Kind Actions Cause Cruel Ones

In out last post we started analyzing the statement of Raish Lakish in Ecclesiastes Rabbah, "Anyone who becomes merciful in place of cruel, will at the end, become cruel in the place of merciful." (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:16). There we asserted that this was due to cause and effect: by having mercy on those who are cruel, for example exempting them from any punishment for their crimes, will only enable them to commit further acts of cruelty. If not by the grace of Aslan, the discussions between Lucy, Edmond, and King Lune regarding Prince Rabadash, would have indeed brought about such as a circumstance. 

Our Sages, however, go one step further. It is not simply that displaced mercy for evildoers will enable the evildoer to perform more acts of cruelty. No! The person who invokes inappropriate mercy will themselves act with unwarranted cruelty. As proof the midrash references the actions of King Saul. King Saul had been commanded by God to wipe out the Amalekites. Much to God's chagrin, Saul had mercy on their king (1 Samuel 15:9). However, Saul did completely wipe out the priestly city of Nob (1 Samuel 22:19) who did nothing but support David assuming David was operating at Saul's command. 

Similarly with Ahab, who, as we mentioned a couple of posts ago, was merciful with ben-Haddad the king of Aram who had previously ordered Ahab to give him his wives and children (1 Kings 20:34). Nevertheless, when Ahab desired the vineyard a Naboth's, his wife Jezebel arranged for Naboth to be falsely accused of a capital offense and he received the death penalty (1 Kings 21:13). 

The commentaries on the midrash attempt to understand why it is that displaced mercy should lead someone to act cruelly. After all, shouldn't the exact opposite be true? If one shows mercy even when they should not, they will certainly show mercy when they should?

The general approach taken is to simply say that mercy or not mercy is not the true issue. What is actually being discussed is fidelity to the words of God. Saul's unwillingness to listen to God with respect to Amalek demonstrates that there are no circumstances that he can be trusted to listen to God. Sometimes that lack of adherence will manifest in undue mercy, and sometimes in undue cruelty. But what is central is that God's commands should come first.

I actually think our Sages mean something deeper. I think we can fairly assume that people do not typically see themselves as being cruel. So how can anyone allow a dangerous or violent criminal get away with their crimes? Is it not obvious that such people will then harm others? The answer is straightforward. Those who free the criminal believe that either the pain and suffering by those future victims is unimportant or that the victims of the criminal's future violence deserve the pain and suffering. There is no other way to justify how a normal supposedly moral person can justify such actions. 

Now we see how mercy to the undeserved will make that person cruel to the innocent. There is no way around it. The undue mercy presupposes a lack of mercy for others.  Saul's undue mercy for Amalek had to assume cruelty to the future victims of Amalek's frequent attacks on innocent outposts. And so, when one of those outposts did make a mistake, he could not be merciful. 

This the trap that King Lune almost fell into. Undue mercy for Rabadash pre-supposes cruelty to the innocent of Archenland who would be Rabadash's next victims. Aslan had to appear and stop the kind king from going too far and bringing ruin on himself and all of Archenland. 

Kindness Leading to Cruelty

Raish Lakish said, "Anyone who becomes merciful in place of cruel, will at the end, become cruel in the place of merciful." (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:16)

Taking this statement of our Sages as stated we can see how it may be applied to Ahab's willingness to free ben-Haddad the king of Aram. When a villain is left unpunished, while perhaps it seems merciful, ultimately, far more cruelty will arise. Criminals let go without consequences will continue to criminalize. There may be a feel-good moment for the prosecutor or judge, that does not change the harm done to the next innocent victim. The judge of prosecutor is cruel to the innocent and will be recognized as cruel by anyone who values ethics and morals.  

Ahab may have felt he was being merciful, but ben-Haddad was not deserving of such mercy and instead caused unimagined harm to the innocent citizens of Israel. 

And the same is true of what King Lune almost did. In their discussion of what to do with Rabadash after he was taken prisoner Lucy offers, "Let him go freon strait promise of fair dealing in the future. It may be that he will keep his word." Of course that sounds a bit risky, because what if he doesn't. What if, after being humiliated by Archenland and Narnia he decides the best thing would be revenge. That seems like a much greater probability. 

Edmund realizes this but counters the thought with, ""But, by the Lion, if he breaks it again, may it be in such time and place that any of us could swap off his head in clean battle." Well, maybe, but maybe not. And what about all of the innocent people that might die in the battle in the meantime? 

Finally, King Lune calls Rabadash in and is about to provide an ultimatum presumably based on Lucy's suggestion. However, in doing so I think he makes things worse. "Nevertheless, in consideration of your youth and the ill nurture, devoid of all gentilesse and courtesy, which you have doubtless had in the land of slaves and tyrants, we are disposed to set you free, unharmed, on these conditions..."

Hold on a second! OK, we're blaming Rabadash's like of honor and civility on his nurturing, fair enough. But now you're just going to let him free with no punishment on condition that he'll be honest? You're going to send him back to the place where he had all that horrible nurturing and expect him to turn over a new leaf? At least keep him around for a while to teach him how to be honorable! 

I really think that all three of these protagonists have it wrong. They are applying mercy when they should not, risking great cruelty which is unlikely to fall on them.  

Fortunately for all concerned Aslan rescues them from this morally rotten though process. He punishes Rabadash and forces him to face consequences by transforming him into an ass. However, the transformation is not permanent. As Aslan puts it, "Justice shall be mixed with mercy." And Aslan gets it right. Without justice there is no mercy - there is simply chaos. King Lune's "mercy" already caused great harm to his own family and was about to endanger all of Archenland. Aslan's lesson of justice first is the necessary response. 

