The online journal of Luke Dockery

Category: Theology (Page 1 of 45)

Reflections on Lament For A Son

I recently received Nicholas Wolterstorff’s Lament For A Son, which is a series of short essays composed after Wolterstorff’s 25 year-old son was tragically killed in a climbing accident. Wolterstorff is a Professor Emeritus of Philosophical Theology at Yale, and in Lament For A Son, he certainly writes from a theological perspective, but overwhelmingly, he is writing as a grief-stricken dad.

Suffering is a topic of interest for me;  I have written quite a bit about suffering, and specifically, viewing that topic from a theological perspective; I’ve also read a good deal about suffering as well. Lament For A Son is unlike other books I have read; rather than delve deeply into the topic of suffering in an analytical, systematic fashion, it delves deeply through emotional, soulful lament.

The book is short, and the essays are brief and disjointed, but I have found it to be incredibly profound. So much so, in fact, that rather than post a typical review, I decided to do a series of short posts highlighting some of the different ideas brought out in the various essays.

For example:

“Death is the great leveler, so our writers have always told us. Of course they are right. But they have neglected to mention the uniqueness of each death—and the solitude of suffering which accompanies that uniqueness. We say, “I know how you are feeling.” But we don’t.” (25)

I think this is a helpful reminder. With the absolute best of intentions, we seek to enter into the pain of others we care about. We want to break into their isolation and sit with them in their grief. We want them to know that we are with them, and that someone understands what it’s like to feel what they are feeling. But that empathetic impulse, as noble as it may be is also, unfortunately impossible to realize. We may imagine how another person feels, but we cannot know; we can neither clone the relationship that the other person had with their deceased loved one, nor can perfectly replicate the emotional responses of another person.

Each person, each relationship between people, and thus, each death which severs the relationship between two people is unique. Let us come close to those who are grieving and let us sit with them. Let us listen to the words and emotions that they share. Let us seek to understand. But let us not heighten the sense of isolation experienced by those who are grieving  by saying, “I know how you are feeling” when they know good and well that we do not, truly.

Ranking The Chronicles of Narnia, Part 4: Prince Caspian

For the last few weeks, I have been ranking the different volumes of C.S. Lewis’s masterpiece, The Chronicles of Narnia. So far, I have covered The Magician’s NephewThe Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobeand The Horse and His Boy

I am scoring each book using a rubric with four different categories: story, characters, worldcraft, and theology. For each category, I will provide a subscore of 1-10, yielding a cumulative maximum score of 40 points.

I have been following the chronological order of the books (even though I don’t consider that to be the best order in which to read the books), which means that this week, I will be ranking Prince Caspian (PC). I think this was my third time to read PC, and although I enjoyed it, I found myself a little more critical of certain aspects this time around.

Prince Caspian

This is from a series of brilliant Narnia cover designs by Jeffrey Nguyen

Story

Coming off the heels of LWW and HHB, PC is…slow. Certainly, there are elements of the story that are entertaining and compelling—the intrigue in the court of King Miraz, the Old Narnians living in hiding, the battle scenes around Aslan’s How—but significant chunks of the narrative feel like drudgery to get through.

As the book begins, the four Pevensie children from LWW find themselves almost immediately whisked into Narnia near an old ruined castle. After a frustratingly-long time, they realize that the castle is Cair Paravel, where they themselves reigned long ago, and that they have somehow returned to Narnia hundreds of years after they left it.

They soon rescue a dwarf, Trumpkin, who is about to be executed, and he proceeds to tell them the story of young Prince Caspian, who is a Telmarine, a human from the land of Telmar to the west of Narnia. Caspian’s ancestor had conquered Narnia, but now, his uncle Miraz is seeking to usurp the throne. The birth of Miraz’s son has placed Caspian in danger, and under the advice of his tutor, Doctor Cornelius, Caspian has fled from his uncle and taken up company with the Old Narnians: talking beasts, dwarfs, centaurs, and other fantastic creatures that had long ago been driven into hiding (Caspian had been raised to believe that such creatures didn’t even exist, until he learned differently from his nurse and then Doctor Cornelius).

The Old Narnians decide to follow Caspian as King, and marshal their forces to meet the army of Miraz in battle. Things go poorly for Caspian’s side, however: they are outnumbered and outmaneuvered in battle. Desperate, Caspian blows the magic horn of Queen Susan,[1] and Trumpkin is sent off to the ruins of Cair Paravel, where it is suspected that aid may arrive. He is captured along the way, but then freed by the Pevensies, as mentioned above.

From here, the Pevensie children have to convince Trumpkin that they really are the Kings and Queens from Narnia’s Golden Age and that they are able to help Caspian in his plight. This takes some doing, for the good-hearted Trumpkin is thoroughly skeptical about anything related to Aslan and Narnia’s revered history, but he proves to be a loyal ally.

Trumpkin and the children then head off to join Caspian’s forces at Aslan’s How. The journey there is long and arduous (perhaps nearly as slow and painful to read about as it would be to travel!), and is marked by Lucy seeing Aslan, the rest of the party being unable to, and as a result, going the wrong way, which puts the group in peril and delays their progress (more on this in the Theology section below). Eventually, Aslan appears to them again, this time in a way that all see him, and Aslan instructs them to divide their party: Peter, Edmund, and Trumpkin take off for Aslan’s How to join with Caspian’s forces, while Susan and Lucy join Aslan for a wild party in the woods with the tree creatures who Aslan awakens with his roar.

Aslan and the queens continue to travel and gather various allies, while Peter, realizing that Caspian’s forces are outnumbered, challenges Miraz to single combat. The duel is ended by the treachery of Miraz’s own lieutenants, but the chaos works to the advantage of the Old Narnians who, joined by Aslan’s recently-gathered forces, overwhelm the Telmarine army.

Caspian is installed as King by Aslan, the surviving Telmarine are allowed to return to their origin in our world, and the Pevensie children return home as well, with Peter and Susan possessing the knowledge that they will not return to Narnia again because they are getting “too old.”

The plot of PC has good (really good) elements, but it feels like a series of starts and stops. It takes too long to get to the “good stuff,” and once there, you don’t stay there for long.

Story: 7.5/10

Characters

The four Pevensie children, Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy, function as major characters in PC, as they do in LWW, and they are very similar to how they were in that novel (in Edmund’s case, how he was at the end of LWW, after he had repented of his treachery). All characters are now a year older, and perhaps this plays a part in the struggle of the older children to see Aslan when he first appears. With this cursory overview, we will move on to other significant characters, of whom there are many.

