Welcome again to this next edition of our Inklings lecture series. Today I’ll be talking about Tolkien and the story of Beowulf, specifically focusing on the battle that Beowulf fights with Grendel.
So we all know J.R.R. Tolkien. He was born on January 3rd, 1892, and he died September 2nd, 1973. Most people know him and love him for the body of literature that he wrote concerning hobbits, the One Ring, and the disparate lands of Middle-earth, Númenor, and Valinor. But his vocation was not as an author of fiction but rather he was a philologist. He studied the history and expressed application of language through the records of human literature, specializing especially in the ever-changing English language.
Tolkien was the Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon and he was a fellow of Pembroke College from 1925 until 1945 at the University of Oxford. Then he moved within the university to become the Merrie Professor of English Language and Literature as well as a fellow of Merton College, holding those positions until his retirement in 1959.
Now modern English is a language that is less original and more of an amalgamation of words that have been assimilated or adopted from other intersecting languages. We quickly assume and adapt the words and phrases that we encounter into our English lingo. And while the modern English that Americans speak is not the Elizabethan English of Shakespeare or the 1611 King James Bible, neither was their English the same as what the Anglo-Saxons spoke before the Norman conquest in 1066 AD.
The historical English language is commonly divided into three distinct eras. Old English was the language that was spoken before 1066. This was the language spoken commonly after the final abandonment of Britain by the Romans in the fifth century. This was the language used during seasons of Scandinavian raids against the Anglo-Saxons. This was the primary language which would have been spoken in the setting of the Saxon stories by Bernard Cornwell that was adapted to the TV show *The Last Kingdom*, and this was the language that was used to record the saga of Beowulf.
Middle English was the language commonly spoken from 1150 AD until around 1500. It deviated from Old English because of heavy Norman, or which we would think of as French, influence after the conquest by William the Conqueror. This was the language that was used for Sir Thomas Malory’s *Le Morte d’Arthur*, which was published in 1470, the language of Chaucer’s *Canterbury Tales*, which was completed around 1400, and *Sir Gawain and the Green Knight*, from sometime late in the 14th century.
But modern English is far less easy to define or codify because it continues to rapidly evolve and change such that our present use of the language would thoroughly confuse a hearer from just 100 years past, from someone of Tolkien’s generation. During the early 20th century, the expectations for a student of English at Oxford were vastly different from what we would expect of a modern-day American student of English or of English literature.
During that time, all Oxford students were required to do coursework on the oldest examples of English literature from the Anglo-Saxon period. While it was only the specialists, the philologists, who advanced to the literature of the medieval period, the Old English final exam for undergraduate students in the general coursework included the writing of nine papers, one of which required students to read and analyze Beowulf directly from the original text, as well as immediately craft a translation. Those of us who’ve been to seminary and completed a Master of Divinity have some understanding about what that was like because we were, you know, in many times required to immediately translate the text straight from the Greek and the Hebrew.
Now, the saga of Beowulf is probably the most famous tale of Northern European myth. It is the northern equivalent to Homer’s *Odyssey*, and the story has been retold and re-imagined often. It has been translated into different forms of media, both as live action and animation. It’s been loosely used as inspiration for other works such as Michael Crichton’s *Eaters of the Dead*. But although the general sweep of the Beowulf story may still be generally known, the details are really unknown to most people today, and the ending is almost entirely forgotten.
I’m ashamed to admit that I never even read it until this past December. Yet, the story still remains relevant and beneficial for readers today because it contains elements of truth that are related to our human nature. It is an inspirational story of human virtues of courage and resilience, which are effective for a time but ultimately are futile.
Considered on its own, the saga of Beowulf is an exciting tale of heroism. The story portrays the ancient struggle of good versus evil, of order versus chaos, of civilization against barbarism. And as he studied the text, Tolkien discovered that the preserved story continues to remain worthy and edifying for Christians to read, even though there is still a lingering influence and presence of old pagan religion contained within.
