Final Judgement of Narnia (Part 2)

In our last post we quoted the mishna in Rosh HaShana as a parallel to Aslan's judgment of the creatures of the Narnian world by the stable door:

On Rosh HaShana (the Jewish New Year with a date of the first of the month of Tishrei), all creatures pass before Him like sheep [benei maron], as it is stated: “He Who fashions their hearts alike; Who considers all their deeds. (Psalms 33:15)”

As in Lewis' depiction, each creature passes individually and alone before God as He sits in judgment. 

Our open question was the prooftext from Psalms. What does it mean that, "God fashions their hearts alike"? Does that not contradict the individuality of the final judgment?

Perhaps one can answer that the prooftext is necessary to demonstrate that the judgment is fair in the first place. All humans are created on equal footing. No one is born good or bad and therefore all can be judged on the same scale. Those who hate God and violate his commands will be punished, while those who love Him and keep his laws will be rewarded. No one can excuse themselves because their heart leans towards evil - for God has fashioned their hearts alike. Together they are born, but because humans have the free will to act in ways that are good or evil, their paths will diverge as they live their lives. 

And so too in Narnia. The Talking Beasts are awakened as one and all can choose whether to adhere to Aslan's will or return to the ways of the Dumb Beasts. Thus, judgment is passed, individually, on them all. 

Following in this theme would then read the second part of the prooftext as follows: from that level starting point for all humans God considers their deeds and that is what determines (and makes fair) their final judgment. 

However, there is a Narnian (and realistic) challenge to this reading. Are deeds the only metric God uses to make His judgment? 

In the final chapter of Narnia, we find that one of those judged favorably by Aslan was one of those Dwarfs who had helped to shoot the Talking Horses. We remember what eventually happened to those dwarfs, they decided that the "dwarfs were for the dwarfs" and attacked the Calormen as well. Some (though perhaps not this one) were eventually thrown into the stable and were last seen there thinking it was a stable despite the kindness that Aslan himself attempted to bestow upon them. They had not realized that the door they were thrown through was the one to the Land of Eternal Life.

How was such a character found worthy? Aslan himself seemed to regard their cause as lost... 

Final Judgment of Narnia

They all looked straight in his face, I don't think they had any choice about that. 

We've spent a lot of time recently talking about Narnian Creation and major themes, the laws Aslan sets forth to the Talking Beasts, and the parallels to biblical creation. With the coming of the High Holidays perhaps it's flip to the end of Narnia see what can be gleaned and learned from Lewis' description of the Final Judgment. 

We'll remember, of course, that the last King of Narnia, Tirian, is defeated by the Calormenes with the help of the Shift the Ape and his followers. Despite fighting valiantly, Tirian, Eustace, and Jill are all eventually thrown into the Stable which the Calormenes called the shrine of Tash, but which Jewel the Unicorn had correctly predicted, it was for them the door to Aslan's country. 

The end of Narnia is quickly followed by the Final Judgment. Time is awakened and blows his great horn to call home the stars, terrible creatures are unleashed to destroy the world, and every living creature runs towards Alsan at the door of the Stable and are judged. 

How does this judgment take place? One-by-one they look up at Aslan. Those who express fear and hatred stay outside the door and are presumably devoured by the creatures now roaming the world, while those who express love for Aslan come through the door into Aslan's country.

The mishna in Rosh HaShana  asserts that the world is judged four times a year: 

On Rosh HaShana (the first of Tishrei), all creatures pass before Him like sheep [benei maron], as it is stated: “He Who fashions their hearts alike, Who considers all their deeds. (Psalms 33:15)”

The mishna (as translated) seems to be inline with Narnian's world End of Time judgment. All creatures pass before God. Indeed, the Talmud (see also Rashi) explains that we speak of a situation, for example when climbing a steep mountain, when the sheep must walk single file. In this way God judges each individually. 

However, if it that were it, what is the point of the prooftext brought by the mishna? The creatures are not alike, they are different and judged individually. Far from being a proof, the verse quoted by the mishna appears to contradict the very point the mishna is trying to prove!

Jokes and Justice (Part 2)

 Laugh and fear not, creatures. Now that you are no longer dumb and witless, you need not always be grave. For jokes as well as justice come in with speech.

(The Magician's Nephew)

In our last post we questioned why Aslan seemed to approve the laughter of the Talking Beasts at the Jackdaw. Though all the Talking Beasts assure Aslan that they would not return to the ways of the Dumb Beasts, it was only the Jackdaw who loudly proclaimed, "No fear!" much to the mirth of the others. The Jackdaw was embarrassed (though he later happily realizes that he will forever be remembered as the First Joke), so why is the laughter sanctioned? 

