Your Time Will Come



She walks right through my head
Leaves me reeling behind
I've never been in such a stirring scene
Think I'm finding my mind

Sure as his brand new dream
Wakes from his wizened dream
To come a day, shake this shroud away
Wonder where have I been

While I wait
She will play
The signs and the seasons, rhymes and the reasons
I can be sure she'll say:

Your time will come, your river it will run
Summer skies will light your eyes
She says what she says because she knows
Because she is on your side

She walks right through my head
Leaves me reeling behind
I've never been in such a stirring scene
Think I'm finding my mind

Sure as his brand new dream
Wakes from his wizened dream
To come a day, shake this shroud away
Wonder where have I been

Your time will come, your river it will run
Summer skies will light your eyes
She says what she says because she knows
Because she is on your side

Your time will come, your river it will run
Summer skies will light your eyes
She says what she says because she knows
Because she is on your side


Lyrics by:
Squire / Brown

Music by:
Squire / Brown

Written:
1987

Personnel (live):
John Squire (guitar)
Ian Brown (vocals)
Pete Garner (bass)
Alan Wren (drums, backing vocals)

Produced by:
N / A

Available on:
Never released on any official album. Live performance available on Manchester International I (26th June 1987) bootleg.

First live performance:
In 1987.

Details:
After the performance of this at Manchester International I in 1987 (the only available recording of this song), Ian says to the crowd, "You didn't like that one, did you ?"; this was in part, a sarcastic retort to the crowd's constant calls for So Young and Tell Me. The chorus seems to draw from the first miracle by Jesus, at a wedding in Cana, Galilee, where He turned water into wine (John 2: 1 - 12). Mary informed Her son that the wine had run out at the wedding:

Jesus knew that if He performed the miracle, this would have meant that His time, His "hour", had come. When this still-distant "hour" finally arrives, Jesus expects to provide an abundance of the finest wine (John 2: 10). Mary, the mother of Jesus (who was on Jesus' side; "she is on your side"), knew what She was asking of Jesus ("She says what she says because she knows") in bringing this to His attention. John informs us that the wine Jesus made came from six stone water jars, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. These jars were used by Jews to fulfil the rules on ceremonial washing. In the transformation of water by Jesus in this, His first miracle, the river of His ministry began to run ("Your time will come, your river it will run"), its source symbolically taking over from the 'old' way and customs of the Pharisees. See One Love for the connotations which "river" has within the context of Your Time Will Come. The song appears to be linking the first miracle by Jesus to His eventual Resurrection, when He:

The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have suffered physical trauma in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, northern Italy. Believed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus, the negative image was first observed in 1898, on the reverse photographic plate of amateur photographer Secondo Pia, who was allowed to photograph it while it was being exhibited in the Turin Cathedral. The origins of the shroud and its image are the subject of intense debate among scientists, theologians, historians and researchers.

 

Top: 'The Wedding at Cana' (1563) by Paolo Veronese. By exercising His divine power, Jesus forever changed the relationship between Himself and His mother Mary. His presence at the wedding feast is almost a footnote (John 2: 2). After this miracle, Jesus was no longer only Jesus son of Mary, but was setting His foot on the path to Calvary, to begin His mission. Jesus sought confirmation from Mary prior to performing this miracle as Mary was to move from being the mother of Jesus to the Mother of Sorrows. The clock starts ticking on Simeon's prophecy. So great was the love and concern of Our Blessed Mother for the people at the wedding that She turns to the servants, points at Her son and says "Do whatever he tells you." These words, Her last in Sacred Scripture, ring out as her spiritual testament for all disciples of Jesus and set in motion the public exercise of His divine authority. His fate was sealed, and so too, Her own. At the end of time, the Lamb marries the bride, when the New Jerusalem descends from heaven, so that the church in heaven and the church on earth are one.
Bottom left: 'Descent from the Cross with the Shroud of Turin', a 16th century work by Giovanni Battista della Rovere.
Bottom right: A recent photo of The Shroud of Turin (positive left, negative right). The negative has been contrast enhanced; the image on the shroud is much clearer in black-and-white negative than in its natural sepia colour.

