"Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”
It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.
C.S. Lewis, The World's Last Night: And Other Essays, p.97
C.S. Lewis is embarrassed of Jesus? I was sure the quote was taken out of context, so I looked it up... No such luck. Lewis goes on to explain how he solves the problem: With the assertion that Jesus probably really did not know how or when the "world would end". He continues:
"Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side... The facts, then, are these: that Jesus professed himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed that he really was so. To believe in the Incarnation, to believe that he is God, makes it hard to understand how he could be ignorant; but also makes it certain that, if he said he could be ignorant, then ignorant he could really be. For a God who can be ignorant is less baffling than a God who falsely professes ignorance."
Now, I'm not going to pretend that the mysteries of the Incarnation are fully comprehensible, but it really bothers me that a theologian as respectable as Lewis would suggest that Jesus was wrong about his own return. What Lewis is suggesting is that Jesus really did not know when he would return, but he still saw fit to make several predictions regarding his return. Isn't that called a lie?
Jesus' "confession of ignorance" (if it really was one) surely didn't sink in with his followers. Even Lewis notices that the expectation of Jesus' imminent return was widespread in the early Church. The claim that Jesus taught his own ignorance of the end-times seems unlikely. It seems more likely to me that Jesus made predictions about his return because he actually knew what he was talking about, and that the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70AD constituted the fulfillment of Jesus' prophesy.
It seems appropriate to me to be embarrassed about what C.S. Lewis said, not about what Jesus said.
15 comments:
I must agree. But of course, you probably could have predicted that. ;-)
I'm no inerrantist. Nor do I feel the need to argue Jesus' omniscience. But by the heavily weighted "hard reading" standard used elsewhere in textual criticism, I can't imagine how anyone could deny that these predictions should be on the "authentic" list of Jesus' sayings. I can't avoid the conclusion that Jesus taught an imminent Day of the Lord event, and even Mark (almost certainly the earliest Gospel) has Jesus tying it to the destruction of Jerusalem (13.2).
Of course, many scholars date Mark after AD 70 precisely because what he said sounds like he accurately predicted something that actually happened (and of course we all know that there's no such thing as real prophecy, right?).
What I can't see is how Lewis could have been that ignorant of the events of 66-70. I mean, whether or not you think (as some scholars do) that the Gospel writers after the fact added in stuff about Jerusalem to make an otherwise failed prophecy seem accurate, this was not the case for Lewis who apparently trusted the Gospels as written. So how could he have missed the preterist applicability? "...when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies..." It is disappointing.
Lewis was only a theologian in the sense that you and I are. His professional expertise was in literary criticism. I have seen him described as "a first rate literary critic, a second rate fiction author and a third rate theologian." Perhaps we could add "the Most Embarrassing Apologist."
Burton Mack (I suppose among others) pegs Mark's gospel to within a few years of the destruction of Jerusalem precisely because of this verse.
The thinking would be that the destruction of God's eternal capital must surely be the culmination of the Signs and so the return of the Son of Man must be imminent. Mark, writing at that time would be assuming that his audience got the message - Jesus was coming back tomorrow!
A posible solutionto save Jesus' credibility but not biblical innerrancy is that maybe the prediction was initially only about the destruction of Jerusalem and the idea of the end of the world was added later.
Of course "pray that your flight be not on the sabbath" is just as embarassing to Christians who don't give a hoot about the Sabbath and see no reason why Jesus would tell his disciples to pray their flight be not on the sabbath when they would be Chritians by the time the end of the world or of Jerusalem or whatever would arrive.
Of course biblical inerrancy is out the window anyway because Isiah 7 is about a child born in Ahaz' lifetime as Isiah 8 further shows. There is no prophecy "he shall be called a Nazarene" despite the claim in Matt 2:23. "Out of Egypt I called my son" is no prophecy of Jesus as Matthew claims but is a statement by Hoses in 11:1 about the Exodus. Rachel weeping Rama is about EXILE not death. And has Jesus' parents go back to Nazaerth within two months of his birth in Luke while in Matthew it takes them three years from hiks birth to move to their hometown of Nazareth (which in Matthew they never lived in before).
