ordinarius hermeneutica
Rev. Dr. Johnson Thomaskutty,
The United Theological College,
Bangalore, India
The United Theological College,
Bangalore, India
Introduction
The Latin expression ordinarius hermeneutica means “ordinary hermeneutics.” It is an attempt to develop a new way forward in interpreting the Bible by taking into consideration the feelings and aspirations of all levels of people. It analyzes the history, the principles and the methods of Biblical interpretation in the ordinary human situations in life. In today’s context, the academicians of the Bible colleges, seminaries and universities stand at the higher ladder, whereas the non-academicians, ordinary pastors and lay people remain in the lower strata. The commonality is all are involved in Biblical interpretation. The academicians do not recognize the church or lay level interpretations. On the contrary, the church bodies and lay level people often do not understand the academic interpretations. Intentionally or unintentionally, we build at least two level or sometimes three or four or more levels of citizens within the body of Christ.
An ordinary level of interpretation that can be understood by the lay and church bodies as well as the academic context is a need of the time. What does ‘ordinary’ mean? The word ‘ordinary’ can mean: “not different or special or unexpected in any way,” “usual,” “normally,” or “in the way that usually happens.” It is the usual and universal experiences, involvements, and widely accepted norms. In order to develop such as paradigm, the academic world should lean toward the church and the lay context and appreciate their efforts. At the same time, the lay level people and church bodies should learn from the academic world. Mutual encouragement and learning should happen in order to develop a wider conversation and a dialogue between these two levels of bodies.
What is hermeneutics? The English word “hermeneutics” comes from the Greek verb hermēneuō and the noun hermēneia. The verb hermēneuō came to refer to bringing someone to an understanding of something in his language (thus explanation) or in another language (thus translation). The English word interpret is used at times to mean “explain” and at other times “translate.” Thus interpretation involves making clear and intelligible something that was unclear or unknown.
Hermeneutics is the science and art of interpreting the Bible. It is the science (principles) and art (task) by which the meaning of the Biblical text is determined.
If interpretation is the science and art, how can a person who is never trained in the science and art of Biblical interpretation involve in interpreting the Bible? It is a significant question to be answered. The simple answer is that Bible can be interpreted by the initiatives of both the literate and illiterate, wise and foolish, scientific and non-scientific, academic and non-academic, and the like. I developed the skill of interpretation from tmy Sunday school days. I learned from my teachers the historical and spiritual aspects of the Word of God. The lay leaders of my church were my first teachers of the Bible. My interpretation of the Bible was plain, allegorical, and spiritually-oriented. I also learned history and a minimal level of theology in those days. But, my seminary learning equipped me further and brought me to a different level of understanding of the Bible. My learning of the Bible before seminary life and after seminary life is different in many ways.
Theologians should come to the level of the common people; at the same time, the church and the lay people should be open to the theologians and their discourses. A mutual fellowship, friendship, and interaction between the two levels of people in the Christian community may bring a lot of advantages to the community.
While we combine the two words “ordinary” and “hermeneutics,” our ultimate aim is to bring to the foreground the way scripture was interpreted by taking into consideration the ordinary circumstances of the people. The day to day struggles, inclination to the “from below” and “from above” aspects while living in this world, communication with God in the personal, familial, and communal living, and the interpretation of the scripture by all men and women in their own life situation are important aspects to be considered in our interpretation of the Bible. In the following discussion, we shall look at a brief history of the Biblical interpretation from the first century AD context till today.
A Brief History of Biblical Interpretation
Ordinariness was at the center of Biblical interpretation throughout the Christian history. The extra-ordinary message of God and God’s son Jesus is communicated to the ordinary situations of human life. The expression from John 1:14, “And the Word became flesh and lived among us,” amply gives us a clue about the interaction of the extra-ordinary in the ordinary human situations. John further states: “we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s only son, full of grace and truth.” From this expression what we understand? Ordinary people like John and his companions saw the extra-ordinary divine revelation in Jesus the son of God. The early interpreters of the Scripture were ordinary people, with ordinary circumstances, ordinary mind-set, ordinary thought-patterns, and the like.