In a Top Of The Pops interview from 2005, Ian cites the Bible as a significant influence, using nauseating Da Vinci Code-infested prose:

This rancid Ian Brown extract from 2005 is a vile and warped presentation of the Bible on so many levels. The level of regard which Ian has for the Son of God is exemplified by the reductive abbreviation of His name to that on a Premiership football manager's jacket. There is no basis whatsoever for the claim that Mary Magdalene, rather than Peter, was directed to establish the Church. None of the early manuscripts of the Gospels nor any of the quotations of the Gospels in the writings of the early Church Fathers suggest that anything of the kind was said at any stage in the history of the Gospels. Any clamoring to crown Jesus as 'the original feminist' by either Brown is simply pandering to modern secular sensibilities. It in no way represents the historical evidence that exists. Appealing to prior "unaltered" gospels that had not been doctored by Constantine or others in the early Church is fatuous. There is no evidence that Constantine ordered any copies of Scripture to be changed. If one wishes to claim that he did give such an order, one should be able to back it up with a citation from a contemporary source, but, unsurprisingly, no such evidence is forthcoming. None of the surviving records of the period - or even the records of later centuries - record Constantine (or anyone else) attempting to alter the texts of the existing canon to change this or any other doctrine. There is simply no evidence to back up this claim. If Constantine (or anyone else) had tried to change Scripture, Christians would have refused. The Christian Church had just come through an age of persecution in which Christians had been burned at the stake for refusing to deny their Lord and Scripture. To allow those writings to be mutilated would be unthinkable, and any attempt to change them would have resulted in an enormous controversy that would be mentioned in the writings of the period. It would have been a practical impossibility to change Scripture, because thousands of copies were in existence all across the Mediterranean world, from Europe to North Africa. There was no central registry of who was in possession of copies of the Bible, so there was no way to track them down and edit them. There were simply too many copies in circulation. But even if all of the copies then known to exist had been tracked down and altered, this would not have affected the copies of Scripture that by this time already had been lost. Many of the early manuscripts of Scripture that we now have were waiting, lost, in the desert until their discovery by modern archaeology. But when we look at these copies, they teach the same doctrines as later copies and show no evidence of having been censored. Moreover, the writings of the early Church Fathers from before the time of Constantine show the same teachings and quote the Gospels as saying the same things as in the canonical Gospels. Ian has an unholy obsession with the Roman Catholic faith, yet were he to put away his magnifying glass of scepticism and properly 'read between the lines' of Scripture, he might realise that honour of a woman is absolutely integral to the faith. Women have a paramount place in Catholic history and Catholic traditions. C.S. Lewis (God in The Dock) wrote that "The Middle Ages carried their reverence for one Woman to a point at which the charge could plausibly be made that the Blessed Virgin became in their eyes almost 'a fourth Person of the Trinity'." When Jesus was crucified, He spoke to His mother and the disciple John at the foot of the cross: "Woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." (John 19: 26 - 27). Jesus called His mother 'woman' because God the Son, from the throne of His cross, is reaching back to the dawn of History , where He promised that there would be a woman who would bring forth the redemption of the world and who would crush the serpent's head ("I will put enmity between you and the woman."). If the Gospel of John was the only Gospel we had, we would not even know Jesus's mother's name; throughout the entire Gospel of John, He only refers to her as 'woman'. Fast-forward to the Book of Revelation - a woman clothed with the sun appears in heaven. God gave Mary supreme place in salvation history. Mary is the woman of Genesis. She is the woman of Revelation. At every point in between - before She is actually conceived immaculately and born and comes into reality - She is the perfect woman in the mind of God. From all eternity, He has envisioned this woman to be His mother. He is the son who made His own mother, and any son who would create and form his own mother would make her perfect. The only one guilty of tampering with the Bible and flipping the scriptures here is Ian Brown himself. You found your God in a paperback.

