In On The Joke of the Bible (June CT Column)
In On the Joke of the Bible
Why we can't get the New Testament without the Old.
Carolyn Arends | In the June 2012 issues of Christianity Today, posted online 07/02/2012
My kids finally saw The Princess Bride, a movie their dad and I have loved since our college days. There is something wonderful about watching your favorite people watch one of your favorite films. In this case, the added bonus was observing the light come into their eyes as they discovered the origin of several quirky things their parents routinely say. "Hey!" they shouted with a shock of recognition when Westley first said, "As you wish"—a line they've heard their father utter hundreds of times. Vizzini's "Inconceivable!" produced a similar response. By the time we got to the ROUS (Rodents of Unusual Size), our kids were grinning with the particular delight of cracking a previously mystifying code. They were in on the joke, and they liked it.
Language is much more than grammar and syntax. It is layer upon layer of collective memory and shared meaning, so that simple phrases like, "Houston, we have a problem," "Et tu, Brute?," "Remember the Alamo," or even "Yada, yada, yada" can carry worlds of meaning. You can't master a dialect without also learning the culture in which it is embedded.
In my quest to learn the "Gospel Language," I have often been oblivious to the shared experience assumed by the biblical writers. Jesus and his earliest followers were Jews; they held in their collective memory a particular story of a particular people, loaded with mutually understood points of reference. When I've read the New Testament only dimly aware of the symbolic world of the Old Testament, I've barely skimmed the surface of an ocean of meaning.
Certainly, I've grasped that Jesus' choice of 12 disciples has something to do with Yahweh's calling of the 12 tribes of Israel. But until recently, I remained oblivious to the way his baptism and desert temptation evoke the foundational story of the Israelite Exodus through Red Sea waters and into the wilderness. I've been duly impressed with the Lord's ability to command the stormy waters to be still (Matt. 8:26-27), but I've missed the Israelite shock at this man from Nazareth doing something that, according to the Hebrew Scriptures, only Yahweh can do. And although I've understood some of the significance of Jesus' transfiguration right before the eyes of Peter, James, and John, I've forgotten that the Israelites had been waiting since the Exile for the Shekinah—the visible glory of the Lord—to return.
Maybe the most significant reference I've missed has to do with Jesus' final words on the cross. That awful cry—My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?—has haunted my struggle to understand exactly what transpired (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34). Was Jesus, for a devastating moment, utterly alone and without hope? How that cry is processed has all sorts of implications for theology—not least for the way we conceive of the Atonement and of the relationality of God's triunity. More personally, it shapes the way I perceive my own experiences of abandonment.
I've known, in a vague way, that with his cry Jesus was quoting the beginning of Psalm 22, a passage so familiar to his friends that to utter the first line would have been tantamount to reciting the entire thing. Psalm 22 is an anguished prayer of David, spoken as a godly sufferer awaiting deliverance. It's the most frequently quoted Psalm in the New Testament. And its parallels to the Crucifixion are chilling:
A band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.
I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
They divide my garments among them
And cast lots for my clothing. (vv. 16b-18, NIV 1984)
The psalm is so shot through with suffering, it's hard to imagine any more appropriate reference Jesus could have made. But it's essential to know that the only thing in Psalm 22 that runs as deeply and vividly as the speaker's pain is his unshakable hope:
You who fear the Lord, praise him! …
For he has not despised or disdained
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help. (vv. 23a, 24, NIV 1984)
Both Matthew and Mark note that some of the onlookers misunderstood Jesus' cry, mishearing the Aramaic word for "my God"—Eloi—as Elijah. I wonder if, in including that detail, they aren't cautioning us to pay attention to exactly what Jesus is saying.
The Cross is a mystery, and no human should expect to understand it fully. But if we want to be conversant in the language of the gospel, we need to be able to say at least this: At Calvary, Jesus felt the deepest level of anguish ever known, and yet he could still, in his Psalm 22 declaration, point to the presence, faithfulness, and anticipated deliverance of his Father—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the God of our salvation.
Copyright © 2012 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.




Comments
Gnashing, Hades, and fire (but not fireswamps)
In regard to the specific passage, my distinction was that the wicked man was gnashing his teeth because he failed to receive something good - which is painful in one sense of the word, but not in the sense of pain that would result if someone actively inflicted injuries upon him. He got a glimpse of the honor that was accorded the honorable man, and that glimpse vexed him so much that he gnashed his teeth. I think that interpretation is pretty clear in Psalms.
However, I think that most Christians assume that the gnashing that takes place in the New Testament is caused by the infliction of pain by the flames of hell. I don't think that has to be the case. I believe an interpretation that is more consistent with the Psalms is that people will gnash their teeth because they get a glimpse of the glory and beauty of God, yet will be excluded from that.
To take a step back, I'm about 80% convinced that the Bible teaches that the wicked will be annihilated in hell, rather than tormented forever. I've spent hundreds of hours researching and praying about this issue (and I don't think I'm exaggerating). Time and time again, I've come upon passages related to this issue whose meanings change significantly after I discard my pre-conceived notions and do my best to discover what the author most likely intended.