"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked."  (Thomas More). Lewis quotes this insightful line as a type of prelude to The Screwtape Letters thus casting this work as a fulfillment of More's words. For it is in Hell that there is strict concern for one's dignity and austerity (Screwtape Letters, Chapter 11), and it is Hell's inhabitants that cannot laugh at themselves (Screwtape Letters Chapter 22).

However, one should not think that it is the experiences of Hell that turns its inhabitants this way. No, those who dwell as one of the damned do so because their dignity and pride brought them there. Their worship was of themselves, and their rituals were for self-glorification. Who should be worshipped? To whom should glory appropriate? The One God! The Creator of All and the True Judge! But for those who replace God with themselves, the ultimate blasphemy is being mocked. 

Belief in God requires humility. Recognizing the presence of the All-Powerful, who has provided you with everything and upon whom you are completely reliant for success. How can one take themselves seriously in the face of God? Is not our whole existence a joke? Is our creation not absurd? 

The Jackdaw will be remembered as the First Joke, but he was not. The first joke was that God saw fit to create creatures of flesh and blood that He was to call His children. How can we not laugh in the face of such absurdity? 

The command to love our neighbors as ourselves requires that we care for the physical and emotional well-being of friends, neighbors, and even strangers. Yet, even this must be balanced by the truth, that humans are awkward creatures who (hopefully) try to do the right thing but often fail spectacularly and hilariously. God knows how much or how little we really try. But if we do try and still fail a little laughter (and even mocking) is perhaps just what we need to help us realize that taking God seriously is more important than taking ourselves seriously. 

Hence the need to laugh at the Jackdaw. He tried to do the right thing, tried to be in sync with the other creatures in a unifying response to Aslan. But he failed, hysterically. Well, if everyone took the Jackdaw's indiscretion seriously, there would be furtive glances between them, malicious whispers, the a real danger that the Jackdaw would feel ashamed, that he would feel apart from the others, different, separated from Alsan. Perhaps there is no reason to feel that way, but isn't that how we feel when we do something off, something singularly foolish? 

But there's a cure, laughter. The laughter shows that everyone understands it was just a mistake, something that we all do at one time or another and you should just shrug it off. 

And so Aslan not only urged the Talking Beasts to laugh, but took the joke a step further modelling for his creations how one should truly feel about their self-worth. 

Jokes and Justice (Part 1)

Laugh and fear not, creatures. Now that you are no longer dumb and witless, you need not always be grave. For jokes as well as justice come in with speech.
(The Magician's Nephew)

Too often the homo religiosus is assumed to live a life of seriousness and gravity. After all, what could be funny when standing before God knowing that any wrongdoing may condemn a person to eternal punishment? Lewis dismisses this perspective immediately upon the creation of Narnia. 

It is the dumb and witless who must always be grave, for they lack the capabilities of making (or understanding) jokes. Dignity and austerity must never be compromised in Hell (Screwtape Letters Chapter 11), but on the path to heaven laughter and jokes help pave the way.

The Talmud itself hammers home with point by recording the following story. Rabbi Beroka of Bei Hoza'i frequented the market of Bei Lefet. Many time he was joined by Elijah the Prophet. One day as they're walking through the market, R' Beroka asks Elijah if there is anyone in the market worthy of eternal life in the World-to-Come? Elijah looks around at all the people and points out an individual with whom R' Beroka is not familiar and does not dress in the garbs of a Jew, let alone a religious leader. Later, however, R' Beroka learns of all the heroic acts this man performs on behalf of the Jewish people. In the meantime, two brothers walk into the marketplace and Elijah points them out as well. R' Beroka goes over to them and they says they are jesters who cheer up people who are depressed. 

Of course, as Lewis explains in The Screwtape Letters, there are different types of jokes and laughter may be provoked from both positive and negative catalysts. In the beginning of Narnia the joke is the Jackdaw. In assuring Aslan that they will not return to the ways of the Dumb Beasts, the Talking Beasts assure, "No, Aslan, we won't, we won't." The Jackdaw alone continues (in a loud voice), "No fear!" 

Surely, all of us have been in similar situations and of course the Jackdaw is rather embarrassed and hides his head in shame as the other Talking Beasts attempt to stifle their laughter. Aslan, however, encourages them to let loose and thorough the mirth that follows, the Jackdaw happily realizes that he will forever be remembered as the First Joke. 

Now one might counter that this is somewhat cruel. It's one thing to laugh at a made-up story or a clever turn of phrase. It is quite another to laugh at someone else's embarrassment. Why did Aslan give his stamp of approval for this laughter and this type of joke?

