Bombadil and 👁️Sauron face to face!!

[EldradMustLive]

I know Tolkien said he didn't like allegory. Still though, that being said, there's no doubt in my mind that he intended Bombadil to be Iluvatar, also called Eru. The clues are right there and Goldberry's comment gave it away immediately when the hobbits asked her who he was. She said "He is." That is unmistakable in Christian theology and Tolkien was a Christian. Remember Moses' burning bush and the voice said "I am that I am." And Jesus repeatedly said "I am" as in "I am the bread of life", "I am the door", "I am the good shepherd", "I am the resurrection and the life." That's why the jews wanted to stone him. They understood the reference. Also, Tom later said that he was the first, i.e. the eldest. Another dead giveaway. He was there even before the Dark Lord came into the world. So he IS Iluvatar.

Someone once asked me if I thought God was supposed to be shacking up with a beautiful woman. Well, that's the biblical picture. Israel is continually referred to as the bride of Jehovah and the Church is referred to as the bride of Christ. Sex itself is meant as a picture of the relationship of God to man.

I suppose that Bombadil was Tolkien's view of God. I.e. that he maintains a disinterest in the affairs of the world. I think a lot of people feel that way. Bette Midler sang a song "From a Distance" where she sings "God is watching us from a distance." In other words he stays separate and almost disinterested. It's not at all true of course but that's what some people think.

 

[CirdanLinweilin]

I know Tolkien said he didn't like allegory. Still though, that being said, there's no doubt in my mind that he intended Bombadil to be Iluvatar, also called Eru. The clues are right there and Goldberry's comment gave it away immediately when the hobbits asked her who he was. She said "He is." That is unmistakable in Christian theology and Tolkien was a Christian. Remember Moses' burning bush and the voice said "I am that I am." And Jesus repeatedly said "I am" as in "I am the bread of life", "I am the door", "I am the good shepherd", "I am the resurrection and the life." That's why the jews wanted to stone him. They understood the reference. Also, Tom later said that he was the first, i.e. the eldest. Another dead giveaway. He was there even before the Dark Lord came into the world. So he IS Iluvatar.

Someone once asked me if I thought God was supposed to be shacking up with a beautiful woman. Well, that's the biblical picture. Israel is continually referred to as the bride of Jehovah and the Church is referred to as the bride of Christ. Sex itself is meant as a picture of the relationship of God to man.
I suppose that Bombadil was Tolkien's view of God. I.e. that he maintains a disinterest in the affairs of the world. I think a lot of people feel that way. Bette Midler sang a song "From a Distance" where she sings "God is watching us from a distance." In other words he stays separate and almost disinterested. It's not at all true of course but that's what some people think.

When Frodo asks Goldberry just who Tom Bombadil is, she responds simply by saying

"He is",

which some have taken as a reference to God's statement

"I Am that I Am"

in the Book of Exodus. But Tolkien rejected this notion, saying that in Middle Earth

"there is no embodiment of the One, of God, who indeed remains remote, outside the World.

1. Carpenter, Humphrey, ed. (1981). The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien. Houghton Mifflin. 181. ISBN 0-395-31555-7.

and he carefully differentiated Goldberry's response from the Biblical

"I Am that I Am".[3]

I'm sorry to say, but Tolkien rejected this view.

Hope this helps.

CL

 

[EldradMustLive]

Perhaps you're right that Tolkien disavowed the idea but the references you cited don't say that at all. And I have to say that my observations stand despite any nay saying. If Tolkien received criticism and THEN responded with "I really do think you are being too serious, besides missing the point" then I actually take it as a tacit admission that Bombadil WAS intended to be Iluvatar. Tolkien in that quote (which is what you cited) didn't deny it at all. He just sounded like he was blustering his way out of the situation. Again, Bombadil says he was the first. The first what? If it's just "the first", period, then Bombadil is Iluvatar.

Hope the helps even more.

 

[CirdanLinweilin]

Perhaps you're right that Tolkien disavowed the idea but the references you cited don't say that at all. And I have to say that my observations stand despite any nay saying. If Tolkien received criticism and THEN responded with "I really do think you are being too serious, besides missing the point" then I actually take it as a tacit admission that Bombadil WAS intended to be Iluvatar. Tolkien in that quote (which is what you cited) didn't deny it at all. He just sounded like he was blustering his way out of the situation. Again, Bombadil says he was the first. The first what? If it's just "the first", period, then Bombadil is Iluvatar.