Caspian, the eponymous hero of the novel, grows up as in the house of his uncle Miraz. He is the rightful heir to the throne of Narnia, but knows nothing about it or the history of his nation until first, his nurse, and later, Doctor Cornelius, open his eyes to the reality of his world. He later flees his home and throws his lot in with the Old Narnians, and is declared their king. He loves stories from the old days, believes in Aslan, and ultimately, shows his allegiance to him when he stands against Nikabrik’s plot (see more below). Caspian is also humble, and we are given indication that this humility will serve him well:

“Welcome, Prince,” said Aslan. “Do you feel yourself sufficient to take up the Kingship of Narnia?“

“I—I don’t think I do, Sir,“ said Caspian. “I’m only a kid.“

“Good,“ said Aslan. “If you had felt yourself sufficient, it would have been a proof that you were not.” (220)

Doctor Cornelius is Caspian’s tutor who educates him in all manner of subjects, including the history of Narnia how it used to be. Cornelius proves the truth of what he says by his own existence (he is part dwarf), he gives Caspian the all-important horn, and he saves his life on the night of the birth of Miraz’s son by encouraging him to flee the castle. Later, he meets up with Caspian’s forces and serves as one of his main advisors.

When Caspian flees from his uncle into the woods, he runs into a tree branch and is knocked out. When he revives, he finds himself in a cave surrounded by three interesting characters: Trufflehunter, the talking badger, Trumpkin, the red dwarf, and Nikabrik, the black dwarf (the colors referring to the color of their hair and beards). As we will discuss later, PC is about the restoration of true religion after it has been corrupted, and in some sense, these three characters display three possible responses to “true religion.”

Trufflehunter represents the truly faithful. Despite the fact that talking beasts and the rest of the Old Narnians had been driven into hiding long ago and Aslan seemed to be distant silent, Trufflehunter remains loyal and committed to the order that Aslan had established:

“Don’t you go talking about things you don’t understand, Nikabrik,” said Trufflehunter. “You Dwarfs are as forgetful and changeable as the Humans themselves. I’m a beast, I am, and a Badger what’s more. We don’t change. We hold on. I say great good will come of it. This is the true King of Narnia we’ve got here: a true King, coming back to true Narnia. And we beasts remember, even if Dwarfs forget, that Narnia was never right except when a son of Adam was King.” (71)

“I tell you, we don’t change, we beasts,” said Trufflehunter. “We don’t forget. I believe in the High King Peter and the rest that reined at Cair Paravel, as firmly as I believe in Aslan himself.” (72)

If Trufflehunter is the faithful believer, Nikabrik is at the other extreme. He is fearful of Miraz and, therefore, all humans, and wants to kill Caspian when they find him. He has no desire for humans to rule Narnia (though he reluctantly goes along with the others to support Caspian), and, ultimately, has no allegiance to Aslan. He is entirely pragmatic, and is willing to support anyone—no matter how wicked—who will seek his interests:

“Do you believe in Aslan?” said Caspian to Nikabrik.

I’ll believe in anyone or anything,” said Nikabrik, “that’ll batter these cursed Telmarine barbarians to pieces or drive them out of Narnia. Anyone or anything, Aslan or the White Witch, do you understand?”

“Silence, silence,” said Trufflehunter. “You do not know what you are saying. She was a worse enemy than Miraz and all his race.”

“Not to Dwarfs, she wasn’t,” said Nikabrik. (80-81)

Later, Nikabrik’s pragmatism goes to the greatest extremes, as he enlists a Hag and a Wer-Wolf as allies and, ultimately, they try to bring the White Witch back from the dead through sorcery. This leads to a struggle where Nikabrik and his unsavory allies are killed, but ultimately, Nikabrik shows how corruption and extreme self-interest ultimately lead to destruction.[2]

Trumpkin sits in between Trufflehunter and Nikabrik on the spectrum of faith. Unlike Trufflehunter, he is no true believer. Time and again he is skeptical about the Kings and Queens from Narnia’s past coming to save them, or Aslan having any influence over the situation at all (it is not until Aslan roars and pounces on him that Trumpkin finally sees him and believes). But, despite his skepticism, Trumpkin is loyal and is open to having his mind changed. If he has forgotten the history of Narnia and the foundations of faith, he has still clung to its byproducts in a way that Nikabrik has not: Trumpkin has no desire to kill Caspian when they find him, nor to have any association with one form of evil (the Witch) in order to triumph over another (Miraz).

Miraz is Caspian’s uncle, the usurper to the throne. He previously had Caspian’s father killed, and all of his allies killed or banished. As Caspian gradually becomes aware of more things,

“He also began to see that Narnia was an unhappy country. The taxes were high and the laws were stern and Miraz was cruel man.” (58)

Despite his cruelty, Miraz was willing enough to train Caspian to be his successor until his wife give birth to a son of their own, and then Caspian’s life was in peril. Miraz shows himself to be skillful in his duel against Peter, but he is also easily manipulated, as his noblemen lead him to accept the duel in the first place, and then turn on him and kill him in a moment of confusion.

Reepicheep is the fearless and chivalrous leader of the talking mice, and is arguably the greatest character in The Chronicles of Narnia not named Aslan. He will feature more prominently in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, but in PC, we get clear indications of his bravery, daring, devotion to Caspian and Aslan, and his keen sense of honor (and with it, the ease at which he is offended).

Aslan’s role in PC is similar to the other books. He is a supremely important character, but is not directly involved in much of the narrative. Early on, Caspian is taught about Aslan but has never seen or experienced him. Miraz denies his existence and even some of the old Narnians are skeptical or disbelieving. When the Pevensie children arrive in Narnia, only Lucy sees him at first while the others disbelieve. But still, ultimately, it is Aslan who guides the Pevensies on what they must do, and it is his work that establishes the throne of Caspian.

Characters: 8.5/10

Worldcraft

For me, this area was another relative weakness of PC. We are given detailed descriptions of the ruins of Cair Paravel, and similar descriptions of the forests and rivers that Trumpkin and the Pevensies traverse as they make their way toward Caspian. These extended descriptions serve to illustrate how much time has elapsed since Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy sat on their thrones as the Kings and Queens of Narnia, and also are likely indicative of the decay that has come across the land over the years as “true religion” has been lost.[3]  But, on the whole, I found these descriptions to be pretty dry; in fact, these were the sections I most wanted to skim through.