I think the answer gets to the heart of why a religious person must laugh, while the minions of Hell cannot laugh. We'll get to it in our next post. 

Update on Pints With Jack

Quick update: I'm sure everyone has been waiting with bated breath to hear the conversation David Bates and I had a about P. H. Brazier's book, "A Hebraic Inkling: C. S. Lewis on Judaism and the Jews." Things are bit behind schedule over at Pints With Jack, but the conversation did happen and I'm excited to share it with everyone as soon as it comes out. Just hold tight! 

An Alternate Model: Loving Your Neighbor as Yourself

Treat [the Dumb Beasts] gently and cherish them but do not go back to their ways... 
The Magician's Nephew

There is an alternate biblical command that we may use to model Aslan's command to the first Narnians. That is the command to "Love your neighbor as yourself. (Leviticus 19:18)." Also known as the Golden Rule, this command has been philosophically analyzed by various midrashim and the Talmud and is repeated a number of times in the Christian Bible. 

What's perhaps surprising, is how little in Jewish law the command is concretized into defined actions. The Talmud's explicit utilization of the verse is highly restrictive: ensuring that when the death penalty is carried out it is done in the least harmful fashion (Pesachim 75a), that a child is permitted to let the blood of his father (something that was assumed to be a healing mechanism, Sanhedrin 84b), and warning against marriage before the bride and groom meet face-to-face (Kiddushin 41a).  

It was left to Maimonides to formally codify an explicit list of acts of kindness that fall under the rubric of the Golden Rule. And even those great acts (visiting the sick, comforting those in mourning, welcoming guests, etc.) are short on concrete rules because, as Nachmanides explains elsewhere there is no way to cover every possible interaction and make explicit rules and generalities are needed. 

From this approach it might perhaps make sense to include several broad categories as to what it might mean to cherish the dumb beasts and not return to their ways. But the variables of time and place render meaningless to provide an explicit list. 

Even so, the importance of the Golden Rule is emphasized in the Talmud (and taught in every pre-school). Why are Aslan's first commands not similarly revered? 

The Shabbos Model applied to Aslan's Commands

Treat [the Dumb Beasts] gently and cherish them but do not go back to their ways... 
The Magician's Nephew

What would happen should we apply the Shabbos model (defined in the last post) to Aslan's command? 

(We again note that this command consists of a positive and a negative which are opposites of each other. For now, we're only going to concentrate on the negative the command) 

OK, we first need to determine what might be included in the ways of the Dumb Beasts. Could the prohibition include seemingly innocent actions like when Talking Horses roll or when Talking Beavers build dams? Well, it might, after all Aslan my command whatever he wants even if our logic doesn't agree. 

But perhaps a more fruitful way to determine prohibited actions would be to look at the command in context. Aslan has just commanded the Talking Beasts to "Love. Think. Speak... be Talking Beasts." Perhaps returning to the ways of the Dumb Beasts is doing the opposite of these commands. Let's try this out starting with "Love."

Who should the Talking Beasts love? Well, Aslan of course. But also each other, both of the same species and of different species. 

Great, now we're getting somewhere. Let's say a Talking Beast would hunt or eat another Talking Beast. Well, that's certainly what Dumb Beasts do, and so if a Talking Beast were to do so (say a Talking Owl were to hunt a Talking Mouse) that would violate Aslan's command of returning to the ways of the Dumb Beasts. 

However, that is not enough. What's the definition of hunting? What if a Talking Beast just hunted his fellow for fun? Or what if a Talking Beast ate another Talking Beast that was already dead? Would that violate the prohibition? 

Once we walk down the road of definitions, categories, and rules we're kind of stuck. New questions appear, novel technologies develop. All of these may effect the way I love my fellow Talking Beast and needs and thus needs to be explored in that context. 

The same would be true if we analyze the requirement to love Aslan. Dumb Beasts don't recognize a creator nor do they show deference. So, if a Talking Beast failed to love Aslan or honor him, that might be another category of prohibited actions under the rubric of returning to the ways of the Dumb Beast. 

For example, Aslan has both a crown and a standard. If someone were to carelessly misuse the standard, perhaps that would violate the need to love Aslan. Or perhaps if someone did not pay proper respect in some other way. Again, all of these possibilities should be defined and outlined via logical derivation of Aslan's words. 

Furthermore, the care and love the Talking Beasts have for Aslan's commands should motivate them to ensure that Aslan's commands are not violated even by accident. 

There is no evidence that the Narnians ever did such things. 

But there's another Jewish model one can use to approach Aslan's commands. We'll explore that approach next.