Christian Art | George Herbert | The Temple | The Church | The Reprisall
George Herbert | The Temple | The Church | The Reprisall
I have consider’d it, and finde
There is no dealing with thy mighty passion:
For though I die for thee, I am behinde;
My sinnes deserve the condemnation.
O make me innocent, that I
May give a disentangled state and free:
And yet thy wounds still my attempts defie,
For by thy death I die for thee.
Ah! was it not enough that thou
By thy eternall glorie didst outgo me?
Couldst thou not griefs sad conquests me allow,
But in all vict’ries overthrow me?
Yet by confession will I come
Into the conquest. Though I can do nought
Against thee, in thee I will overcome
The man, who once against thee fought.
George Herbert | The Temple | The Church | The Reprisall
The poem contemplates the poet’s relationship to Christ’s sacrifice, focusing on themes of inadequacy, grace, and surrender. It opens with the poet’s realization that human efforts cannot ‘deal with’ or match Christ’s ‘mighty passion’, which represents Christ’s intense suffering and ultimate sacrifice. The poet acknowledges that even if he were to die for Christ, he would still ‘lag behind’, as his own sins are deserving of condemnation. This indicates a sense of spiritual and moral inferiority, highlighting a gap between human and divine capacity for sacrifice and atonement.
The poet then asks for innocence, seeking to attain a ‘disentangled state and free’, implying a desire to be unburdened by sin and guilt. This request underscores the poet’s awareness that only through purity can he fully offer himself to Christ. However, the phrase ‘thy wounds still my attempts defy’ suggests that, despite his intentions, the poet’s efforts at achieving spiritual purity fall short in light of Christ’s crucifixion wounds, symbols of a sacrifice beyond what any human could perform. The line ‘For by thy death I die for thee’ reflects a paradox: the poet’s own spiritual redemption or ‘death to sin’ is achieved through Christ’s sacrifice, not through his own actions.
The next stanza introduces a question of balance and fairness in the relationship between the poet and Christ. The poet reflects that Christ’s ‘eternal glory’ already far exceeds human ability, questioning whether Christ’s additional suffering was necessary to secure this redemptive relationship. By stating, ‘Couldst thou not grief’s sad conquests me allow,’ the poet implies a desire for some shared role in the ‘conquest’ of sin and suffering. However, ‘in all victories overthrow me’ reinforces that Christ’s actions surpass any possible human contribution. Christ’s victory, achieved through Christ’s suffering and sacrifice, entirely overshadows human grief and achievements, leaving the poet in a state of awe but also humility.
In the final stanza, the poet accepts his limitations and decides to embrace a different approach—confession and unity with Christ rather than competition. ‘By confession will I come / Into the conquest’ suggests that admission of sin and the need for grace can offer a form of shared victory. The poet acknowledges that he can ‘do nought / Against thee,’ signifying the futility of human opposition or self-reliance in spiritual matters. Yet, he proposes that through uniting with Christ, he can ‘overcome / The man, who once against thee fought.’ Here, the poet’s struggle shifts from one of achieving parity with Christ to overcoming his own sinfulness. This phrase suggests a transformation in which the poet’s confession and surrender to Christ allow him to ‘conquer’ his former self, who had lived in opposition to divine will.
The poem explores the poet’s journey from recognizing his limitations to accepting that redemption requires surrender to Christ’s grace. Rather than emulating Christ’s sacrifice through self-effort, the poet seeks alignment with it, understanding that his role lies in humility, confession, and reliance on Christ’s completed work. The poet’s perceived inability to match Christ’s sacrifice is ultimately reframed as a path to grace, where surrender, not parity, brings unity.