To summarize the story, or at least the first part of the saga, King Hrothgar of the Danes built a magnificent mead hall, a feast hall that he called Heorot. Sometime after construction was complete, the creature Grendel began to harass the residents, killing those inside with impunity during the nighttime.
After suffering Grendel’s attacks for several years, Beowulf, a hero of the Geats, traveled to Heorot with a company of men to do battle against Grendel. And during the pre-conflict feasting, Beowulf swore to battle the creature alone and unarmed. So when evening fell, the Danish revelers abandoned their hall, leaving Beowulf to his challenge and his men to stand vigil with him.
When Grendel arrived, a mighty battle ensued, with Beowulf emerging victorious after he tore the creature’s arm off. Then defeated, Grendel fled off into the wilderness, mortally wounded to die. The next day, King Hrothgar rewarded Beowulf and held another feast in his honor.
But the joy didn’t last because then Grendel’s mother appeared, seeking revenge for the death of her son, beginning the second part of the saga. Now, the Old English text that Tolkien used for his study of the saga was a manuscript that’s dated from around 1,000 AD, about 250 years after the story was originally believed to be composed. He concluded that the author of Beowulf was not a heathen but a Christian writing about the near-pagan past.
Since he wrote near to the time of these alleged events, Tolkien concluded that the author was reliable. He was reliably recounting facts alongside the moods and motives of the involved characters. But he did not, Tolkien did not assign full credit of authorship to this unnamed composer, feeling more confident that they really served more as an editor and compiler, who is transforming old songs, which were called lays and supposed possible written records and other oral traditions into one single cohesive narrative unit.
This explains why there might be any discrepancies or imperfections noted in the text. But what makes this attributed Christian authorship most interesting is how the author interprets the pagan past through a Christian viewpoint. After reading Tolkien’s commentary on this, I would surmise that he actually applied and made use of the same type of documentary, literary, and authorial assumptions as Julius Wellhausen used when he examined the Pentateuch and crafted his dangerously erroneous and heretical documentary hypothesis, where he denies Mosaic authorship of Torah and then attributes it to later editors, compilers, and redactors. Same tools, different text.
Now, the saga of Beowulf establishes itself within the historical setting of the early 6th century AD during the reign of King Hrothgar, the son of Halfdane Skilfing. Two historical kings from a famous Danish noble house. Additionally, references are made to members of the historical Swedish noble house of Skilfing, or Scylding, specifically the known kings Ohthere and Anlaph.
The fact of these people and their historic rivalries and infamous feuds between the Swedes and the Danes is something that is well documented. Similarly, the author includes elements that foreshadow a future historical destruction of Heorot by Anlaph’s son and Hrothgar’s son-in-law named Ingeld.
So the saga of Beowulf, while likely myth, is well grounded in northern European history. A second important element of context in this saga is the location of Heorot. The Danish conquest of this site was a cause for political animosity between them and the Swedes, and it was also the cause of religious animosity because it was a site of significance to the Norse gods Ing and Frey.
Now the Christian composer implies in the story that the building of his great hall on this site that was sacred to these old gods angered them, which leads in part to the angry depredations of Grendel as being retribution.
A third contextual element concerns the complicated relationships between the interested parties. Without the external pressures of Grendel, this situation still contains a lot of drama and tension. There was tension between King Anlaph of the Swedes and the Danish King Hrothgar because Hrothgar had taken away the other’s land and built his mead hall on it. But there was an alliance of peace presently in effect between them because Hrothgar’s sister was actually Anlaph’s wife and because Hrothgar’s daughter Freawaru was betrothed to Anlaph’s son.
Second, King Anlaph was engaged in a feud with King Hygelac of the Geats since Hygelac had ordered and arranged for the assassination of Anlaph’s father, King Hrethel, by his son-in-law, Æthelward. So you see, there was tension between the Geats and the Swedes, and Beowulf. Beowulf was a knight sworn to the service of his uncle, King Hygelac, and he also owed Hrothgar a familial debt for having provided his father Ecgtheow when he was exiled from the land of the Geats.