Rather than swallowing hook, line and sinker the preposterous central thesis of a relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, Ian should instead turn his attention toward forming a proper understanding of the divine relationship between the Immaculate Conception and the Incarnation, between the Immaculate Heart and the Sacred Heart, the Jesus and Mary chain. Answer with a word, receive the Word of God. Speak your own word, conceive the divine Word. Breathe a passing word, embrace the eternal Word. The child is Heaven sent. In Her embrace of the risen Jesus, only the Great Mother of God was given the highest honour of a second Christmas. Mary is God's masterpiece, humanity's single boast. Both Ian Brown and Dan Brown wish their audience to believe that they are revealing a long-concealed truth about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and early Christianity, a truth that they say has been suppressed by the malevolent and conspiratorial forces of the Catholic Church (bolstered by a 'chauvinistic' Constantine). Seemingly, the only feature separating Ian Brown and Dan Brown in name and thought in their 'Browning' of Christian History is the curve in the first letter of the author's first name. Ian, moving into Dan Brown mode in the above Top Of The Pops extract, accuses the Catholic Church of a smear campaign, designed to disempower and defame Mary Magdalene. Would this be the same Catholic Church that recognizes Mary Magdalene as a saint and preserves her legacy as the first recorded witness of the Resurrection ? During the early period of the Church, Christianity was ridiculed as a "woman's religion", due to the influential roles and high regard women held in the Church, a concept completely foreign to Roman paganism. The Gnostic themes found within The Da Vinci Code - suspicion of tradition, distrust of authority, dislike of dogma, aversion to objective statements of faith, the pitting of the individual against the institution - hold obvious appeal to Ian Brown's frenzied anti-Catholic imagination and fervour for 'secret knowledge'. Those with a jackass radical feminist interpretation of Church history who are bewailing a repression of the 'sacred feminine' seem oblivious to the fact that numerous Gnostic texts clearly hold great contempt for the feminine. I am quite sure that if Ian's proclaimed heroine, Mary Magdalene, theoretically was afforded any say regarding the veracity of the Gospel of Thomas, she would have vetoed it sharpish. Contrast the Gospel of Thomas excerpt, above, with the writing of the apostle Paul in Galatians (3: 28), "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Furthermore, The Gospel of Mary and its like come from a time when the church had already fixed its gospel canon at four. By the time noncanonical texts such as The Gospel of Mary were written, the hierarchy of the Church was already formed and established. Some of the greatest minds in Western culture, from Augustine to Aquinas, have devoted their lives to the rational articulation of the Gospel; it requires no zany, manipulative editing from either of the aforementioned Browns. In the words of Saint Augustine, "I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus). The New Testament, which came out of the Church, has not been tampered with, but Peyote will tamper with your brain. The teachings and beliefs of the Catholic Church are in essence the same now in the 21st century as they were in the 1st century, in which expanse, one will find, a clear, constant, unbroken interpretation of Sacred Scripture. One need look only to the writing of Justin Martyr, an early Christian apologist, for confirmation of this. Take for example, the linchpin of the Catholic faith, the Eucharist. Writing to the Emperor in the second century, Justin Martyr explained the belief of these early Christians that the bread and wine was the actual body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." The Mass, remember, is older than the New Testament. The Bible is a Catholic document, from Genesis to Revelation, and every Holy Spirit inspired syllable in between. The Catholic Church wrote it, owned it, died for it, believed in it, preserved it, preaches it, copied it, transcribed it and gave it to the world. And stop putting "you know" in accompaniment to each of these half-witted claims as if this is something I do know.