However, despite all of the above, our Sages have another explanation for, "Anyone who becomes merciful in place of cruel, will at the end, become cruel in the place of merciful." Which we will get to in our next post. 

Kindness between Royals

As those who did the homework from the last post saw, in chapter 20 of 1 Kings, King Ahab of Israel is merciful to ben-Haddad the King of Aram. This same ben-Haddad had earlier in the chapter demanded Ahab's wives, children, gold and silver, and then launched a major offensive against Israel. Israel miraculously won the major battles and King Ahab frees ben-Haddad, calling him his brother.   

One might praise Ahab for his great kindness in the face of cruelty. Perhaps, some might say, ben-Haddad will be overcome with emotion over the goodness shown to him and turn over a new leaf bringing an era of peace between Israel and Aram. And even if he doesn't, it is necessary to give him that chance. Of course, ben-Haddad does not usher in peace. Ahab's kindness enables Aram to retain its strength which they eventually use to kill Ahab to severely harm Israel. 

Furthermore, we see that Ahab is not such a kind individual. For in the very next chapter, he steals a vineyard from one of his own subjects, Naboth the Jezreelite. How can we understand this sudden change of behavior?  

How could Ahab have shown such great kindness to ben-Haddad, but such cruelty to Naboth?

One answer may be that Ahab held of a strict divide between royalty and the proletariat. Ben-Haddad, for all he was evil, was a fellow royal. Similar to divine blood found in Lewis' royals of Glome, who could only marry fellow royals, Ahab could, without pause, be kind to a fellow king, while cruel to one of his own people. 

Should this be the case then King Lune may not have much to learn from Ahab's story. King Lune frees Rabadash, not from a sense of kinship between royals but in hopes that he will have learned his lesson and out of a recoiling from killing Rabadash not in battle. Thanks to Aslan, King Lune's hopes come true and Rabadash (though not out of the kindness of his heart) does bring peace between Calormen and Archenland. 

However, our Sages read the story of Ahab otherwise and that understanding challenges Lewis' ending to the story of Rabadash. 

Is King Lune too Kind (Homework)

Tomorrow evening begins the holiday of Shavuot - the time the Torah was given. Hence, I thought it appropriate to suggest some Torah learning for everyone to do. Specifically, please look at chapter 20 of 1 Kings and you may want to think about the following questions:

1) Why was it necessary for the prophet to have been actively harmed before approaching the King of Israel?

2) Why was the person who did not listen to the prophet's command punished so severely?

3) Why did the King of Israel release the King of Aram?

4) Was he right in doing so? If yes, why was he punished?

5) What, if anything, does this teach us about how King Lune should treat Prince Rabadash? How are these stories similar? How are they different?

Feel free to put answers and ideas in the comments. 

PS. My Shavuot class this year will not be Narnian related (they can't all be), but instead I'll be speaking on "A Nation Alone, A Nation Apart," using the blessing of the evil Balaam as the source text. 

Is King Lune too Kind? (Part 1)

King Lune is the king of Archenland during Narnia's Golden Age under the Pevensies. In our first personal encounter with him in The Horse and His Boy, King Lune is described as, "the jolliest, fat, applecheeked, twinkling eyed King you could imagine." King Lune very much lives up to the implications of this description. He is welcoming, gracious, an understanding father, and a king who appears to have one the respect of his people by having respect for them. And, of course, he is kind even to his enemies. 

It is this last characteristic that I would like to examine. Is King Lune very kind, or kind to a fault? We have two situations in which this question arises: in his treatment of the Lord Bar and in his judgment of Prince Rabadash. Let us examine the first situation in this post.

The Lord Bar was King Lune's Lord Chancellor. Presumably the function of the Archenlandish Lord Chancellor was similar to that found in the United Kingdom, to ensure the functioning and administration of the Judiciary. The problem of course, was that the Lord Bar was embezzling funds that were presumably earmarked for the courts. This led to his dismissal, but beyond that, as described by Cor, "Nothing else was done to him and he was allowed to go on living in Archenland."

Was the punishment appropriate or too lenient? 

Well, that he needed to be dismissed is obviously necessary. Such a betrayal of trust of that sort clearly renders someone unfit for office. 

But what sort of sin is embezzling? Clearly it is theft, but it may also be treason?

If the situation was simply theft, we would expect the punishment to be at least to pay back the sums he stole. Biblical law prescribes that the thief pays back double as a type of fine (unless he himself admits that he stole). It would also seem reasonable that the reason for Lord Bar's dismissal was publicly proclaimed so that no one should trust him either. 

Should he have been allowed to continue living in Archenland? Well, simple theft does not seem to warrant exile. People steal for all sorts of reasons and of course we want to leave a door open for the person to repent. 

However, if the embezzling was treasonous, exile would seem to be very appropriate. Was Lord Bar's motives investigated? Was he in the pay of the Tisroc before or only after he was caught stealing? Was he the type of person who would seek and/or have the means to take revenge on the crown? 

These all seem to be relevant and important questions especially for someone who betrayed his office: Lord Bar was in charge of the sources of justice but was very much unjust himself.

Of course, we know what happens. Lord Bar is not exiled and eventually is able to kidnap the crown prince. That this outcome fts Aslan's plans is irrelevant. All outcomes can fit Aslan's plans. But, whether King Lune was too kind is an open question. And one that we can further explore in the next scenario: his treatment of Prince Rabadash, the Crown Prince of Calormen.