Here Beowulf’s presence in Heorot caused tension because not only was he pledged to the sworn enemy of Hrothgar’s ally, but also because he was personally indebted to King Hrothgar. So whatever the story’s outcome, the consequences of this engagement would have international impact.
Now, Tolkien suggested that the intended purpose of the Christian author by composing this narrative was to try and equate the noble heroes of pagan myth and northern antiquity with the noble figures of Israel in the Old Testament, those who lived prior to the life and death of Jesus Christ. He suggested using the example of the Old Testament saints that they too were damned owing to the fall even if they were members of the chosen people.
The redemption of Christ might work backward, but in the harrowing of hell, why should not Beowulf be among the rescued too? For the people of Israel could also fall away in a time of trial to the worship of idols and false gods. It gave the northern kings a place in an unwritten chapter, as it were, of the Old Testament.
Tolkien’s interpretation suggests that the idea of Christ conquering all things in this world through the expansion of Christianity as it supersedes, supplants, redeems, and sanctifies existing pagan practices, myths, or ideas has been promoted since the medieval period.
Although Roman Catholics believe that it is possible to redeem and sanctify such characters or persons through the judicious application of their doctrine, such as through indulgences from the treasury of merit, Protestant Christians will not expect a positive probability for a heathen’s salvation apart from the grace of Jesus Christ, as taught in Scripture.
For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?
The plain witness of Scripture offers no just cause for us to automatically assume the salvation of ignorant pagans, judging them innocent because of their ignorance concerning Jesus. But the apostle Paul does offer some hope for the pagans who have not had the opportunity to know Jesus but who by nature do what the law requires, demonstrating that the work of the law is written on their hearts while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when according to my gospel God judges the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.
So even though the author mediates this narrative through a Christian interpretive lens, we need to still remember that he was writing about pagans doing pagan things for pagan reasons. But by writing this tale about their pagan past, attempting to redeem and sanctify it, the author also demonstrates that he does not belong to the camp of Christians who consigned their ancestral heroes to perdition.
While the Beowulf Saga would not have been intended for use as a missionary allegory, it may still have been useful to demonstrate a heathen commonality with Christians by respectfully emphasizing their shared values and helping to open a path for gospel proclamation.
Now, Tolkien observed that while the Christian author knew that the people of Denmark and Sweden remained heathen, his Christian-like characterizations of Hrothgar and Beowulf were intentional and deliberate. Their monotheistic expressions and the other Christian elements that are included were not meant as a form of pietistic censorship but the deliberate attempts to build a sense of cross-cultural unity.
He was creating points of contact between the pagan and the Christian, trying to use whatever truths may have been contained within heathenry to redirect them towards the truth in Christ. Just as the Old Testament truths always point towards Christ, he even provided them with an excuse for their past idolatry and their demonic religion, writing coming from the text:
“At times they vowed sacrifices to idols in their heathen tabernacles in prayers implored the slayer of souls to afford them help against the sufferings of the people. Such was their want the hope of heathens. They were mindful in their hearts of hell, nor knew they the creator, the judge of deeds, nor had they heard of the Lord God, nor verily had learned to praise the guardian of the heavens and the king of glory.”
The Christian author tried to create an apologetic for these noble pagans of the past who, although they had not heard the gospel, they still knew of God’s existence, affirming Romans 1:19-23. They knew that God is good and the giver of all things, but they continued to remain cut off from him because of Adam’s fall and had become so spiritually despondent that they succumbed to the snares of the devil by turning to their false gods and idols for help.
By not condemning these historical characters for consciously practicing Satanism, the author tried to explain and convince his contemporary audience that they were still inadvertently praying to the devil through their many idols. Now, Grendel is named and described by the author as a fiend of hell. His ancestry is described as the Maker had prescribed him with the race of Cain, that bloodshed, for that Cain slew Abel, the eternal Lord avenged.
No joy had he of that violent deed, but God drove him for that crime far from mankind. Of him, meaning Cain, all evil broods were born, ogres and goblins and haunting shapes of hell, and the giants too, that long warred with God. For that he gave them their reward. Tolkien explains that this Old English expression of fiend of hell is actually kind of curious. It defines Grendel as a creature damned irretrievably.