Biblical Interpretation of Jesus
Jesus (ca. 4 BC to 30 AD) was an interpreter of the OT Scriptures in the light of his own mission and ministry. Jesus instructed his followers that his life and ministry fulfilled the hope of the Old Testament Scriptures. The ordinary human circumstances in which the sinners, tax collectors, and the poor were living, the promise of the Old Testament Scriptures were fulfilled by Jesus. Jesus used the quotation formulas such as “As it is written” (Mark 11:17; Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4), “Have you not read” (Mark 2:25), and others. In the Sermon on the Mount, he used the formula “You have heard . . . but I say” (Matthew chapters 5-7) to supplement and at the same time contrast the message of the OT. Jesus interpreted the Scriptures by taking the ordinary human situations and sustained ordinariness in his expressions and stylistic phenomena. His parables show how Jesus used the ordinary and day to day aspects in order to convey the extra-ordinary message of God. His miracles were extra-ordinary events initiated by him to save the ordinary human situations of life. The extra-ordinary heavenly realities were revealed to the ordinary world through the ordinariness of Jesus’s communications, interactions, and involvements. Jesus’s extra-ordinary and heavenly origin and his incarnation into the ordinary human situations is a model for the academicians to adopt. The academicians should incarnate into the ordinary church and lay levels to carry out the mission of God.
Biblical Interpretation by the Apostles of Jesus
The Apostolic period (ca. 30-100 AD) witnessed one of the significant periods when ordinary human experiences were taken into consideration. The communities of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul took the ordinary human experiences and situations into their theological and hermeneutical tasks. The NT writers were not merely recording the events happening around them; but, they interpreted the message of Jesus as per the new needs and demands of the ordinary human situations as there was a shift of focus from the life situation of Jesus (BC 4 to 30 AD) to the situation of the apostles and their communities (30 AD to 100 AD). Interpretation was one of the significant aspects of the Gospel communities. For example, Kingdom of God in Mark and Luke turned to be Kingdom of Heavens in Matthew and Eternal Life in John by understanding the ordinary human situations.
Matthew addresses predominantly the Jewish-Christians either in Palestine or in the Syrian Antioch context. The evangelist Matthew interprets the gospel of Jesus with a focus on Jesus as the New Moses. The Jews in general regarded Moses with great esteem. Now, Matthew interprets that Jesus is a New Moses who came to give a new Pentateuch (Matthew 5-7, 10, 13, 18, 24-25) to the New Israel. Here, the ordinary human situations and Jewish aspirations were considered in the process of interpretation. Matthew often quotes from the OT in order to say that the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings came to fulfillment in Jesus. As the Old Moses gave an Old Pentateuch to the Old Israel, the New Moses came to provide a New Law to the New Israel. In that sense, the ordinary human hopes were taken into consideration in the interpretative initiatives of Matthew.
Mark addresses the church in Roman which was under trial as Emperor Nero continuously persecuted the Christian communities. The Christians in the city of Rome were undergoing persecution and also they were forced to worship the Emperor. Mark by combining two theologies (a Theology of Glory/Power [chapters 1-8] and a Theology of Suffering [chapters 9-16]) encourages the common and ordinary human situations of life. Mark says that Jesus is all powerful and at the same time a suffering servant. The ordinary situation of the community of Mark is taken into consideration and Mark says that powerfulness and suffering are two sides of the same coin. In that sense, Mark involves in the ordinary human situation and interprets the gospel in ordinary sense in order to comfort and give hope. Mark teaches that Christianity is not a way of superfluous and extra-ordinary movement. But it is a movement of the ordinary with the power of extra-ordinary God and God’s son. Mark takes a balanced interpretation that takes into consideration both the ups and downs in the ordinary human situation.
Luke as an interpreter takes the Gentile and non-Christian world into consideration and begins the Gospel with Jesus’s programmatic Nazareth Manifesto (Luke 4:18-19). The evangelist takes into account the ordinary Gentile and non-Christian situation and interprets the message of Jesus to his new situation. He takes Jesus’s Nazareth proclamation in 4:18-19 and interprets the Jesus event in that light throughout the Gospel. Thus Luke focuses on “good news to the poor,” “release to the captives,” “sight to the blind,” and “freedom to the oppressed.” The Old Jubilee proclamation in Isaiah 61:1-2 that limits to the literal Israel is interpreted in the light of the New Jubilee proclamation initiated by Jesus that is beyond the time and space limits. The ordinary human situations like poverty, captivity, physical illnesses, and oppression were taken into consideration in the Gospel. In that sense, Luke’s Gospel is a re-interpretation of the Gospel message and the OT Jubilee concept in the light of the ordinary human situations in the Gentile world. Luke has special emphasis on individuals like Zachariah, Mary, Elizabeth, and Zacchaeus, interest in social outcasts, special favor for women characters, interest in children, social relationships, poverty and wealth, and other concerns that reflect the ordinariness of his hermeneutics.
