C. S. Lewis on the second coming

[john152]

“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. 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. That they stood thus in the mouth of Jesus himself, and were not merely placed thus by the reporter, we surely need not doubt. Unless the reporter were perfectly honest he would never have recorded the confession of ignorance at all; he could have had no motive for doing so except a desire to tell the whole truth. And unless later copyists were equally honest they would never have preserved the (apparently) mistaken pre­diction about “this generation” after the passage of time had shown the (appar­ent) mistake. This passage (Mark 13:30-32) and the cry “Why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34) together make up the strongest proof that the New Testament is historically reliable. The evangelists have the first great character­istic of honest witnesses: they mention facts which are, at first sight, damaging to their main contention.

    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. The answer of theologians is that the God-Man was omniscient as God, and ignorant as Man. This, no doubt, is true, though it cannot be imagined. Nor indeed can the unconsciousness of Christ in sleep be imagined, nor the twilight of reason in his infancy; still less his merely organic life in his mother's womb. But the physical sciences, no less than theol­ogy, propose for our belief much that cannot be imagined."

Although I do not wholly agree with him, Lewis definitely gives an interesting view of the failed prophecy.  I'm not well acquainted with the Bible, so I started this thread in hope to hear the opinions of people who are more knowledgeable in this area than I am.  Sorry if this seems selfish, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on the reasoning he uses here.

[Will]

That particular passage is often used to demonstrate the fallibility of Jesus of Nazareth. If Jesus was wrong about the end of days coming in his disciples' lifetimes, he may have been wrong about other things. Like being the son of god.

Lewis' statement also brings up a verse that contradicts Christianity being monotheism. If Jesus was a part of a whole that was simply a trinity in the same way that I am a trinity (family member, friend, coworker) why would he be talking to himself in such a manner? Was it like when I stub my toe and calls myself stupid? Unlikely.

An ignorant god is just as unlikely as an omniscient god, as neither of them have evidence demonstrating their existence. Lewis was bargaining.

[myleviathan]

For a God who can be ignorant is less baffling than a God who falsely professes ignorance. The answer of theologians is that the God-Man was omniscient as God, and ignorant as Man.

This is Lewis' attempt at making sense out of complete non-sense, and failing in my opinion. His brilliance is accepting the fault in scripture and confronting it, which is rare in modern evangelical Christianity, because it causes one to think. But his theological acrobatics only go so far. Just think about it plainly. Can an omniscient God can also be ignorant at the same time? This is utter non-sense. And because CS Lewis signed his name to it, people listen. For Jesus to be as omniscient as God, and as ignorant as man, is what Thomas Paine calls PRIESTCRAFT. CS Lewis is writing blatant priestcraft. It makes absolutely no sense, and the less sense it makes the more people believe it, because it takes a leap of faith to wrap your mind around this hooey. Which people are MORE than happy to do for the emotional security that religion provides. The farther the church can remove you from reality with their seemingly wise verbal acrobatics, the more likely you are to believe, and to pay your tithe. So they can tip the valet at their favorite country club that their rich friends have invited them to on a Tuesday morning. While you're left scratching your head at failed prophecy.

Just remember that there are are thousands of theologians who try to make sense of the Bible. But the fact remains that not one member of the Holy Trinity is speaking for himself. There are as many interpretations of the Bible as their are denominations. And no Lord of the Universe is stepping out of the clouds to point his flock in the right direction.

[john152]

I completely agree with you leviathan and I am grateful for your response.  I should have been more clear though on what I particularly found interesting.

"It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. 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. That they stood thus in the mouth of Jesus himself, and were not merely placed thus by the reporter, we surely need not doubt. Unless the reporter were perfectly honest he would never have recorded the confession of ignorance at all; he could have had no motive for doing so except a desire to tell the whole truth. And unless later copyists were equally honest they would never have preserved the (apparently) mistaken pre­diction about “this generation” after the passage of time had shown the (appar­ent) mistake. This passage (Mark 13:30-32) and the cry “Why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34) together make up the strongest proof that the New Testament is historically reliable. The evangelists have the first great character­istic of honest witnesses: they mention facts which are, at first sight, damaging to their main contention."

I feel that Lewis has a valid point here; it makes me wonder if there's more truth in the gospels than what I first thought.  Any opinions on this would be greatly appreciated.

[myleviathan]

I feel that Lewis has a valid point here; it makes me wonder if there's more truth in the gospels than what I first thought. Any opinions on this would be greatly appreciated.

Leave it to Lewis to turn a blatant false prophecy into "the strongest proof that the New Testament is historically reliable". He would have made a great criminal defense attorney. His argument, that contradiction in scripture points to an honest witness, is one of utter convenience. All Biblical contradiction from Genesis to Revelation could be easily explained away like that. Which is why it's such a convincing argument. But even if all Biblical contradictions suddenly were made to disappear with this 'abracadabra' statement, it still makes the rest of the Bible no more true than it was before. The contradictions found in the bible are merely icing on a giant myth-cake. The contradictions just add insult to injury.

Prophecy in the Bible, both in the New and Old Testaments (and probably everywhere) follow a similar pattern. There is both a prophetic statement and an escape statement. In our example, "This generation will not pass before they see the Son of Man..." is the prophetic statement. "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man... neither the Son" is the escape statement. That's the only reason for the apparent contradiction. It's not a contradiction afterall, the author of Mark is just covering his ass so we can't pin him down on a false prophecy! Which we could very well do without the escape statement. You'll see this in almost every case of Biblical prophecy. There's always another way out. You'll see this in the Old Testament when there's a prophecy about a king winning a battle. If they lose there's an escape statement about them being a wicked king. Examples: Ahaz and Zedekiah. Both were given prophecies that they would be victorious in battle. Both were defeated soundly. At first glance it looks like false prophecy - but then you look back in Kings and it says they were wicked, and that was the reason for their defeat.

Also keep in mind that the Gospels were not canonized until the 4th Century, in Rome. Before then each church used it's favorite Gospel, or it's favorite version of the events. Constantine and the Council of Nicea couldn't choose only one Gospel, or more than a few influential Christian sects might have felt alienated. So they chose four Gospels, or four 'Truths'. The author of Mark was the earliest of the Gospel writers. The other authors likely had access to his early version of events and changed it as they saw fit. Lewis assumes ALL of Gospel writers to be first-hand witnesses, so why isn't the same prophecy recorded in Matthew, Luke or John? The other authors either weren't bold enough to include the prophecy in question or they knew that it wasn't true. That's why.

If you're a seeker of truth, I would encourage you to look past Lewis' acrobatics. Check out "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" by Dr. Robert Price. It's basically a historical perspective on the Gospels. I'll warn you it's a thick read and fairly exhaustive, but if you can get through "Mere Christianity" you can get through anything.  

[myleviathan]

And by the way, who would win in a cage fight? CS LEWIS OR RICHARD DAWKINS??