But he was not just some damned spirit, but a mortal creature that needed to be slain before being consigned to hell. It is uncertain whether this use in Beowulf was intended to theologically suggest that the damned carried their hell ever with them in their hearts and spirits or whether it was merely a poor usage of an imprecise Christian term, Tolkien not preferring one interpretation over the other.
Tolkien further noted that the expression fiend of hell continued to be used in Middle English alongside devil, where fiend properly meant enemy only. He provided a supporting anecdote saying that Wycliffe uses fiend of hell of a very living and bodily friar walking about England. Yet within this narrative context of Beowulf, alongside the mention of ogres, goblins, and giants, it seems clear that the Christian author believed Grendel belonged to the race of Nephilim.
A point Tolkien solidifies by noting that the Old English text incorporates the word *gigantis*, translated as giant, as being directly borrowed from the Latin version of Genesis 6:4. I would interpret this conclusion of Tolkien’s as suggesting that the medieval Christian view concerning the different categories of persons mentioned in Genesis 6—the sons of God, the daughters of men, and the Nephilim—did not include or describe fallen angels, but that the sons of God were indeed Sethites, the daughters of men were Canaanites, and the Nephilim were their monstrous offspring and thus the heirs of Cain.
While the heathen Danes might have been considered as being forgivable and redeemable because of their ignorance of Jesus, Grendel is portrayed as a creature utterly irredeemable and eternally condemned because of his inhuman nature. Grendel was not a sinner eligible for Christ’s saving grace.
He was a creature akin to the angels bound in chains of gloomy darkness. Grendel was a monster and therefore he was undeserving of sympathy, pity, forgiveness, or any kind regard. He was wickedness manifest in mortal flesh, a creature whose only good purpose was to be destroyed.
Whereas the character of Beowulf is described far more righteously after his prior heroic adventures were misrepresented by Unferth and corrects the tale with great humility and modesty. He speaks like a hero, confident of success without excessive or premature boasting. Beowulf is described with such noble character that he is unwilling to claim any advantage over his anticipated opponent.
When he announced his purpose to the court of King Hrothgar, Beowulf swore to fight Grendel and defeat him as unarmed equals. The author writes, ‘Now therefore will I ask of thee, prince of the glorious days, defender of the Skilfings, this one boon. I have learned too that this fierce slayer in his savagery to weapons gives no heed. I too then will disdain. So let me Hygelac my liege lord bear either sword or wide shield, yellow boss, to battle. Nay, with my grip I shall seize upon the foe and engage in mortal contest with hate against hate. There to the judgment of the Lord shall he resign himself whom death doth take.’
So Beowulf was prepared to fight, hindering himself and lowering himself to a capacity equal to his wicked foe. This was evidence of an authorial presupposition about humanity’s innate superiority to monsters, of the superiority of good over evil, and of Christianity’s superiority to paganism.
Beowulf was prepared to fight Grendel on the creature’s chosen battlefield while using the creature’s preferred weaponry at the time of the creature’s choosing. He seemed to cede every possible advantage to the creature so that following his victory, the superiority and dominance of Beowulf would become undeniable and irrefutable.
When night fell, King Hrothgar and his household abandoned the mead hall to the care of Beowulf and his Geatish knights. The Christian author interjects a theological parenthetical before he describes Beowulf’s final preparation for battle, the divestment of both his arms and armor.
He writes, ‘The King of Glory, as men now heard, had appointed one to guard the hall against Grendel. Now a special office he held in the service of the Danes, having taken on himself a watch against monstrous things.’
Then the narrative shifts to Grendel’s midnight invasion of the mead hall as the fierce battle between the man and the fiend of hell—between Beowulf and Grendel—is described at the conclusion after Beowulf tore off the creature’s arm from its shoulder, and Grendel slinks away to die in defeat.
