6. Interpretation

The tradition of Jesus lived because what he had said and done lived on in the memories and hearts of those who believed in him. However, that was not the only reason that it lived. The tradition was also alive in the sense that it grew. Through Jesus' remaining presence it took on new meanings in the unexpected situations facing the disciples. Jesus' words were not stuffy old fossils but dynamic sparks that could set people alight in entirely new ways.

This was made possible by the Spirit of Jesus. He inspired the disciples to interpret Jesus' words and deeds correctly and creatively. We read this promise in John's Gospel:

The Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and will make you remember all I have said to you.(1)

The Spirit of Truth will guide you in all truth.

He will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he says he will have heard (from me).

He will explain to you the things that are to come.(2)

In the teaching of the Spirit there will be both a remembrance of Jesus' words and a new explanation that will throw light on things as they will be in the future. In plain terms this is the meaning of Jesus' promise: 'In the future I will no longer be with you physically, as a person you can touch, see or hear. But I will be with you through my Spirit. Then my Spirit within you will be speaking to you. He will make you remember what I have been saying during my physical life on earth. But he will do more than just that. He will also make you see these things in a new light. He will explain to you how they apply to the unforeseen situations you may find yourself in. In that way he will complete the teaching that you have in my Gospel.'

Seeking divine guidance

For human beings it has rarely been enough to have just a vague idea of what God (or the gods and goddesses) think of us in particular circumstances. Will our army win this war? Should I marry this girl? Is this a good day to begin the harvest? People in the hellenistic world had similar questions. Like in our own day, some would turn to astrology. Others would consult priests in the temple. It was a process known as divination. (3)

The individual who required guidance would pose his specific problem to the priest. A merchant might ask: 'If I send my wine and oil across the sea to Corinth, will it arrive before the autumn gales?' The priest would kill a sheep and burn it on the altar. Meanwhile he would observe favourable or unfavour­able signs, omens, in such things as how the smoke rose up to the sky, and from which direction birds flew over. Then he would cut out the sheep's liver and scrutinise lines and patterns on it. Based on such indications he would pronounce a prediction.

Even more sought after, for those who could afford it, was the procurement of a real oracle, a direct word from a god. A particular town might have been struck by a persistent high mortality among its children. Had the anger of some god or goddess been aroused? Which god? Why? How could he or she be appeased? At the time of Christ the famous shrine at Delphi, in Greece, was still in full operation. But for people in Antioch, shrines in Asia Minor were closer at hand; mainly sanctuaries of Apollo, such as Didyma near Miletus, or Oenoanda, or Colo­phon on the island of Claros.

Excavations at Colophon and some written records allow us to reconstruct what happened.(4) A delegation of pilgrims would arrive at the shrine. They would not reveal their problem (since the god was supposed to find out for himself). A propitious night would be fixed for the actual consultation. Meanwhile the party would be put up in the hostel adjacent to the temple; where, presumably, the host and serving staff could converse with the group and work out what the problem was (which, in turn, would be passed on to the priests). At day time there would be prayers and preparatory rites. When the actual night of the oracle had arrived, the party would be conducted with lamps and torches into the temple where, before the colos­sal statue of Apollo more prayers were said. Then the chief en­quirer would be invited to enter the inner shrine by 'crossing the threshhold'. Walking through a low tunnel, thirty yards long and winding along seven bends, he would end up in a small parlour hewn out of rock. Two mediums were waiting for him. Dressed in white, they sat on stone benches along the side of the walls and burnt incense before a waist-high column of blue marble positioned in the middle of the room.(5) The enquirer would introduce himself and ask for help, without revealing his specific question. The two mediums would go out into another small room, a cave where an underground spring was found. The main medium, the mystic, would drink from the water. He would fall into a trance and utter strange noises. The other medium, the thespode, explained the meaning of the noises, proclaiming them loudly in poetic verse so that even the people upstairs could hear it. It must have sounded like a booming voice from the depths of the earth. This was the oracle of Apollo.