Perhaps the most interesting element in the development of Narnia a thousand years after LWW was the description of Aslan’s How, a mound of earth riddled with tunnels that had been built over the broken Stone Table. This serves as the headquarters of Caspian’s forces, and the scene of the decisive battle-within-the-battle where the faithful Caspian, Trufflehunter, and Doctor Cornelius oppose Nikabrik, the Hag, and the Wer-Wolf.

Worldcraft: 7.5/10

Theology

I alluded to this above, but late in his life, C.S. Lewis wrote a letter in which he provided a brief overview of The Chronicles from a spiritual perspective. Describing PC, he said it was about “restoration of the true religion after corruption.”[4] By now, that theme is probably pretty clear from what I have described above in the three previous categories, so I won’t dwell on it here. To summarize,  in the context of Narnia, true religion is a son of Adam upon the throne living under the delegated authority of Aslan. In the words of Trufflehunter:

“…Narnia was never right except when a son of Adam was King.” (71)

Miraz was a son of Adam, but not the right kind, as he had sought to abolish any reference to Aslan or talking beasts at all. He was a cruel tyrant who ruled according to his own standards and notions of propriety. On the other hand, Caspian is the ruler that Narnia needs, in the tradition of Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy.

This son-of-Adam-on-the-throne idea is a clear reflection of the biblical notion of Imago Dei, the idea that humans are created in the Image of God. This means that God placed humanity in the garden to rule over it, but with His delegated authority. As creatures made in God’s image, humans possess enormous potential for good or evil. Aslan says as much:

“Do you mark all this well, King Caspian?”

“I do indeed, Sir,” said Caspian. “I was wishing that I came of a more honorable lineage.”

“You come of the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve,” said Aslan. “And that is both honor enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth. Be content.”

Caspian bowed. (233)

Another key theological motif of PC is the correlation between age and faith. Repeatedly throughout the book, being “old” or “grown-up” is presented as a barrier to having faith in Aslan.

  • When Caspian talks to King Miraz about the stories from Narnia’s Golden Age, Miraz replies that such stories are “fit for babies” and that Caspian is getting “too old” for fairy tells such as these.
  • Miraz asks Lord Glozelle, one of his noblemen about these “fairy tales” as well, and if he believes them. Glozelle replies, “I believe my eyes, your Majesty.”
  • As described in the discussion of Characters above, skepticism and pragmatism are noted characteristics of the Dwarfs Trumpkin and Nikabrik.

Even the Pevensies are victims of the seeing-is-believing malady that Lewis correlates with advancing age. Lucy, the youngest Pevensie child, is the one who sees Aslan first, but her older siblings doubt her (though Edmund, the second youngest, suspends his disbelief enough to side with his younger sister). Susan asks, “Where did you think you saw him?” and Lucy responds, “Don’t talk like a grown-up.”

Eventually, Aslan appears to Lucy again and strengthens her resolve to convince her siblings about seeing Aslan and following him, but it is still a challenge for her:

It is a terrible thing to have to wake four people, all older than yourself and all very tired, for the purpose of telling them something they probably won’t believe and making them do something they certainly won’t like.

Older people struggle to believe. They choose the pragmatic option, or the reasonable option. As Lord Glozelle said, they “believe their eyes.”

Or, as Jesus said:

“Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

(Matthew 18.3)

Is it any wonder that Peter and Susan are told that this will be their last trip to Narnia, because they are getting too old?

Theology: 8/10

At 31.5/40, PC is not, in my estimation, at the same level as LWW or HHBHowever, it is still a good book, and a noticeable step above MNIf I were rating it on Amazon, I’d give it 4 stars. I mentioned that HHB had climbed dramatically in the rankings after this read-through; PC fell in the rankings this time around.


[1] This horn was given to Susan in LWW by Father Christmas, and whenever it is blown, aid will come to Narnia. The horn had been kept and handed down over time, and Doctor Cornelius gives it to Caspian to blow in his moment of greatest need.

[2] Later, right before his treachery, Nikabrik again asserts that the White Witch “got on all right with us Dwarfs” (180). And this seems to be somewhat true, as we see dwarfs serving the White Witch in LWW. This stubborn determination to look out only for Dwarfs and the interests of Dwarfs also points ahead to The Last Battle, where the Dwarfs remain this way and refuse to ally themselves with King Tirian.

In some ways, I think Nikabrik is an almost prophetic character. Back in 2016, I remember sharing “Nikabrik’s Candidate”, which I thought was a soberingly-accurate article leading up to the 2016 Presidential Election. The article itself seems to be prophetic to me, and worth a read in hindsight (or, foresight, as another such election approaches).

[3] This theme of corruption is most clearly seen in the ruins of Cair Paravel and the apple trees they had planted now growing wild. But it also seen in the overgrowth of forest, the erosion of the land by the river, and the binding of the river god represented by the Bridge of Beruna.

[4] Paul Ford, Companion to Narnia: Revised Edition (San Franciso: HarperCollins, 2005): 6.

 

A New Heaven & A New Earth Part 11: Voices From the Past

This post is part of an ongoing series. You can find links to all the posts here.

We have spent a lot of time now looking at the idea of renewed eschatology from a variety of different perspectives, and for some readers, a lot of different pieces are starting to click into place and make a lot of sense.

But something that may be bothering you (it certainly bothered me as I was studying through this): “If this is the correct view, why am I just now hearing about this? I mean, Christianity has been around for 2000 years, and we’re just now understanding what the Bible actually teaches about eternity?!”

The question, “why am I just now hearing about this?”, is a difficult one, but the short answer is that the view of eternity where this world will be destroyed and then we will go off to heaven and have some sort of eternal spiritual existence with God has been the dominant view within conservative, evangelical Christianity for all of our lives.

But here is the important idea I want to emphasize: just because this idea is relatively new to you, or because it was new to me when I first heard it does not at all mean that it is a new idea.

I am very suspicious of brand new ideas in Christianity. When someone suggests an interpretation of a particular verse that I can’t find anywhere else, that makes me very suspicious. I am supposed to believe that in the whole history of Christianity, this guy is the first person to come along and actually figure out what this means? But that’s not the case here, and what I want to emphasize in this post is that the renewed earth perspective is not new at all. It is actually a very old understanding of what the Bible teaches about eternity.