John addresses his gospel to the people of Ephesus, one of the philosophical and religious centers of the first century. As philosophy and religiosity were the ground realities of Ephesus, John deals with philosophy and religiosity by considering Jesus as the Word or Logos. In the context of Ephesus, philosophy was ordinary. As John’s is a Gospel in which “a little child can wade and a huge elephant can swim,” it demonstrates its ordinariness in relation to the Ephesian realities. John’s interpretation of the Gospel as per the needs and demands of a esteemed community is poignant as he interprets parable as paroimia, miracle as sign, kingdom of God as eternal life, Holy Spirit as comforter, death as the hour of God, and the like. The ordinariness of the Ephesian situation was taken into account in interpreting the gospel by taking the ordinary and elite together into consideration. The simple language and understandable style of John’s Gospel enable the reader on the basis of the ordinary human situations. Moreover, John’s Gospel demonstrates the way the message of the Gospel of Jesus was contextualized according to the ordinary demands.
Paul considers a typological method of interpreting the OT in the light of the mission and ministry of Jesus. The typological method is based on the presupposition that the whole OT looks beyond itself for its interpretation. The OT writers wrote the writings with a view of the future. Paul interprets the gospel of Jesus by taking the Roman, Corinthian, Galatian, Ephesian, Colossian, Philippian, Thessalonican, Cretan and other local, colloquial, and ordinary situations into consideration. Paul here answers the ordinary, day-by-day, and ground-touching realities of the people and interprets the fact of Christ based on the issues. This is same in all the letters of Paul.
The above details clearly teach us that the apostles of Jesus interpreted the gospel of Jesus by taking the following aspects into consideration: first, the words and deeds of Jesus; second, the promises of the Old Testament; third, the new situations and demands of their times and places; fourth, the ordinary human situations in life; fifth, the socio-religious and politico-cultural aspects of the Jewish and Greco-Roman world; sixth, the hope of the marginalized, suffering, persecuted, and the dehumanized sections of the society; and seventh, the local and global aspects in order to make the message of the gospel relevant for all the people.
Patristic Period and the Biblical Interpretation
Patristic Period (ca. 100 CE-590 AD) can be mainly sub-divided into five categories. First, early fathers such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Barnabas, and others used typology as a major hermeneutical method (that the piece of scarlet that Rahab hung typified the blood of Jesus that “it is through the blood of the Lord that redemption will come to all who believe and hope in God” [I Clement 13:7]), allegorical method (purely spiritual interpretation, without ascribing any “from below” aspect to the Scripture), and midrashic interpretative method (by taking the Jewish Rabbinical style of interpretation), all used to interpret the OT in the light of the Christ event. The early apostolic fathers took the ordinary human situations of their time as they were standing between the apostolic and later patristic period. As the people were converted to the Christian faith, their spiritual necessities were given utmost significance in their interpretative endeavors. As people were spiritually thirsty and hungry, the early church Fathers interpreted the Scriptures into people’s idiom and demand.
Second, later church fathers like Justin Martyr (ca. 100 AD-165 AD) used analogical method (I Apology). Analogical method is a comparative method where two things are compared and contrasted. Justin Martyr used the Jewish Scriptures and argued that they were written as a prediction of Jesus Christ. Irenaeus (ca. 130 AD-ca. 202 AD), another significant figure, argued that the OT texts themselves speak of the hidden truth that must be unlocked in his Adversus haereses (Against Heresies). He is considered as the “father of authoritative exegesis of the church.” Even though the Jews read them, they did not have any explanation but the Christians posses the key in the coming of Christ which unlocks all the mysteries of God’s oikonomia (management) from beginning to end. Tertullian (155-220 AD), another significant figure, considered the NT as a new law (nova lex), to be fulfilled by Christians with a spiritual rigor unknown to the lax and hypocritical scribes and Pharisees. The issues such as persecution against the Christians, heretical doctrines, and emperor cult were the ground realities of the people. Christian orthodoxy was one of the highlights of that period in order to guide the ordinary human situations forward. The church Fathers from their ordinary human situations reinterpreted the message of Jesus based on the available oral and written Christian documents, the Old Testament, the personal revelation and experiences, and the ordinary human situations around them.