Hope the helps even more.

"I have to say that my observations stand despite any nay saying." A bit arrogant, don't you think?

I don't see how you can declare this as fact...especially when none of us are Tolkien himself. Tolkien created Bombadil, not us.

This is actually a well-known theory.

Please, this is to help you, don't declare your opinions as fact, especially online. It makes you look prideful. Plus, it is a bit arrogant to characterize Tolkien that way when we don't even know him personally! I just gave his own words on the matter, not my own opinion.

If Bombadil is Illuvatar, Tolkien would've said so. It'd be a pretty major plot point, don't you think? He didn't though. He wrote the book the way he wanted.

CL

 

[EldradMustLive]

Good heavens CL, I'm not being a bit arrogant. Look, when something is as obvious as the nose on one's face it's not being arrogant to state it. Am I arrogant if I state that the sky is blue? No. It is blue! At least on a clear day it is. And I'm sorry but it's obvious who Bombadil was supposed to be. Bombadil even said he was there before the Dark Lord came into the world and he wouldn't have been talking about Sauron. This was Melkor. So he preceded the Ainur Melkor in the world. That can only be Iluvatar.

And no, Tolkien wouldn't have said that he had intended Bombadil to represent God himself. I'm afraid you're being hoist by your own petard here. You're claiming to know what an author would choose to reveal! You're doing what you accuse me of. And you're basing it on ... what? Authors don't always give explanations of what they intended by what they wrote. As far as I know, they usually don't. They usually seem to think that it's better not to.

I will point this out though that in his letter to Milton Waldman in the Silmarillion preface he says that he had the sense of recording what was already there, somewhere, not inventing something. So he tried to express true things. What came out was a veiled personification of God in the person of Bombadil.

I don't doubt that this is a well known opinion. It's so obvious that I'd be surprised if nobody else had seen it. Apparently I've come late to that party!

 

[CirdanLinweilin]

Good heavens CL, I'm not being a bit arrogant. Look, when something is as obvious as the nose on one's face it's not being arrogant to state it. Am I arrogant if I state that the sky is blue? No. It is blue! At least on a clear day it is. And I'm sorry but it's obvious who Bombadil was supposed to be. Bombadil even said he was there before the Dark Lord came into the world and he wouldn't have been talking about Sauron. This was Melkor. So he preceded the Ainur Melkor in the world. That can only be Iluvatar.

And no, Tolkien wouldn't have said that he had intended Bombadil to represent God himself. I'm afraid you're being hoist by your own petard here. You're claiming to know what an author would choose to reveal! You're doing what you accuse me of. And you're basing it on ... what? Authors don't always give explanations of what they intended by what they wrote. As far as I know, they usually don't. They usually seem to think that it's better not to.

I will point this out though that in his letter to Milton Waldman in the Silmarillion preface he says that he had the sense of recording what was already there, somewhere, not inventing something. So he tried to express true things. What came out was a veiled personification of God in the person of Bombadil.

I don't doubt that this is a well known opinion. It's so obvious that I'd be surprised if nobody else had seen it. Apparently I've come late to that party!

Fine. Suit Yourself. I'm Catholic and I don't believe Bombadil is God. If anything, he's a Green Man, a nature figure.

But if this floats your boat, go ahead.

CL

 

[Elthir]

The great Glorfindel says: "... soon or late the Lord of the Rings would learn of its hiding place and would bend all his power toward it. Could that power be defied by Bombadil alone? I think not. I think that in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil will fall, Last as he was First; and then Night will come."


I note also Letter 144, where Tolkien says that "Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron."

And letter 181: "There is no 'embodiment' of the Creator anywhere in this story or mythology" seems to agree with "The One does not physically inhabit any part of Ea." (letter 211)

In any case...

... Glorfindel Laurefindele is never wrong

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

I miss Elthir. 🥺

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

I miss Elthir. 🥺

Don't we all. I tried supplementing with colored quotes of my own... It's just not the same.