Now, I am not going to trace this perspective in detail for 2,000 years, because for the majority of people, that would be mind-numbingly boring. However, I do want to give you some examples from different time periods to emphasize that this is not a new idea.



Early Church

Irenaus is one of what we call the “Church Fathers”, Christians who lived and wrote in the first few centuries. Irenaus wrote a famous work called Against Heresies in the late 100s, in which he opposed false teachings that had arisen. One very popular heresy was called gnosticism and it held, among other things, that material creation is evil. Irenaus rejected this notion, and argued that the Bible teaches that creation is good. He also says:

  • The righteous will “rise again to behold God in this creation which is renovated…”[1]
  • Speaking of Jesus’ words in Matthew 26.27-30 (I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom), he says “[Jesus] cannot by any means be understood as drinking of the fruit of the vine when settled down with his disciples above in a super-celestial place; nor, again, are they who drink it devoid of flesh, for to drink of that which flows from the vine pertains to flesh, and not spirit.”[2]
  • For neither is the substance nor the essence of the creation annihilated.”[3]

Irenaus viewed resurrection as a bodily experience that was directly tied to the restoration of all creation. Clearly, the renewed earth perspective is an ancient view.[4]

Reformation

You are likely familiar with the Protestant Reformation that began in the 1500s. Two of the major figures of the Reformation were Martin Luther and John Calvin. These two men differed in significant ways, but they  make similar, interesting statements in their commentary on 2 Peter 3 (a text we looked at earlier):

“…some may disquiet themselves as to whether the saints shall exist in heaven or on the earth. The text seems to imply that man shall dwell upon the earth, yet so that all heaven and earth shall be a paradise where God dwells…”[5]

“Of the elements of the world I shall only say this one thing, that they are to be consumed, only that they may be renovated, their substance still remaining the same, as it may be easily gathered from…other passages.”[6]

If you have been following along with this series, these ideas will seem very familiar.

Now, Luther and Calvin agreeing with the NHNE perspective doesn’t automatically make it correct. Indeed, these men hold a variety of views that I disagree with on various topics. My point here is not that we should believe in renewed eschatology because Luther and Calvin did; rather, I am simply illustrating that this is by no means a new perspective.

Restoration Movement

In Churches of Christ, we are spiritual descendants of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. If you know me well or have read The Doc File for long, you know that I am extremely interested in the history of our movement. Imagine my surprise and fascination when I discovered that the renewed earth perspective that we have been talking about was held by influential early leaders in our movement!

Alexander Campbell was likely the single most influential thinker in the history of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Campbell was famous in the 19th century, and disseminated his perspectives as an orator, editor, debater, educator, and author. Among the many topics he touched on in his vast array of writings was eschatology and the renewal of creation:

“The Bible begins with the generations of the heavens and the earth; but the Christian revelation ends with the regenerations or new creation of the heavens and the earth. This [is] the ancient promise of God confirmed to us by the Christian Apostles. The present elements are to be changed by fire. The old or antediluvian earth was purified by water; but the present earth is reserved for fire, with all the works of man that are upon it. It shall be converted into a lake of liquid fire. But the dead in Christ will have been regenerated in body before the old earth is regenerated by fire. The bodies of the saints will be as homogeneous with the new earth and heavens as their present bodies are with the present heavens and earth. God re-creates, regenerates, but annihilates nothing; and, therefore, the present earth is not to be annihilated. The best description we can give of this regeneration is in the words of one who had a vision of it on the island of Patmos. He describes it as far as it is connected with the New Jerusalem, which is to stand upon the new earth, under the canopy of the new heaven.”[7]

“The impression prevails in many minds, that the earth is to be annihilated. Such is not our belief. There is a vast difference between annihilation, and change, or general alteration. This earth will, unquestionably be burned, yet, through the process of variation and reconstruction of its elements, God will fashion the earth and heavens anew, and fill them with tenants to glorify His name forever.”[8]

Walter Scott was another key early Restoration leader.[9] Unlike Campbell, Scott’s focus was particularly on evangelism, and his use of simple, memorable methods led to thousands upon thousands of baptisms in the Western Reserve. Scott was also a theologian who mused on the nature of eternity. From Embracing Creation:

“Just as the present world was “formed out of the ruins of the first and original one, so the third and future world shall, by the power of God, be constructed from the ashes of the present one.” The “present habitable globe,” like the primitive one, will be destroyed, but “from the ashes will rise another heaven and another earth…the abode of [the] righteous.” This is “the new heavens and new earth…created as the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This “new earth” is the inheritance promised Abraham (Rom. 4.13) and it is the “hope of all Christians.”[10]

In case the above language is confusing, Scott is reflecting on ideas from 2 Peter 3. He is referencing the “destruction” of the world through the flood, and then the future “destruction” by fire. This accounts for his three worlds.

David Lipscomb was an influential leader in Southern Churches of Christ following the Civil War (so, a different generation of leadership than Campbell and Scott). Lipscomb was primarily an educator, and also served as the longtime editor of the Gospel Advocate. In his words:

“God is holy. As a pure and holy being, he cannot tolerate guilt and sin. The two cannot permanently dwell together in the universe. When sin came into the world, God left this world as a dwelling place. He cannot dwell in a defiled and sin-polluted temple. He has since dwelt on this earth only in sanctified altars and temples separated from the world and consecrated to his service. He will again make this earth his dwelling place, but it will be only when sin has been purged out and it has been consecrated anew as the new heaven and new earth in which dwelleth righteousness.”[11]

James A. Harding was a contemporary and close associate of Lipscomb, but while Lipscomb functioned primarily as a teacher and editor, Harding was a traveling preacher. His thoughts on renewed creation closely resembled Lipscomb’s:

“But—thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ grace came with a mighty hand to meet this great, dark, cursing, onrushing tide of woe and death, to roll it back, to free men from death and the earth from every curse of sin, and to give to it a glory and beauty never dreamed of by Adam and Eve in the midst of their Edenic home. This earth, with its surrounding heaven, is to be made over, and on the fair face of the new earth God himself will dwell with all the sons and daughters of men who have been redeemed through grace…through Adam we lost the garden of Eden; through Christ we gain the paradise of God.”[12]

“…the earth is God’s nursery, his training grounds, made primarily for the occupancy of his children, for their education, development and training until they shall have reached their majority, until the end of the Messianic age has come; then it is to be purified a second time by a great washing, a mighty flood, but this time in a sea of fire. Then God will take up his abode himself with his great family upon this new, this renovated and purified earth.”[13]

Jimmy Allen was one of my favorite teachers at Harding University; he was legendary there for his class on the Book of Romans. He was a longtime teacher at Harding, but was most famous for being a revival-style evangelist in the tradition of Billy Graham. Back in the 1960s, he would preach to overflowing arenas and baptized thousands.