But as for embarassing verses in the Bible, try Exodus 31 where Yahweh tells the Israelites to go to war against a certain nation and kill all the males of all ages and the old women but "keep the young girls for yourselves.". That's's not more embarssing? I think it is horrible. If it doesn't embarass you to call a book the perfect word of God when it claims God himself commanded child rape, then what are you?
I know the apologetic spin that they were just going to use these girls as regular slaves not sex slaves. Right. That's why they killed all the males tehn, because they needed slaves to work in the fields. )Even that would still be bad.) But the fact that they save only the girls shows its sexual slavery that Yahweh is being presented as commanding. And the genocide is still an issue even if you are evil enought to ignore the sexual slavery part of this.
Another embarassing passage is Deut 32:8-9. Read it in the NRSV which is following the DSS in saying "according to the number of the gods" rather than the Masoretic "according to the number of the children of Israel." There Elyon divides humanity to the various sub-deities, and he gives Yahweh the nation of Israel as his 'portion' and 'inheritance'. Isn't it embarassing to see that Judaism was originally polytheistic? And that traces of it are still in Deuteronomy? Is this verse in Mark really more embarassing than that?
Steve,
I agree with you (and we both agree with Lewis, see the paragraphs directly following the quote above) that the immanency passages were undoubtedly authentic. And I also agree that it is puzzling how Lewis doesn't even seem to consider a preterits approach to these predictions of Jesus'. It makes me wonder if he considered it and abandoned it in favor of the stated position (Jesus made an error). How could it not have entered his theological radar?
Scott,
Thanks for the comment. I've heard similar thoughts about Lewis' theology. The quote was striking to me not because I admire Lewis for his theology, but for his ability as a writer. Lewis can craft a sentence better than almost anyone. This, combined with the fact that he was instrumental in the early stages of my faith, gives him an audience with me, even if it doesn't give him any credibility as a theologian.
Beowulf,
I've never claimed that the Bible is inerrant, and don't envy anyone trying to defend that claim. In fact, I've written about that before.
This post is about Lewis' most embarrassing verse in the Bible. I don't think I agree with him. I actually agree with you that if I was talking about the Bible with an atheist, several passages from Joshua are the ones I would be least comfortable discussing. It is difficult for me to understand how the God of the OT and NT are the same God. Click here and scroll down to #4 for more on this. (it's actually the same post I link to above)
One more note on your post: I don't think it's embarrassing that the traces of Judaism's polytheistic past are found in the Pentateuch. God chose his people from among a polytheistic culture, and this surely took a long time to diffuse out. This was a problem for the Israelites throughout their history. One book that really helped put this in a new light for me was Frederick Buechner's Son of Laughter. It's a retelling of the story of Jacob that is very faithful the the text. Buechner is another expert word-smith that is on par with (or better than) C.S. Lewis (at least in my book).
The verse that C. S. Lewis cited was not the only embarrassing one regarding predictions of the nearness of the coming of the Son of Man and the gathering together of the elect (the Gospels), or the nearness of the coming of the Lord (Paul's Epistles). See the online piece, "The Lowdown On God's Showdown."
http://secweb.infidels.org/article86.html
Also note that major biblical scholars such as James D. G. Dunn, Dale C. Allison, and Edward Adams eschew Preterist excuses invented to attempt to explain away such difficulties.
And moderate Evangelicals admit genuine difficulties as well, see Craig C. Hill's examination of N.T. apocalypse in its millieu in his little book, In God's Time. Though Dale Allison's and Edward Adams' latest works are perhaps the most comprehensive of the lot.
Speaking of "embarrassing verses," a Christian site asked its members to nominate and vote for "the worst verses in the Bible":
http://shipoffools.com/features/2009/chapter_and_worse.html
http://shipoffools.com/features/2009/chapter_and_worse_results.html
Lewis would have done well to put this in context. Even a horrid English translation makes it clear.
"24 'But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, 25 and the stars of the heaven shall be falling, and the powers that are in the heavens shall be shaken. 26 'And then they shall see the Son of Man coming in clouds with much power and glory, 27 and then he shall send his messengers, and gather together his chosen from the four winds, from the end of the earth unto the end of heaven.