The early Christians were convinced that God gave them guidance by insights they might receive from the Spirit. They knew some people could 'speak in tongues' whereas others could provide the explanation or pronounce a prophetic statement. Interpretation and prophesying were better than just 'uttering mysteries' in the Spirit.(6) But in all these cases prudence and spiritual discernment were required to make sure it was the Spirit who was speaking.(7)

The Christian prophet Agabus both foretold the famine under Emperor Claudius (8) and Paul's imprisonment. 'Thus says the Spirit' he said, tying his hands and feet with Paul's girdle. 'So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this girdle.(9) Most prophecies, we can be sure, were not dramatic new revelations. They were words of warning or encouragement, insights of what people felt God was trying to say to them. 'You can all prophesy one by one so that all may learn and all may be heartened'.(10) In that sense Paul could say he was not taught by human wisdom but 'taught by the Spirit so that I interpret spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit'.(11) Paul's advice was: 'Do not quench the Spirit and do not despise prophecy, but test everything'.(12)

Since the Spirit was Jesus' Spirit, (13) it was natural that his main task was to help interpret the Jesus tradition.(14) It is quite possible that Paraclete means 'interpreter'.(15) What Jesus had said and done needed to be interpreted before it could give the fulness of life.

If we study in the Gospels what this process of interpretation entailed, we find it involves 'adding' something to Jesus' words. The teachers of the Early Church added (1) a new meaning to Jesus' words (2) explanatory text, or (3) a fresh application. Let us look at some examples.

Adding new meaning

In Matthew 8,1-17 we find that miraculous cures have been grouped together to form a string:

cleansing the leper (8,1-4)
healing the centurion's paralysed slave (8,5-13)
curing Peter's feverish mother-in-law (8,14-15)
healing many sick people (8,16).

The series is rounded off with a quote from Isaiah: 'This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah; "He took upon him our infirmities and bore our diseases" '(8,17). (16)

In a previous chapter we have seen how texts were linked through catch words. Here something more significant has happened. The healing stories are now presented in a new perspective. They are seen in conjunction with the prophetic passage that fascinated the early Christians more than any other text: the description of the suffering and victorious servant of God.(17) We can surmise that in the early catechesis these stones of healing were seen in connection with Jesus' own passion. They became highly symbolical, expressing how, on the cross, Jesus assumed our leprosy, our paralysis, our fevers (that is our sins) to make us rise with himself. Notice how all the healed persons get up, rise, cured: the leper, the slave and the mother-in-law.

Such a theological interpretation would often influence the way the story was narrated. This is how the Gospels describe Jesus' ritual at the multiplication of the bread;:

* Taking the five loaves and two fishes
and raising his eyes to heaven,
he said the blessing
and broke the bread.(18) MARK

* Taking the five loaves and two fishes
and raising his eyes to heaven
he said the blessing
and breaking them . . . (19) MATTHEW

* Taking the five loaves and two fishes
and raising his eyes to heaven
he said the blessing over them
and broke them.(20) LUKE

All the three Gospels have the same, precise formulation; which shows it derives from oral tradition. What is more we are immediately reminded of another scene, the eucharistic blessing at the Last Supper, where identical words are used:

Jesus took bread
said the blessing,
broke the bread, etc. (21)

This is no coincidence. The early Christians knew the eucharistic words extremely well from their Sunday practice; as we do. The ritual was so distinct that it was this prayer and this gesture that made the disciples of Emmaus recognise the Risen Lord. (22) By using the exact, same formula when narrating the multiplication, oral tradition linked this miracle to the Eucharist. It was a connection John would work out at length. (23)

We should notice that this was a subtle way of implying the eucharistic interpretation. The catechists did not invent the story of the multiplication for the sake of the Eucharist, as some commentators have maintained. If that were the case, why the mention of the two fishes? Fishes did not fit into the eucharistic context. But the imprint of a eucharistic interpretation in the telling is unmistakable; as in the miracle's symbolism (people's hunger, the ministry of the apostles, the complete satisfaction).(24)

Adding explanations

Once we recognise this process of interpretation, we discover that it did not stop with suggestion and innuendo. In the story of Jesus' agony in the garden, for instance, we read that Jesus said to Peter: 'Can't you watch one hour with me?' He then added:

Watch and pray that you (plural) may not enter into temptation.

For the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.(25)

Many scholars are convinced that these words (Watch and pray, etc.) were not a part of the original story. Why not? We find a sudden change from the singular 'you' (in the words addressed to Peter) to a plural 'you' (in the addition). We also find an opposition between spirit and flesh which we do not meet in Jesus' original sayings. (26) The 'willing spirit' seems to allude to Psalm 51,14, according to the Greek translation. With an eye on Peter's subsequent denial of Jesus, the 'falling into temptation' would probably be seen as a warning to Christians not to lapse from the faith, something that indicates a typically pastoral situation.