Here are some thoughts from Allen in his commentary on Romans (and also, from 2 Peter):

“The point about groaning creation is that when man fell, the earth was cursed, when man is glorified, the earth will also be glorified…This means, if I am correct, that at the end of time our present system will not be annihilated…

What are the “new heavens” and “new earth” (II Pet. 3:13)? There are at least two Greek words that are translated as new. One is “neos” and the other is “kainos.” A few times they are used interchangeably…However, there is a difference in the two words. “‘Kainos’ denotes new, of that which is unaccustomed or unused, not new in time, recent, but new as to form or quality, of different nature from what is contrasted as old… ‘Neos’ signifies new in respect of time, that which is recent” (Vine, III, pp. 109-110).

The word translated as “new” in connection with the earth at II Pet. 3:13 is not “neos,” signifying an object that is “brand-new” like the Ford pickup truck that has been in my carport the last couple of weeks. Rather, it is “kainos,” meaning new as to its form, quality, or nature. We will have new bodies in the next life in that they will be changed from what they are now. Similarly, we will have a new earth in eternity in that it will be this one changed by fire into what is glorious and incorruptible.”[14]

These influential leaders from Restoration Movement history are certainly not infallible, but for me, as someone who has great respect for Campbell, Lipscomb, Harding, and others, it was a relief to see that they held these views. In a sense, it was almost like it “gave me permission” to believe this myself: “we” had historically believed this!

Again, all of these quotations—from the Early Church, the Reformation, and from Stone-Campbell Movement history—do not prove anything about the accuracy of the New Heavens/New Earth perspective. That stands or falls based on what Scripture teaches, and we have spent several posts examining that case. But these quotations do demonstrate that this is not a new perspective, and for those in churches of Christ, this is a perspective that has historical roots in our own heritage.


[1] Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 32, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103532.htm

[2] Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 33, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103533.htm

[3] Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 36, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103533.htm

[4]Other Church Fathers refer to elements of renewed eschatology as well. Papias (Eusebius, Fragments of Papias VI) was a historical premillennialist, and understood that there would be a personal reign of Christ on earth after the resurrection. The author of the Epistle of Barnabas (late first century, early second century document) believed that Christians in eternity would reign over birds, fish, and beasts, clearly suggesting a material existence.

[5] Martin Luther, Commentary on Peter and Jude (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1990): 285.

[6] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles (New York: Cosimo, 2007): 421.

[7] Alexander Campbell, Christian System (Pittsburg, PA: Forrester & Campbell, 1839): 257.

[8] Alexander Campbell, Familiar Lectures on the Pentateuch (H.S. Bosworth, 1887): 310.

[9] Scott, along with Alexander Campbell, Thomas Campbell (Alexander’s father), and Barton W. Stone (the “Stone” in “Stone-Campbell Movement”) are often referred to as “the big four”. Scott is less remembered than the other three, but was of tremendous importance in the solidification and spread of the Movement and its ideals.

[10] This quotation comes from John Mark Hicks, Bobby Valentine, and Mark Wilson, Embracing Creation: God’s Forgotten Mission, (Abilene, TX: Leafwood: 2016): 203. The quotations referenced herein are from Walter Scott,“Of a Succession of Worlds, and of the Great Physical Destinies of Our Globe, as Spoken of in the Scriptures,” The Evangelist 6 (January 1838): 3-5, (February 1838): 34-35, and (April 1838): 77.

[11] David Lipscomb, Salvation from Sin (Nshville: McQuiddy, 1913): 35-36.

[12] James A Harding, “Three Lessons from the Book of Romans,” in Biographies and Sermons, ed. F.D. Srygley (Nashville: McQuiddy, 1898), 249.

[13] James A. Harding, “What Are We Here For?” The Way 5 [3 December 1903], 1041).

[14] Jimmy Allen, Romans: The Clearest Gospel of All (Searcy, AR, 2005): 178-80.

A New Heaven & A New Earth Part 10: The Nature of God

This post is part of an ongoing series. You can find links to all the posts here.

Over the last several posts, we have spent a good deal of time looking directly at specific biblical texts. First, we looked at texts that have traditionally been used to teach that creation will be destroyed or that we will go away to heaven with Jesus when He returns (and I have argued that those texts have been poorly interpreted). Then we looked at texts that point to cosmic redemption, that the salvation that God brings about through Jesus will be both wholistic and restorative. We followed that up by looking closely at portions of Genesis and Revelation and seeing what they tell us about the broken reality of our world and the Story that Scripture is telling. Most recently, we examined passages related to the resurrection of Jesus and our own resurrection. All of that to say, this study has been significantly based upon looking closely at biblical texts.

This post will be different from all of those in the sense that today I am not going to look at specific texts, but I am still going to be making biblical arguments. But, rather than pointing to a variety of specific texts, I want to draw on our general knowledge of Scripture and use this information to help us get a picture of the nature of God.

Here are the basic questions we want to consider in this post:

  1. According to the Bible, what is God’s character? What is He like? Obviously, these are massive questions and we are not going to try to answer them exhaustively (it would not even be possible to do so). Rather, we will seek to answer them in ways that relate specifically to this study.
  2. Related to the first question, which perspective better fits God’s character as revealed in Scripture: the idea that God will destroy His tainted creation and we will “go up” to live with Him eternally, or that God will fix His tainted creation and “come down” so we can live with Him eternally?

In other words, the Bible gives us pictures of what God is like. Which of the views that we have been discussing fit better with the biblical pictures of God?



The Fixer of the Broken

In the Genesis account, God looks at what He has created and repeatedly calls it “good”. He says this of humans as well. Over and over again, the refrain is repeated. Clearly, God values what He has created. Tragically, though, God’s good creation becomes tainted by human sin. We have spoken about that at length.

So, what is God like? Is He someone who throws things away when they become tainted, or does He work to fix them?