The Christian author again inserts a parenthetical, providing a theological postlude to the battle, writing that deadly contest was over and achieved, was the desire of all the Danes, and the hour had one come from afar, wise and stout of heart, purged the hall of Hrothgar and redeemed it from the malice of Grendel.
As we conclude this discussion, I would offer some of my own interpretations from the text as influenced and mediated by Tolkien. I would agree with Tolkien that the composer of this saga surely was a Christian, particularly on account of the sheer volume of Christian language and expressions that are contained within it.
Since no story stands alone or on its own, as every story is told for a specific reason and purpose, I agree with Tolkien that the Beowulf Saga was originally recorded and preserved because the composer believed that the story held value for the Christians of his period and potential value for Christians coming from heathenry.
I’m inclined to believe that the author hoped this saga might be useful as a secondary evangelistic tool because he used a story that people were already familiar with. He converted it, re-imagined, and reinterpreted it as a pre-Christian narrative pointing towards Jesus Christ.
The Christian author portrays Hrothgar as a godly but misguided king. He excused their Danish idolatry as being sourced from the desperation of spiritual despair while elevating the king as a worshiper of an unknown god, much like the Athenian Greeks.
The Danes of Heorot were portrayed as a desperate people who had given up all hope for their salvation and deliverance from Grendel because every hero who stood against the creature failed and was killed. After suffering many years of attacks by the creature, they had become resigned to their suffering and their eventual doom.
But because they were unwilling to abandon the pleasures of their hall, therefore, violent death at the hands of Grendel was the required price for their revelry. Grendel is described as belonging to the race of Cain, a monster descended from the pre-flood Nephilim, a wicked and irredeemably evil creature born from the sin of men.
Beowulf was portrayed as the virtuous and selfless hero who appeared to purposefully rescue the Danes from a demonic oppressor and to also satisfy the demands of a covenantal bond between them. Beowulf was a redemptive figure, redeeming both his father’s incurred debt while also redeeming and restoring the relationship between the Danes and the Geats.
When he battled Grendel, Beowulf divested himself of all of his extraordinary offenses and defenses, trusting only to divine providence for success. After the violent conflict, Grendel fled the presence of Beowulf, defeated and mortally wounded to die alone and in ignominy.
Considering all these points, it seems reasonable to me that the medieval Christian author intended to portray Beowulf as a typologically Christ-like figure, similar to one of the ancient Israelite judges like Gideon or Samson, by depicting him as an unexpected savior who appears unasked, coming as one sent by grace to deliver the Danes from their demonic oppression. They emphasized his Christlikeness.
Although Beowulf was far more obviously powerful than the creature when he was arrayed in his full panoply of war, he is described as voluntarily choosing to empty himself of his power, echoing the kenosis of Christ described in Philippians 2:6-11.
Similarly, Beowulf’s defeat of Grendel calls forth the binding of the strong man in Matthew 12:29 and echoes Christ’s defeat of sin’s consequence of death by dying himself. Christ and Beowulf defeated their respective enemies by using their own preferred weapons against them.
Finally, the defeated Grendel died a lingering death, alone, uncelebrated, and unmourned, just as the devil, while already defeated, still lingers on in feckless misery until his final ending is imposed.
Finally, I hope that this presentation will encourage you to consider reading Beowulf for yourself and other examples of ancient English literature. I hope you can see how they still convey timeless truths that conform to the truth taught by Scripture.
But I also caution you to remember that not everything may or should be considered worth redeeming. As Christians who live as expressions of the Great Commission, working to make disciples who make disciples, we need to remember that we cannot win the world to Christ by using the world’s means or methods.
Because what we win someone with is what we win them to. The Holy Spirit will never regenerate the elect through the means of the reprobate. So, I cannot and will not recommend that we try to redeem many of the elements that belong to our present pagan culture as a means of drawing or enticing the worldly to repent and abandon their sin.
While I appreciate the presumed hope and the godly desire of Beowulf’s Christian author to help heathens become Christian, I believe that then, just as now, such efforts are fundamentally flawed and liable to do more spiritual harm than good. Thank you.