28 'And from the fig-tree learn ye the simile: when the branch may already become tender, and may put forth the leaves, ye know that nigh is the summer; 29 so ye, also, when these ye may see coming to pass, ye know that it is nigh, at the doors. 30 Verily I say to you, that this generation may not pass away till all these things may come to pass; 31 the heaven and the earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
It is obvious that the generation he is speaking of is not the current generation, but a future generation that he is describing. Which is why following a description of a time, he says This generation shall not pass, not your generation.
I have heard many good challenges, but this one is simple to understand. Context is King.
James,
I would disagree. The context doesn't seem to point to another generation, but to Jesus' own generation. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean.
Also, throughout the New Testament, it is plain that early believers were convinced that the return of Jesus would be "soon". If it was so clear that Jesus was speaking of some other generation, then why were they so mistaken?
James,
I would disagree. The context doesn't seem to point to another generation, but to Jesus' own generation. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean.
Also, throughout the New Testament, it is plain that early believers were convinced that the return of Jesus would be "soon". If it was so clear that Jesus was speaking of some other generation, then why were they so mistaken?
Joe,
I agree it is quite clear that most of the people at that time were convinced that the end was going to be in their lifetime. I would say this was for the same reason that many people before and since believed that it would be in their lifetime. The same reason most Christian’s believe they are living in the end times today. They are afraid of death, and desperately want the end to come so that they don’t have to die. Also most of the “New Testament” is Paul’s writings, and we have already discussed my views on Paul. But even Peter recognized that people were not understanding what Yahushua meant. 2Peter 3:3-10 I believe address this very point.
“This first knowing, that there shall come in the latter end of the days scoffers, according to their own desires going on, and saying, 'Where is the promise of his presence? for since the fathers did fall asleep, all things so remain from the beginning of the creation;' for this is unobserved by them willingly, that the heavens were of old, and the earth out of water and through water standing together by the word of God, through which the then world, by water having been deluged, was destroyed; and the present heavens and the earth, by the same word are treasured, for fire being kept to a day of judgment and destruction of the impious men.
And this one thing let not be unobserved by you, beloved, that one day with Yahuweh is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day; Yahuweh is not slow in regard to the promise, as certain count slowness, but is long-suffering to us, not counselling any to be lost but all to pass on to reformation, and it will come -- the day of the Lord -- as a thief in the night, in which the heavens with a rushing noise will pass away, and the elements with burning heat be dissolved, and earth and the works in it shall be burnt up.”
I’m not surprised, the people of his day were living in a horrible situation; they heard all this is desperately wanted it to be soon. Most people missed His coming because they failed to understand what Scripture predicted, so it is not surprising that they miss understood Hid predictions.
As for this verse, I say the context makes it clear because in the 24th verse he states, “in those days”, and verse 26, “'And then they shall see the Son of Man coming in clouds with much power and glory”, and verse 27 “and then he shall send his messengers, and gather together his chosen from the four winds, from the end of the earth unto the end of heaven.”
So it is clear that the generation he is speak of here is not the generation he is talking to, he then uses verse 28 and 29 to teach them a lesson, and then in verse 30 he says to them that this generation, the generation he was speaking of will not pass away.
Sorry to be late to the conversation, but when Jesus is speaking on the same matters in Luke 9 (:27-29), His phrasing is "some of you standing here will not taste death until ...." Thoughts?
Keith, NASB has it as "those" in all three of the synoptic gospels. Let's just all agree that Lewis got this one wrong. One interpretation not mentioned above is that "generation" could refer to humanity in the "last days" as prophesyed by Joel and interpreted by Peter in Acts 2. In any event, be wary of a preterest view that would have the 2nd coming of Christ outside of the context of the final redemption of all of the saints to meet him in the clouds. I know this is non-sensical to non-believers. stephen
My question is: if Lewis is wrong, does that make him a bad theologian? Does it cause all his other works to be ignored? Dies it make him blasphemous/a heretic?
Post a Comment