In the story of the people of Israel, do we see a God who throws His people away when they sin against Him, or who lovingly, painfully walks alongside them for hundreds of years despite their rebellion? Even in the Exile, do we see God abandoning His people and the covenant promises He made to them, or do we see God with His people, even in Exile, working for their good and remaining faithful to the promises He has made, ultimately restoring them to their homeland and sending His Son to them, through Whom all peoples of the earth would be blessed?

Through His sinless life, death on the cross, and resurrection from the dead, that Son makes possible for us to be reconciled to God, despite the fact that we are sinful, tainted creatures. This is at the center of our faith, isn’t it? The idea that God doesn’t just throw us away when we are tainted by sin but rather that He has done everything possible to fix us and redeem us for His own?

I believe that; don’t you? 

And yet…

If God is going to annihilate His creation—creation that He called “good”—because it was tainted by sin, why should we be confident that He won’t do the same thing to us? After all, we are part of creation, and He called us “good” too.[1]

In other words, which view—annihilation of creation or redemption of creation—is more consistent with how we generally view God? 

Constantly in our language—in almost every sermon we hear—we speak of a God who wants to fix what is broken within us and make us right and whole. Which of these eschatological views fits better with that picture of God?

The One Who Comes Down

There’s another picture of God that I want to consider which is prevalent in Scripture from the beginning to the end.

When God creates everything in the first chapters of Genesis, He also forms the Garden of Eden, and this is where Adam and Eve dwell. God has interactions with Adam and Eve, and where do those take place? Do Adam and Eve go away somewhere to be with God? No, God comes down and walks in the Garden in the cool of the day. He interacts with Adam and Eve where they are.

Later, God calls a man named Abraham to leave his country and family and go to a distant land, where God will bless him greatly. At one point, God tells Abraham about the child of promise that will be born to Abraham and Sarah, and also to inform him of the judgment that will come upon Sodom and Gomorrah. How does this communication occur? Is Abraham whisked off to heaven for a conversation with his Creator? No, God comes down and conveys the information to Abraham.[2]

Fast forward many generations and Abraham’s descendants, the people of Israel are enslaved in Egypt. Their slavery is bitter and hard and they cry out for rescue, and God hears their cry. How does He respond? He comes down and appears to Moses in a burning bush, and through Moses, rescues the people.

Once the people are rescued, God establishes a covenant with them and gives them Torah—teaching, instruction, law—to guide their living. How is this given to them? God comes down to Mt. Sinai to meet with Moses and deliver the Law to Him. 

What about Jesus? In the fullest revelation of who God is, did God transport someone up into heaven so we could get a report of what He is like? No, God comes down. In the incarnation, the Word became flesh and Jesus walked among us. 

After Jesus departs, does God leave us on our own? Does He then transport someone up into heaven to give us further instructions? No, the Spirit of God comes down and indwells His people. 

And what do we see in the end? Again, God comes down. In 1 Thessalonians 4, Jesus comes down and we meet Him in the air to return with Him. In Revelation 21, the Holy City comes down so that the dwelling of God can be with humanity.

So, according to what we see in Scripture, what is God like? Is the Scriptural pattern that we go up to Him, or that God comes down to us?[3] Both literally and theologically, over and over again we see the latter. God comes down to us. He rescues us from our mess. He comes to give us guidance. He comes to reveal what He is like. He comes to live with us eternally.

Which view—annihilation of creation where this world is destroyed and we “go up” to be with God somewhere else, or redemption of creation where God “comes down” to a redeemed world to be with us—is more consistent with the picture of God from Scripture as One who Comes Down?

We can now return to our original questions and seek to answer them:

  1. According to the Bible, what is God’s character? What is He like? There are a lot of answers to those questions, but two we see from Scripture is that God is the Fixer of the Broken and the One Who Comes Down to us. 
  2. These pictures of God make no sense if creation is going to be destroyed and we are going to go off to be with God somewhere else. On the other hand, they fit seamlessly into a vision of the end times where God redeems His creation and comes down to live among us forever, and as we have already seen in multiple texts throughout this series, this is exactly the picture that Scripture paints.

[1]You might object: “The Bible clearly teaches that God is going to redeem His people!” I certainly agree with that, but as this study has shown, there are multiple passages in Scripture that indicate the same reality about creation as a whole. Thus, we would expect Scripture to be consistent in its portrayal of God as desiring to fix what is broken, and it is.

[2]I am referring to Genesis 18. This passage talks about “three men” talking to Abraham, but the text begins by clearly stating that it is the LORD who appears to him. The consensus of biblical scholarship considers this to be a theophany, or appearance of God. 

[3]I am not denying that there are examples that may not seem to fit the pattern, such as Isaiah’s vision of God’s throne room, or Paul’s vision of the third heaven. But if these are visions (and they seem to be), then they actually represent God coming down to impart information to His people through visionary experiences. 

There is also the example of Elijah being taken up to heaven in a whirlwind, but this is obviously exceptional in human experience and does not negate the general pattern established here. In an earlier post, I discussed the intermediate state and the possibility that those in Christ go to heaven upon death, but this is not clearly established in Scripture, and, regardless, this precedes the resurrection, and is not the final state of the faithful dead.

Ranking The Chronicles of Narnia, Part 3: The Horse and His Boy

So, I have been ranking the different volumes of C.S. Lewis’s masterpiece, The Chronicles of Narnia. So far, I have covered The Magician’s Nephew and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

I am scoring each book using a rubric with four different categories: story, characters, worldcraft, and theology. For each category, I will provide a subscore of 1-10, yielding a cumulative maximum score of 40 points.

I have been following the chronological order of the books (even though I don’t consider that to be the best order in which to read the books), which means that this week, I will be ranking The Horse and His Boy (HHB). Unlike LWW, which I had read multiple times, I think this may have been only my second reading of HHB, and I can’t believe how much more I enjoyed the book this time around.

The Horse and His Boy

This is from a series of brilliant Narnia cover designs by Jeffrey Nguyen

Story

HHB is unique in The Chronicles of Narnia because the entire story takes place within the world of Narnia—no characters are drawn from Britain through magical means. Instead, it is a story from the time in which Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy are ruling as the kings and queens of Narnia, and centers around characters—two children and two horses—who live in that world. To me, this feature alone is a point in favor of HHB—Lewis is using what he has already created rather than importing outside elements. It also helps greatly with the pacing of the story, because we launch right into the story of Shasta after one introductory paragraph, rather than the usual instance of having to introduce the children from our world, establish their context, and describe the circumstances that bring them to Narnia.