One other passage is the one about the rich man and Lazarus. If you look at the Greek, and at some English translations, you'll confirm that Jesus says that the rich man was in 'Hades'. Well, if one does the research, I think most would agree that Hades is the abode of the dead, and maybe the same as the 'Abyss' that is mentioned elsewhere in scripture. This is not the lake of fire. That point is made explicitly clear in Revelation, where it says "Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire". So, based upon that, I don't think that the state of the rich man that Jesus described was an eternal state - it was only a state that would last until judgment day.
I could literally go on for hours, but let me throw out just one more illustration of preconceived ideas. In several passages, we read about "a fire that will not be quenched" and most of us bring our pre-conceived notions and take away the concept of "a fire that will burn forever". However, a fire that will not be quenched is just a fire that will burn until the fuel is gone - it will not be manually extinguished. About every time I start a fire in my fireplace, I create "a fire that will not be quenched" because I just let it burn out and don't try to quench it. This understanding can be reinforced if you looked up instances of "quenched" in the Old Testament. Those passages generally refer to situations where a fire is started and God does not step in to quench it, but allows the fire to burn until it has served its purpose.
Thanks & good to hear from you.
"It shall not be quenched
"It shall not be quenched night or day; Its smoke shall ascend forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; No one shall pass through it forever and ever." - Isaiah 34:10
Important Passage
Ryan,
The passage you quoted is a very significant passage in this discussion. At first glance, it seems to describe a fire that burns forever and ever. I mean, Isaiah actually uses the word "forever".
But please read the next four verses:
Isa 34:11 But pelican and hedgehog will possess it, And owl and raven will dwell in it; And He will stretch over it the line of desolation And the plumb line of emptiness.
Isa 34:12 Its nobles--there is no one there Whom they may proclaim king-- And all its princes will be nothing.
Isa 34:13 Thorns will come up in its fortified towers, Nettles and thistles in its fortified cities; It will also be a haunt of jackals And an abode of ostriches.
Isa 34:14 The desert creatures will meet with the wolves, The hairy goat also will cry to its kind; Yes, the night monster will settle there And will find herself a resting place.
So, how can these animals inhabit this land if Isaiah intended to mean that the land will literally be burning forever?
"generally refer to
"generally refer to situations where a fire is started and God does not step in to quench it"
They actually seem to be situations caused by God Himself in anger. (2 Kgn 22:17, 2 Chr 34:25, Jer. 7:20, Jer. 17:27, Eze. 20:47)
I agree
I would agree that God is often, if not always, depicted as the agent that starts the fire.
My point is that when the Old Testament refers to a fire that is not quenched, it is not referring to a fire that burns eternally.
Not somewhere I would want to
Not somewhere I would want to be for any length of time. Are you trying to make it seem better?
Isn't the "furnace of
Isn't the "furnace of fire"/"outer darkness" considered hell?
Was the gnashing in Job 16:9, Psalm 37:12, Lam. 2:16 and Acts 7:54 merely "regret" too? Inconceivable!
I hope Beth had a great birthday! :)
“The time came when the
“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’" - Luke 16:22-26
Are we to ignore these verses as well?
I can honestly say I disagree
I can honestly say I disagree with Reese's understanding which the study below sums up in the introduction.
http://www.middletownbiblechur ch.org/doctrine/hodgesgn.htm
I don't want to start more Xtian squabbles but CA is (honestly!) talking of finding a deeper understanding of OT symbolism in the NT. That is not the same as twisting Scripture to fit a flawed understanding like the male chauvinist who caused the earlier squabble did.
Apology
Ryan,
Thanks for the comment.
After reading your response, I felt bad about mine. I don't think I expressed myself very clearly, for one, but I felt bad primarily because my comments lead the discussion away from Carolyn's main point.
I'm a big fan of the Princess Bride, so I was hooked right from the beginning. In relating the story of how she shared that movie with her kids, Carolyn made a great illustration of the importance of shared vocabulary in comunicating with others and how strongly our pre-conceptions impact our understanding.
It's a very significant point and it was very well made.
Thanks, Carolyn and the best to you, Ryan.
gnashing and whatnot
Reese and Ryan,
I'm sorry I missed this discussion yesterday - I was deeply immersed in my daughter's birthday party! :-)
Reese - I'm actually intrigued by the questions around "gnashing." I don't mind exploring side streets. I was just having a discussion on Facebook the other day in which we decided we could be "free in speculation but cautious in proclamation" about the areas of doctrine for which we don't have complete clarity. What would you take to be some of the implications of that interpretation of "gnash"? (And Ryan, I'd love to know why that interpretation concerns you.)
Thanks to you both for engaging,
CA
Old Testament references
Nice analogy with the Princess Bride. :>)
I agree with your point, that in addition to expressing his anguish, Jesus was also pointing to a hope beyond the cross.
I also agree with your earlier point that there are multiple serious misunderstandings we 'New Testamenters' carry because we ignore Old Testament allusions.
In fact, another allusion from that movie which would also apply to many Christian discussions is, "That word you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means."
One significant word in the New Testament is the phrase "gnash" - as in "gnashing teeth". It is used in Psalms 112:10 as "The wicked man will see and be vexed, he will gnash his teeth and waste away; the longings of the wicked will come to nothing."
The Psalmist is clearly expressing the regret of the wicked man at being excluded from the honor accorded to the honorable man. This specific verse says nothing about explicit torment of the wicked man. I think there are significant discoveries possible if this understanding is pursued with honesty.
Thanks
Nice column Carolyn
Interesting to note some of the different connections in Scripture.
Post new comment