Third, it is the period of the Alexandrian School. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 AD to 215 AD) taught that the Scripture has a twofold meaning, like a human being, it has a body (literal meaning) as well as a soul (spiritual meaning) hidden behind the literal sense. He regarded the hidden or the spiritual sense more important, and considered text’s literal sense as a pointer to its underlying spiritual truth. His interpretation of the parable of the prodigal son: the robe that the father gave to the returned prodigal son represents immortality; the shoes represent the upward progress of the soul, and the fatted calf represents Christ as the source of the spiritual nourishment for Christians. Origen (c. 184 AD-c. 253 AD), another figure of the Alexandrian School, thought that Scripture had three different yet complementary meanings: literal or physical sense, moral or psychical sense, and allegorical or intellectual sense. Following Philo of Alexandria, both Clement of Alexandria and Origen used allegorical interpretation as a primary tool. As the Christian communities were rapidly growing, the Alexandrian fathers took a spiritual interpretation of the available Scriptures in order to address the ordinary situations of human life.
Fourth, it was the Antiochene School. As a reaction to Platonism and allegorical interpretation, Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350-428 AD) and John Chrysostom (ca. 354-407 AD) interpreted the Scripture literally. Theodore had an intellectual and dogmatic view of the Scripture whereas John Chrysostom’s view was more spiritual and practical. Both emphasized the historic setting, true scientific exegesis, and original sense. They consciously rejected the allegorical method of interpretation and attach great value to literal sense of the Bible. This is a further development as per the new situations and the quest for deeper knowledge about the Word of God. The church fathers were not mere academicians, but they profoundly rooted their interpretation based on the church and its development. In all these cases, ordinariness was at the center of hermeneutical developments.
Fifth, mediating the Alexandrian and the Antiochene views, the Western School emphasized the authority of the church and the tradition in the interpretation of the Bible. Augustine (354-430 AD) held a high view of the church so much that there is no salvation without the church. Adopting a historical, aetiological (explaining something by giving a cause or reason for it), analogical, and allegorical sense, he influenced the interpretation of the Middle Ages. Jerome (c. 342-420 AD) put importance to the literal sense of the Scripture in consonance with the Antiochenes, he nevertheless believed that the Christians must go beyond to discover the fuller, deeper meaning of a passage. Thus the five major phases of the patristic period took the local, people-oriented, communitarian, and ordinary setting of the people for interpreting the Scripture. The church fathers were using their influence and expertise, but they stood firm within the church set up. Scholarly voices were developed for the church and church was benefitted from the scholarly voices of the respective times.
Medieval Period and the Biblical Interpretation
During the Medieval period (ca. 590-1500 AD), everything was based on the earlier periods, but dominated by the allegorical interpretation. Though the period was noticed with the presence of theologians like Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033-1109 AD), Peter Abelard (c. 1079-1142 AD), and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274 AD), it was still under the influence of the earlier period. This long span of time in history is usually called the Dark Age in Biblical hermeneutics. With influences from the Alexandrian School, the monastic schools developed Devotio Lectio (spiritual reading). During this period, interpretative glosses, annotations, and commentaries in the margins were developed. Moreover, the glossed Bible in Paris (ca. 1220 AD) was published. The glossa ordinaria (literally, “ordinary tongue”) which is a compilation of comments and glosses on individual Biblical books. Fourfold meaning of the text was emphasized: literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical (anagogical is a method of mystical or spiritual interpretation of statements or events, especially scriptural exegesis, that detects allusions to afterlife). Example: Jerusalem, literally means, the literal Jewish city; allegorically means, the Christian church; morally means, the faithful soul; and anagogically means, the heavenly city. The ordinary spiritual, ecclesial, monastic, and social aspects were considered seriously during this long span of time. As part of the spiritual interpretation, mystical union with God was one of the interpretative experiences of the readers.
Reformation Biblical Hermeneutics
Reformation (ca. 1500-1650 AD) placed infallibility of the Word over infallibility of the Church. Church did not determine what the Scripture teach, but the Scripture determine what the Church ought to teach. Martin Luther (1483-1546 AD) rejected the Medieval fourfold interpretation of the Scripture especially the allegorical method and “emphasized that the Word of God has but one meaning, a simple and equivocal one,” that is the literal sense of the meaning. It is Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536 AD) who rediscovered the priority of the literal sense. For John Calvin (1509-1564 AD), unfolding the mind of the writer is the goal of exegesis. For him, any exegesis that departed from the obvious historical meaning was only an attempt to find something in the text that simply was not there. The battle cry of the Reformation was sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”), sola fide (“by faith alone”), sola gratia (“by grace alone”), solus Christus (“by Christ alone”), and soli deo Gloria (“to God alone be the glory”). Luther was a German professor of theology, priest, and former Augustinian monk. His background in church and academic institutions enabled him to develop interpretations that help the church. Similarly, Calvin was both a theologian and a pastor. He could develop his theological and biblical interpretations as a person part of the church. This enabled him to bridge between the academia and the church. The reformers were both scholars and church people. They were able to understand the ordinary demands, ordinary situations, ordinary means of interpretations, and ordinary level of faith and practices.