In the simplest terms, HHB is a travel narrative, recounting the journey of Shasta, the adopted son of a Calormene fisherman, who basically lives the existence of a slave. He meets Bree, an enslaved Narnian (and thus, talking) horse, and the two of them decide to flee together and head North, toward Narnia. Along the way, they encounter Aravis, a Calormene girl of noble birth, and her horse Hwin (another enslaved talking horse from Narnia). Together, they flee from their old lives, discover the wonders of the city of Tashbaan, stumble upon a Calormene plot to overthrow both Archenland and Narnia (Shasta meets Susan and Edmund in the process), brave a grueling journey through the desert, and, ultimately, provide the warning that brings deliverance to Narnia and her allies.

Along the way, Shasta and his companions are pursued by Aslan himself, and they eventually meet and come to love and serve him (more on that in the Theology section below), and Shasta comes to discover his true identity as the missing son of the king of Archenland. Aravis is invited to live with the king and his family as well, and she and Shasta (who’s actual name is Cor) grow up to get married and live happily ever after. Well, sort of. With his typical wit, Lewis says:

Aravis also had many quarrels (and, I’m afraid, even fights) with Cor, but they always made it up again: so that years later, when they were grown up, they were so used to quarreling and making up again that they got married so as to go on doing it more conveniently. And after King Lune’s death they made a good King and Queen of Archenland and Ram the Great, the most famous of all the kings of Archenland, was their son. (241)

The plot of HHB is gripping, and the pacing is excellent. Humor, danger, and intrigue are well combined to produce a story that is as interesting and compelling as any in the series.

Story: 9/10

Characters

The main characters of HHB have already been mentioned above: Shasta (Cor), Bree, Aravis, and Hwin. As previously mentioned, these characters are not teleported in from the outside, but arise within the world that LWW creates.

Shasta is the story’s main protagonist. As the adopted son of a Calormene fisherman, he lives a small, poor life, unaware of what lies beyond his home. A chance encounter with Bree and the prospect of his being sold into slavery provides the motivation for his flight from all he has known. Shasta is keenly aware of his deep ignorance and humble beginnings. He is impressed by and envious of the knowledge and experiences of Bree and Aravis, and desperately wants to impress them. He is also kind and courageous, and in a person so marked by fear and self-doubt, the courage is all the more impressive. Meeting Aslan gives Shasta (who feels that he is incapable of accomplishing the task he has been given) the refreshment, vision, and confidence to do what must be done.

Aravis is a firecracker. She is a young Tarkheena, which means that she is the daughter of a Tarkhan, a Calormene noble. She has grown up wealthy and privileged, but a detestable arranged marriage spurs her to freedom. She respects Bree who, as a Tarkhan’s war horse runs in the same sorts of circles that she does, but in her pride and haughtiness, she looks down on the lowly Shasta. She is also brave and resourceful, and shows great development over the course of the novel. First, she comes to respect and admire Shasta (especially for his bravery), and ultimately, after meeting Aslan, comes to repent of the cruel indifference with which she had previously treated those she had considered to be her inferiors.

Bree was a character who was hard for me to like, at least initially. A war horse who knows his Narnian birth, Bree is proud of both characteristics, and his arrogance occasionally results in his belittling of others. Much of this, however, is really a reflection of his deep-seated insecurity. As the group draws closer to Narnia, Bree is increasingly concerned that he won’t act like talking horses are supposed to act, and once the plot has resolved, this insecurity actually makes him delay his return home. Ultimately, he meets Aslan and is changed by the experience, realizes the Great Lion for who he really is, and repents of his own pride and foolishness.

Hwin is probably the least-developed of the four, but is still differentiated. She is good-natured, sensible, and shy, and is in awe of Bree the war horse, but also shows her courage in speaking up, and as soon as she meets Aslan, is devoted to him:

“Please,” she said, “you’re so beautiful. You may eat me if you like. I’d sooner be eaten by you than fed by anyone else.”

“Dearest daughter,” said Aslan, planting a lion’s kiss on her twitching, velvet nose, “I knew you would not be long in coming to me. Joy shall be yours.” (215)

There are other minor characters who are important to the plot of HHB, but not emphasized much.

The Tisroc is the ruler of Calormen. He is cruel and calculating. He allows his son, Rabadash, to mount a secret invasion of Archenland in hopes of overthrowing Narnia. The Tisroc reasons that if Rabadash is successful, it will be beneficial to Carlormen, and if he is killed, it will eliminate a rival for the throne. For his part, Rabadash is rash and foolhardy—his plan to invade Narnia is partially generated by Queen Susan spurning his romantic advances.

Susan and King Edmund make an appearance in Tashbaan, where Shasta meets them (they mistake him for his twin brother Corin, though neither they nor we realize they are twins at the time). They are visiting Calormen in the first place because Rabadash has asked Susan to marry him. She has no desire to, and they end up sneaking out of town, fearful of the intentions of their hosts. Queen Lucy also makes an appearance when she, along with Edmund and a cohort of other Narnians arrive to give aid to their allies in Archenland.

Overall, the Penvensie children are minor characters in HHB, but they are still crucial to the plot, and Edmund has opportunity to utter one of my favorite lines of the book, which is a clear reference to the events of LWW:

“Your Majesty would have a perfect right to strike off his head,” said Peridan. “Such an assault as he made puts him on a level with assassins.”

“It is very true,” said Edmund. “But even a traitor may mend. I have known one that did.”

And he looked very thoughtful. (230)

As always, Aslan is of supreme importance to the book. In HHB, none of the main characters really know him. Bree has heard of him and repeatedly says things like, “By the Lion’s Mane,” but doesn’t know that Aslan is actually a lion. As a Calormene who grew up worshiping the god Tash, Aravis has heard only fearful things about Aslan. Shasta knows nothing about him at all. But Aslan is still a central character in the story, calling out to Shasta and his companions and driving them along their journey (see more below under Theology), and in meeting him, all four of the central characters experience significant transformation.

Characters: 9/10

Worldcraft

HHB stands out in The Chronicles of Narnia because it significantly expands and fleshes out the map of the world of Narnia. Specifically, HHB gives us a detailed portrayal of Calormen, a briefer description of Archenland, and the desert in between the two.

