The Ending

Sven-El

Sven-El

Well-known member
It has been pointed out in other threads on this forum that, if Silver Chair becomes a film we may not see the ending, Aslan dispatching Eusatce, Caspian and Jill into the school and giving the bullies the beating they have deserved.

Now, I have read some essays, even by Christiasn denouncing this part of the book. The claims made say this: Aslan is Jesus. Why then does He not tell the children to turn the other cheek and forgive the bullies? What point could Lewis have for including such a scene?
 
It seems to me that the difference is that Jill, Eustace, and Caspian were acting not out of their own motives for revenge and cruelty, but as Aslan's agents. Had He told Jill and Eustace that they were to simply return and lie low, doing nothing about Them, then they surely would have done that. As it was, Aslan had some discipline in mind for Them, and used the three to do it.

Objections to this rise out of a confusion between punishment and discipline. Punishment is backward-looking, "getting even" for a past offence by administering negative retribution. Discipline is forward-looking, concerned with correcting a negative pattern in the recipient by whatever means are needed. Discipline is an act of love with the good of the person in mind. And Aslan loved Them - "Spotty" Sorner, the Garrett twins, and even Edith Jackle - every bit as much as He loved Jill and Eustace and Caspian. He also knew that the "correction" they were getting from their current environment was doing nothing to help them, but was in fact increasing their chances of damnation. He needed to get their attention and administer a sharp lesson which hopefully would correct the dangerous course of their lives.

Remember Aslan's admonition to Caspian and Eustace to use only the flats of their swords. In His wisdom Aslan needed to hurt - not harm - the bullies in hope of getting them to mend their ways. Let's hope they were successful.
 
Sven-El said:
It has been pointed out in other threads on this forum that, if Silver Chair becomes a film we may not see the ending, Aslan dispatching Eusatce, Caspian and Jill into the school and giving the bullies the beating they have deserved.

Now, I have read some essays, even by Christiasn denouncing this part of the book. The claims made say this: Aslan is Jesus. Why then does He not tell the children to turn the other cheek and forgive the bullies? What point could Lewis have for including such a scene?
Click to expand...

Of course we know that God is loving toward His elect people, but He is also displays Justice toward everyone. This scene shows that. If this is taken out the bullies would just continue their sinful acts and Aslan would appear not to have power/rule over them. Understand? :)
 
It was clearly a representation of God planting seeds in peoples lives so that they can turn from their sinful nature and follow him.
 
Sven, I have heard that to turn the other cheek meant to keep someone else from smacking your face backhanded. When someone tries to smack your face with the back of his hand, you are to turn your cheek so that he is forcced to use the palm, a less humiliating punishment.

Aslan did not want Eustace and Jill to accept the bullies anyway. He wanted to fix it, not allow it to continue. So no matter the meaning of the term, why would Aslan have brought them both to Narnia? At no time did Aslan bring the children to Narnia just to do something in Narnia, it was also to do something for the children, to help them grow.

In TSC, Aslan had the former bully and the current victim, both running from the bullies, on a trek to free a lost prince who has been imprisoned with magic, similar to how the bullies make their victims feel imprisoned.

MrBob
 
I personally do not have a problem with that part of the book at all. I think they should leave it in the movie, because it shows a sense of retribution.
 
God said, "Those whom I love I chasten." (Or something along those lines; I can't remember the exact wording.)
 
I hope they would show the ending of TSC in a movie version. Perhaps a precedent for this scene comes from the story of the Israelites under Joshua conquering the land of Canaan. God commanded the Israelites to take the land and remove the previous inhabitants. As God loves all His children, He surely loved the people who had lived in Canaan before the return of the children of Israel, but, as in the days of Noah, it was more merciful to have them removed from the earth rather than continue in their current state of unrepentant wickedness. Although we do not have all the information, surely every effort was made to rescue these people spiritually, as prior to the Great Flood. As God loved the bully children, it must have been more merciful to have them humbled that day... as it was merciful to humble the bully Eustace in bringing him through a painting into Narnia where he would become a dragon and realize the selfishness he had been guilty of. It was only through this experience that Eustace would eventually become one of the seven friends of Narnia. I would certainly hope that a prospective movie director would see this principle, that mercy and love sometimes take the form of humbling experiences. Knowing this as the purpose of that final scene in TSC might just make a director film it appropriately.
 
If by ending, you mean the scene in which the evil bullies at Experiment House are taught a lesson, don't bet on it. Political correctness demands that, no matter how much pain THEY have intentionally and gleefully inflicted on others, they must NEVER suffer any physical punishment at all, in fact they must not be held accountable for their actions in ANY way. They only need to love themselves more, we will be told.
 
And Copper you're probably right about that, which is ironic since it would impose exactly the opposite lesson I think Lewis was trying to make.
 
Yeah....If the screenwriter is sufficiently deranged, he might end by having Jill and Eustace APOLOGIZE TO THE BULLIES for "judging" them.
 
I agree with everything said above and, while thinking about that scene, was reminded of Jesus in the Temple when he drives out the money lenders. Nowhere (that I can think of) does the New Testament claim or illustrate that Jesus was completely cuddly and lenient- he loves us but he doesn't indulge our sin. He can be very fierce. And as people have said, he has to discipline us for our own sake- we are refined through fire.

On a non-Christian level, I know that Lewis writes about the horrible experiences he had at boarding school and I'm sure there are a lot of us out there who had some encounters with bullying. Wouldn't you have loved to get the chance to give them bullies a bit of a scare and go after them with a sword?! I think the idea of the weak and picked-upon getting a chance to turn the tables just for a moment would appeal to any bullied child, leaving aside any queries about the theology of it. In terms of pure story it's a classic 'underdog winning the day' scenario. And who doesn't want to see that? The fact that Aslan is involved simply makes the act righteous, rather than vengeful.
 
There's more space for justified retribution than politically-correct pacifism is willing to recognize. Ecclesiastes observes that if sentence against an evil deed is not carried out, men's hearts will be "fully set to do evil." Chastisement can, at times, be the very thing which suggests the possibility of repentance to a selfish soul, who otherwise would have gone right on being selfish until it was too late to repent.
 
And if we assume that everything Aslan does is out of love for his children, as Lewis believed, then the punishment of the bullies is truly an act of mercy, not only in hopefully setting them on a path of repentance, but in preventing them from further wickedness. One thing I don't fully understand (maybe it would make more sense if I thought about it harder) is why Aslan sits in the gate between worlds with his back turned toward England and face toward Narnia while the bullies receive their just rewards. Any thoughts?
 
Aslan's back and the bullies

Greensawmill said:
...One thing I don't fully understand (maybe it would make more sense if I thought about it harder) is why Aslan sits in the gate between worlds with his back turned toward England and face toward Narnia while the bullies receive their just rewards. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

It reminds me of the story in Exodus 33:18-23 when Moses asked to see God:
----------------------
Then Moses said, "Now show me your glory."

And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."

Then the LORD said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen."
----------------------
I believe Aslan, out of mercy, showed only his back to the bullies. As it was, those kids were besides themselves with fear when seeing The Lion's back; but if they had seen his face they might have been scared out of their minds or worse.

Just as Uncle Andrew was not able to receive the truth of young Narnia and was terrorized by his perception of Aslan and the animals, I think the bullies were similarly unable to safely see more than his back.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top