Post-Reformation Biblical Interpretation
During the post-Reformation period (ca. 1650-1800 CE), the Protestant Scholasticism blended philosophical and theological thinking to arrive at deeper meanings of Christian doctrine. It also depended on Aristotelian logic and metaphysical categories to explain Christian thought. Theological formulations were generally produced and argued within the context of academic circles, not borne out of local church life. Rigid dogmatism was one of the features. This period can be the starting point for the division between academic world and the church life. The Pietism spread as a reaction against the dull and dry spiritual and intellectual dogmatism of Protestant Scholasticism. It emphasized group Bible study, prayer, and cultivation of personal morality. Devotional and practical aspects were encouraged. Rationalism regarded that the human mind as an independent authority capable of determining truth. Reason was emphasized. Protestant Scholasticism and Rationalism on the one hand and Pietism on the other were developing side by side. While Pietism emphasized the ordinary human demands, scholasticism and rationalism took the interpretation away from the ordinary human setting.
Modern Period of Biblical Interpretation
Modern period (ca. 1800 onward) of Biblical interpretation was witnessed with a lot of confusions and misunderstandings. Sometimes, the church and the academic world worked independently from one another. The emergence of academic institutions in the west and its independence from the church was noticed. The methods like historical criticism, literary criticism, sociological criticism, and others were misunderstood by the church and the lay people. For mature Christian readers, all the modern critical methods are helpful for the interpretation of the Scripture. The world war and post-world war occasions in the west changed the method of biblical interpretation. The philosophical basis for interpretation was often misunderstood by the church. There is an option to accept and reject. Still we cannot say that all the theologies are developing away from the ordinary human situations. In the west, still the academic institutions work in closer relationship with the church bodies.
Liberation Hermeneutics in the Peruvian and Latin American context was developed by a Peruvian priest by name Gustavo Gutierrez by taking the ordinary class struggle and situation of the people. The liberation theologians took the aspect of preferential options for the poor. Similarly, Feminist reading of the scripture was based on the ground realities and the ordinary situations of women across the globe. The classification of radical, moderate, and minimal among the feminists gives the church an option to choose what the ordinary can accept and reject. Dalit hermeneutics in India was developed out of the ground and ordinary realities of people. Similarly, the Tribal hermeneutics was a necessity in the North-East Indian context to take their ordinary human situations into consideration. Renthy Keitzer took the tribal categories like cock, rice, mithuns, pigs and eggs for explaining the Christian concept of the sacrificial act of Christ. He took the tribal social and ordinary realities into consideration while interpreting the Scripture. The ordinary human situations can be highlighted during the pandemic COVID-19 period and offer a Biblical interpretation and hermeneutics to comfort the common people.
Some Practical Steps in Today’s Context
The following things are important in the process of interpreting the Bible in today’s context
(1) The church and the academic institutions must come to a cordial relationship to foster spirituality and understanding of the Bible
(2) The church should not fear the academic institutions; but rather hear and learn from the academic institutions and take only the necessary for the church life
(3) The academic institutions should integrally relate with the church and lay people and contribute knowledge also unto their level
(4) When a dialogue happens between the church and the academic world on a common platform, the ordinary people shall be greatly benefitted
(5) The academic institutions should give preference to the ordinary people in the church and the society, so that the fear about the academic world may go away from the church level
(6) There should be a relationship developed between the academic world and the church world to encourage each other
(7) There should be a preferential option for the ordinary human situations when we develop new hermeneutical methods
Concluding Remarks
The church and the academic institutions worked together throughout a major portion of human history. Ordinary human situations were given priority while theologians developed new hermeneutical angles. In today’s context a friendly chat, a dialogical engagement, and a fellowship between the lay realities, church life, and the academic institutions should emerge to transform our theological and hermeneutical understanding.
ANOINTED TO SERVE - Miriam Jacob 