The focus of much of the book is on the people and land of Calormen, and especially its capital city, Tashbaan.[1] Shasta is overwhelmed by what he sees:

At first Shasta could see nothing in the valley below him but a sea of mist with a few domes and pinnacles rising from it; but as the light increased and the mist cleared away he saw more and more. A broad river divided itself into two streams and on the island between them stood the city of Tashbaan, one of the wonders of the world. Round the very edge of the island, so that the water lapped against the stone, ran high walls strengthened with so many towers that he soon gave up trying to count them. Inside the walls the island rose in a hill and every bit of that hill, up to the Tisroc’s palace and the great temple of Tash as the top, was completely covered with buildings—terrace above terrace, street above street, zigzag roads or huge flights of steps bordered with orange trees and lemon trees, roof-gardens, balconies, deep archways, pillared colonnades, spires, battlements, minarets, pinnacles. And when at last the sun rose out of the sea and the great silver-plated dome of the temple flashed back its light, he was almost dazzled. (53-54)

Inside, the city is hot (the heat of Calormen is emphasized to the degree that I could feel it while reading) and crowded, but Shasta remains impressed with it. Further descriptions of fruit trees, watered gardens, silk-curtained litters, and palace corridors add to the mystique of the place. In my estimation, the level of creative detail is unmatched elsewhere in The Chronicles.

The description of the tombs, the desperate trek through the desert, the narrow gorge into Archenland and the description of mountainous country add to the already impressive worldcraft of HHB. Like no other book in the series (even Dawn Treader), HHB creates a vivid world that the reader can easily visualize and experience.

Worldcraft: 10/10

Theology

As much as I enjoyed HHB, theology represented its weakest sub-score on my rubric.

Late in his life, C.S. Lewis wrote a letter in which he provided a brief overview of The Chronicles from a spiritual perspective. Describing HHB, he said it was about “the calling and conversion of a heathen,”[2] and this makes sense, as the missionary nature of Aslan shines through clearly. Aslan seeks out Shasta and Aravis, nudges them together, aids them on their journey and, ultimately, reveals himself to them:

“Don’t you think it was bad luck to meet so many lions?” said Shasta.

“There was only one lion,” said the Voice.

“What on earth do you mean? I’ve just told you there were at least two the first night, and—”

“There was only one: but he was swift of foot.”

“How do you know?”

“I was the lion.” And as Shasta gaped with open mouth and said nothing, the Voice continued. “I was the lion who forced you to join with Aravis. I was the cat who comforted you among the houses of the dead. I was the lion who drove the jackals from you while you slept. I was the lion who gave the Horses the new strength of fear for the last mile so that you should reach King Lune in time. And I was the lion you do not remember who pushed the boat in which you lay, a child near death, so that it came to shore where a man sat, wakeful at midnight, to receive you.” (175-76)

All along the way, even from Shasta’s infancy, Aslan was there, behind the scenes, orchestrating circumstances and providing nudges that would lead Shasta to himself. As Shasta says of Aslan late in the book:

“…he seems to be at the back of all the stories” (222-23)

Clearly, then, it is not just Narnians who are loved and called by Aslan. He calls Archenlandians and Calormenes as well, which reflects the biblical motif of a God who loves all people and seeks to bring blessing to all nations through Abraham and his descendants.

And when Aslan does reveal himself to Shasta after staying in the background for so long, the exchange brings chills (and, to me, evoked echoes of God’s interaction with Elijah in 1 Kings 19):

“Who are you?” asked Shasta.

“Myself,” said the Voice, very deep and low so that the earth shook: and again “Myself,” loud and clear and gay: and then the third time “Myself,” whispered so softly you could hardly hear it, and yet it seemed to come from all round you as if the leaves rustled with it.

Shasta was no longer afraid that the Voice belonged to something that would eat him, nor that it was the voice of a ghost. But a new and different sort of trembling came over him. Yet he felt glad too. (176)

The conversion motif plays out clearly in the book, as it applies not only to Shasta, but each of the four main characters who are transformed after meeting Aslan (as described above).[3]

Theology: 8/10

A 36/40 is a really high mark; this would be a 5-star rating on Amazon. What’s more impressive than that is how much HHB climbed in my estimation: prior to this read-through, I think it may have been my 6th favorite (out of 7); it is certainly higher than that now. Also, with a 10/10 in the Worldcraft category, HHB earned the second Perfect 10 that I awarded to any of the books (I gave LWW a 10/10  in Theology).


[1]Lewis has long been accused of racism for his portrayal of the Calormenes in The Chronicles of Narnia. I don’t fully intend to go into that here, but I think those accusations are at least partially misguided. Clearly Lewis portrays Calormen in generally negative terms, but a strong argument could be made that this is based not upon their race, but rather their allegiance to the false god, Tash, which leads to negative characteristics (for example, their cruelty and violence).

We could also talk about the fact that Lewis does not universally portray the Calormenes in a negative light (Aravis is an example of this), and that humans in general are frequently portrayed negatively in Narnia (such as the Telmarines in Prince Caspian). But perhaps the most fundamental question is whether or not we can truly call descriptions of an imaginary people group “racist”: as the imaginative creator of this nation, why would Lewis’s depiction be considered racist rather than an accurate description of the thing he created?

And, finally, we could point out that the word “racist” as it is frequently used in contemporary discussion makes little sense in this context, as the Calormenes are hardly an oppressed people group. Rather, the Calormen Empire seems to represent the strongest force in the world of Narnia, and is bent upon the conquering and subjugation of other nations. So, it would seem that the word “prejudiced” would better fit in the accusations against Lewis here, but I still think that is a problematic term for the reasons described above.

[2]Paul Ford, Companion to Narnia: Revised Edition (San Franciso: HarperCollins, 2005): 6.

[3]One commentator sees significant similarities to Moses in the character of Shasta:

  • Shasta and Moses were both sent away from their families at birth.
  • Both babies were found floating in water: Moses was found in a basket on the Nile (with his protective sister hiding nearby), and Shasta was found in a boat in the ocean (with a dead Archenlandian knight who had been his protector).
  • Both turned away from the country in which they were raised: Shasta from Calormen, Moses from Egypt.
  • Both turned out to be saviors of their true countries: Shasta of Archenland, Moses of Israel.

Of course, there is a significant difference as well: “In one aspect, the roles of Shasta and Moses are reversed: Moses was raised in nobility and wealth and eventually became a shepherd. Shasta was raised in a poor fisherman’s home, and eventually became a King (although Moses also eventually became the leader of the Israelite nation).”

I haven’t fully thought this through, but I think the similarities are striking.

« Older posts

© 2020 The Doc File

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