Top: The falsehood of a "tampered bible" is the first step in the descent of the Modernists. At a time when the Church was locked in mortal combat with the irreligious and libertine spirit of modernity, Pope Pius X defined Modernism as the synthesis of all heresies (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 1907). Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ (Saint Jerome), and what abounds in modern society is a calculated ignorance of Scripture, and by extension, Christ. Blessed John Henry Newman writes "that there is no medium, in true philosophy, between Atheism and Catholicity, and that a perfectly consistent mind, under those circumstances in which it finds itself here below must embrace either the one or the other."
Bottom: 'Judith with the Head of Holofernes' (1613) by Cristofano Allori. Such holy women as Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Judith and Esther kept alive the hope of Israel's salvation, and the purest among them is Mary. If the Catholic Church rewrote the Bible to subvert the role of women, I doubt they would have confirmed the inclusion of the Book of Judith at the Council of Trent in 1545 (whereas it was excluded by Protestantism). Judith was a heroine who saved the Jewish people by cutting off the head of Holofernes, king of the Assyrians. If the Catholic Church rewrote the Bible to subvert the role of women, I doubt they would have included the Book of Ruth in its present form. Ruth was not even a Jew, yet she plays a key role in salvation history. Why did the Catholic Church did not erase the Book of Esther, and why did it not rewrite the story of Mary Herself ? Mary is present at each of the three major stages of salvation history; She is the woman of prophecy, Mother of God, and Mother of the Church. She is the woman of salvation history, and we see Her finally crowned Queen of Heaven in the Apocalypse. How does Ian explain the presence of all the great women of the New Testament: Martha, Mary Magdalene, Anna in the Temple (described as a prophet), Elizabeth and dozens more. The Dead Sea Scrolls (which Ian Brown claims to be an authority on) clearly demonstrate the integrity of the Church's transcription of the Old Testament. Predating the Church and Christ by 250 years, they blow away all the claims the Catholic Church wrote the Bible to suit its own agenda. They are word for word what the Church transcribed from the Septuagint. If Ian wishes to educate himself about a 'tampered Bible', then he need look no further than the heresy that is Gnosticism. Hilaire Belloc (The Great Heresies) defined heresy as "the dislocation of some complete and self-supporting scheme by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential part therein." Heresy reaches into a system of beliefs and begins to destroy it by exception. Catholicism, at its heart, is an all or nothing proposition, and this is why people have a problem with the Catholic Church. What has been carved out in postmodern society is the misguided interpretation that you can have a body of beliefs, yet you do not have to believe all of them. Jesus Christ came to earth to save us from sin. There is a crowd that wants Christ without the cross, a crowd more than content to soak up the Sermon on the Mount, but they do not want the Mount of Calvary which automatically, necessarily flows from the Sermon on the Mount. "Apart from the cross, there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven." (St. Rose of Lima). When Jesus said Take up your cross and follow me, where do you think He was going ? It was only those who stood at the foot of the Cross who had enough faith on Easter Sunday to recognize the reality of the Resurrection when it was first presented to them. You can have no Easter Sunday without first a Good Friday. Any spirituality that attempts to bypass the Crucifixion to get to the Resurrection, Archbishop Fulton Sheen warns us, is a sign of the demonic. When Peter tempted our Lord away from the cross, his mind was on the things of this world (Get thee behind me, Satan...); this is precisely what Satan did in the desert when he proposed three temptations to win the hearts of men. The false religionists of Jesus' day also wanted Him off that cross (Come down now from the cross, Mark 15: 32). If you are the Son of God...: The very first words out of Satan's mouth to our Lord in the wilderness (Matthew 4: 3) are among the last words that our Blessed Lord hears directed to Him on the cross (Matthew 27: 40). Three years prior to His Passion, Jesus heard the father of those hurling insult tempt Him to deviate from the cross. The Cross without Christ is sacrifice without love. Christ on the cross gives suffering its highest meaning, and false religionists - with their love of pre-eminence - want nothing to do with suffering. Instead of raising man up, they tear the Church down, to the level of an unregenerate and sinful heart. Such is the modern malady that the cross has become all forgiveness and no repentance, all mercy and no justice, all glory and no suffering. Only by His Passion and Cross may we be brought to the glory of His Resurrection. Lord, by your cross and resurrection, you have set us free. You are the Saviour of the world. Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote that if you wish to see the perfect exemplification of the Beatitudes, you should look to Christ crucified. Archbishop Fulton Sheen bolsters our understanding of this connection in Life of Christ: "The Sermon on the Mount cannot be separated from His Crucifixion, any more than day can be separated from night. The day Our Lord taught the Beatitudes, He signed His own death warrant." The Beatitudes mark a symbolic beginning of Jesus' life in the Gospels; He ascends one mountain at the beginning of His public ministry, and He comes to another mountain at the end of His public ministry. Out of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, the most 'feminized' religion, without question, is Christianity (Could Twenty-first century Western Christianity be any more feminized ?). If Ian wishes to engage in a debate about religion and the subjugation of women - I will defend Christianity, he can defend Islam - I more than fancy my chances with that one. I'll be kicking things off with Surah 4: 34.


Back To The Music