This is the third day of Holy Week. Through these verses of John’s Gospel, Jesus experiences great emotion, great sorrow, as he prepares for his betrayal and passion. He has given everything to Judas. He has washed his feet along with those of the other disciples. He shares an intimate and important meal with him. Judas has been one of the closest with Jesus for three years. Even now he shows compassion and does not name his betrayer to the other disciples. Instead he says: ‘One of you shall betray me.’ [ … ]
King James Audio Bible | KJV | King James Version King Herod There were several individuals named Herod who played significant roles in ancient history, particularly in the history of the Roman Empire and the region of Palestine. Here is a brief overview of the most notable Herods: Herod the Great: Also known as Herod I, he was a Roman client king of Judea, ruling from 37 BC to 4 BC. He is perhaps most famous for his role in the biblical story of the birth of Jesus, in which it is said that he ordered the slaughter of all male children in Bethlehem under the age of two in an attempt to kill the newborn Jesus. Herod Antipas: Also known as Herod II, he was the son of Herod the Great and ruled over Galilee and Perea, two regions in Palestine, from 4 BC to 39 AD. He is mentioned in the New Testament as the ruler who imprisoned John the Baptist and later had him beheaded. Herod Agrippa I: Also known as Herod III, he was the grandson of Herod the Great and ruled over Judea from 41 to 44 AD. He is mentioned in the New Testament as the ruler who imprisoned the apostle Paul. Herod Agrippa II: Also known as Herod IV, he was the great-grandson of Herod the Great and ruled over parts of Palestine and Syria from 50 to 100 AD. He is mentioned in the New Testament as the ruler who heard Paul’s defence before the Roman governor Festus. These rulers, who were known as the Herodian dynasty, were not Jewish but rather descended from a Greek family that had converted to Judaism. Despite this, they were appointed as rulers by the Roman Empire and were generally unpopular among the Jewish population due to their collaboration with the Roman occupation and their often brutal methods of rule. Herod The Great Herod the Great, also known as Herod I, was a Roman client king of Judea who ruled from 37 BC to 4 BC. He was born in 73 BC in Idumea, a region in southern Palestine, and was the son of Antipater the Idumean, an Edomite who had been appointed as a governor of Judea by the Roman general Pompey. Herod rose to power after the Roman general Julius Caesar appointed him as king of Judea in 40 BC. He consolidated his power over the next few years by defeating his rivals and establishing himself as the undisputed ruler of the region. As king, Herod embarked on a massive building program that included the expansion and renovation of the Temple in Jerusalem, the construction of the port city of Caesarea Maritima, and the fortification of several cities in Judea. He also commissioned the construction of a number of palaces and other buildings, including the famous Herodium, a palace-fortress located south of Jerusalem. Despite his many accomplishments, Herod was a controversial figure who was known for his harsh rule and his willingness to use violence to maintain his power. He was married several times and had a large number of children, several of whom he had executed when they posed a threat to his rule. One of the most famous stories associated with Herod is the biblical account of the birth of Jesus, in which it is said that he ordered the slaughter of all male children in Bethlehem under the age of two in an attempt to kill the newborn Jesus. According to the New Testament, Jesus was saved by his parents, who fled to Egypt, and later returned to Palestine after Herod’s death. Herod died in 4 BC at the age of 70, leaving a legacy as one of the most significant rulers in the history of ancient Palestine. Herod Antipas Herod Antipas, also known as Herod II, was the son of Herod the Great and ruled over Galilee and Perea, two regions in Palestine, from 4 BC to 39 AD. He was born in 20 BC and was named after his father’s patron, the Roman emperor Augustus. Like his father, Herod Antipas was known for his ambitious building projects, including the construction of the city of Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee and the expansion of the Temple in Jerusalem. He was also known for his political cunning and his ability to navigate the complex political landscape of the Roman Empire. Herod Antipas is mentioned in the New Testament as the ruler who imprisoned John the Baptist, a prominent religious figure who criticized Herod’s marriage to his sister-in-law, Herodias. According to the New Testament, John was eventually beheaded at the request of Herodias’ daughter, Salome, who danced for Herod and his guests at a banquet. Herod Antipas is also mentioned in the New Testament as the ruler who oversaw the trial and execution of Jesus. Although he initially wanted to release Jesus, he ultimately handed him over to the Roman authorities at the urging of the Jewish religious leaders. Herod Antipas’ rule came to an end in 39 AD when the Roman emperor Caligula exiled him to Gaul, modern-day France. He died in exile a few years later. Herod Agrippa I Herod Agrippa I, also known as Herod III, was the grandson of Herod the Great and ruled over Judea from 41 to 44 AD. He was born in 10 BC and was the son of Aristobulus and Bernice, two of Herod the Great’s children. Herod Agrippa I was well-educated and fluent in both Greek and Hebrew, and he was highly regarded by the Roman authorities for his loyalty and his ability to maintain order in Judea. He was appointed as king of Judea in 41 AD by the Roman emperor Claudius, who was impressed by his abilities and saw him as a reliable ally in the region. As king, Herod Agrippa I continued the building projects of his grandfather and expanded the Temple in Jerusalem. He also implemented a number of reforms aimed at improving the lives of the […]
The poem expresses a living relationship between light and darkness, both real and symbolic. The change from night to day stands for a shifting disposition from ignorance to knowledge. This mirrors a human quest for understanding [ … ]
