seems to depict a man, sung in first person narrative (I interpret as being John the Baptist), upset by his previous
teacher (I interpret here as Jesus), and trying to reason with another person he wants as his lover. This third person, (the lover),
for the sake of my interpretation could be Salome, or someone else. The way
that the video depicts him confined in a room with stained glass windows makes
me feel like it’s John singing from prison before he was beheaded. He’s saying
that it’s too bad he can’t see Jesus any longer, and could she please give him
one more try even though he’s behind bars.
I happen to like this interpretation a lot, because it makes
John the Baptist look like a rockstar. He was indeed said by Christ as being “Elijah
who was to come” Matthew 11:14. Jesus and John had separate ministries with
separate groups of followers. Upon John’s imprisonment, it stands to reason he
would be upset at never getting to see Jesus. Matthew 11:2-3 says that John
send one of his followers to talk to Jesus about the miracles he was doing. The
line in George Michael's song “Cause teacher; there are things that I don’t want to learn,” makes
it sound like John talking about his own impeding execution and/or the
crucifixion.
I am not trying to say that John had homosexual feeling towards Jesus, but I speak only of the respect and admiration John had for him. I don't think the song's lyrics really depict the "first teacher" that way, either, so I think the interpretation works. When Michael sings "the last one I had made me cry," this would be interpreted as John the Baptist saying the last teacher that he had, Jesus, did that.
There will be some who will want to say that I was being illogical or unbiblical when I wrote the post about how personality differences get misunderstood. Their argument is basically that differing personalities are a consequence of the Fall of Man- a consequence of the DNA getting disordered. Therefore, they will say, that people who don't fit the "perfect personality" are sinful. God created one man, they will say, with a perfect personality (Adam). In truth, they can cite Adam, Eve, and Jesus. That argument is not correct, and I will stand my ground on this. The reason why they are not correct is because they are making the unwarranted assumption all of Adam's descendants would have had the same personality had the Fall never happened. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that had the Fall never happened, there would have been different kinds of people with different personalities, it just would have been a more perfect world. ...
Inherent in the problem having to do with breaking a vow that one has previously made (from a Biblical point of view) is the classic distinction between "law" and "grace" which is talked about a great in the writings of Paul. It is not advisable to make a vow (Matthew 5:34-35), or to break a vow (Matthew 5:33), obviously because of the strict justice of God and His righteous standard. However, to think that a vow made foolishly, rashly, in error, while intoxicated, poisoned, mentally compromised, etc, must always be observed forever, is not only a wrong way or practice for being too legalistic, it would practically be heresy because one would be ignoring what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross does away with the ceremonial ordinances of the Old Testament by fulfilling them, bringing them to completion in the bringing of a new covenant in Him. Well guess what? In the Old Testament ceremonial ordinances the Jews had a way t...
How come everyone seems so afraid to speak against the real politik in our country? We used to have lively political discussion and dissent, and now people with minority opinions seem scoffed at and outcast. This is a bad trend, don't go in that way. The first amendment was set up with one of the intentions being that people would be able to criticize those in charge. It is unbelievable that people could say that a scenario happened like Pearl Jams' "Dissident" describes, and these things happen on American soil? The 1992 Presidential election is something to look to consider the way things used to be. Third party independent candidate Ross Perot was considered as having equal weight as the two other candidates. There was a strong freedom of the thought in the political spectrum. Perot's money went a long way for him. All things considered, though, billionaires still exist. Where are the Ross Perots of our time, then, who are not afraid to jump in and shake...
Comments
Post a Comment