What will have happened is this. The catechist who recounted the story of Jesus' agony and Jesus' reprimand to Peter: 'Can't you watch one hour with me?', knew Jesus was implicitly uttering a general warning addressed to all disciples. To explicitate this, he added a sentence, making Jesus say: 'Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation.' Thereby he interpreted the story in a way that would speak powerfully to his Hellenistic contemporaries. The temptation for all disciples is to be unfaithful to Jesus; as Peter had been by running away (27) and by denying Jesus.(28) It is with the same meaning that Polycarp quotes the verse. (29)

Or consider the story of the paralytic who was lowered through the roof and dropped before Jesus' feet. The accounts in Matthew, Mark and Luke are all based on the same oral tradition. (30) There is no need for me to reprint the whole text here. These verses will suffice for our purpose:

Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralysed man,
'Son, your sins are forgiven.'

Some scribes were sitting there who thought in their hearts: 'Why does he talk like that? He blasphemes. Who can forgive sins, except God alone?' Immediately Jesus, recognising that they were thinking like that, said to them: 'Why do you have such thoughts in your hearts? What is easier to say: "Your sins are forgiven" or to say; "Get up, take your mattress and walk"? Well, that you may know that the Son of Man has power to forgive sins', - then he said to the paralytic:

I tell you, get up, take your mattress and go home!'
And the man got up, took his mattress and left in front of everybody. (31)

Scholars generally agree that the oldest form of the story was much shorter.(32) Jesus said to the paralysed man: 'Your sins are forgiven. Get up, take up your mattress and walk!' In reflections on he meaning of the event, the early Church understood that by curing the paralytic, Jesus had actually proved that he had the power to forgive sins. The Christians may have had to defend such a view against orthodox Jews who refused to accept Jesus. What was easier than making what was implicit explicit by inserting the section in which Jesus expresses the proof in so many words? The whole discussion with the scribes is thus a later addition which made the text clearer for pastoral instruction.

Did the oral tradition put into Jesus' mouth words he had never said? Yes, it did. But it did so responsibly; whenever a proper interpretation of the text required it. Some critics have contended that the early teachers would make up entire stories or invent new sayings to suit their pastoral purposes. In my view there is no serious evidence to sustain such a charge.(33) In fact, the opposite can be proved.

Vehement discussions rocked the early Christian communities concerning the admission of non-circumcised Gentiles to the Church.(34) If the early catechists invented stories about Jesus, they would, no doubt, have invented stories to justify the admission of the uncircumcised. We find no such story in the Gospels. There are some rare accounts of Jesus meeting with non-Jews (35) but these are clearly not invented; at most they are theologically pointed. Some stories, in fact, are more of an embarrassment than a help in the argument. Jesus says to the Canaanite woman: 'It's not right to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs'.(36) The disciples cursed the Samaritan village.(37) Jesus tells the apostles: 'Don't go to the Gentiles! Don't enter a Samaritan town!'.(38) Though all the Gospels strongly endorsed the Church's universal mission,(39) they retained the historical fact that Jesus did not decide the issue of Gentile admission before his passion. They only point out that Jesus had a world-wide vision - like most Jewish contemporaries and in line with Isaian prophecies.(40) In view of the fierce discussions and divisions in the early communities regarding this issue, the restraint of the oral tradition is remarkable. It shows people did not just invent as they pleased.

Adding pastoral applications

As a final example of the process of interpretation we may consider the parable of the lost sheep. In both Matthew's and Luke's versions, the shepherd leaves the ninety-nine sheep to look for the hundredth which has been lost.(41) The pastoral application, however, differs in the two Gospels.

Luke places the parable in a context which may well have been historical. The Pharisees and scribes criticise Jesus for welcoming sinners and accepting their invitations to dinner.(42) Jesus tells the parable of the lost sheep to affirm that God is interested in sinners. In Luke's community this was readily taken up by teachers in their preparation of converts for baptism. Many of these may have been ashamed of their past. Probably they were rather doubtful if God would be ready to fully forgive all their sins. To reassure them, the teachers strung together three parables of Jesus with the same theme: 43)

* the lost sheep,
* the lost coin,
* the prodigal son.

These were like three recitals which all ended with a refrain of joy.

'There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance'.(44)

'There is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents'.(45)

'It is fitting to be happy and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and is alive, was lost and has been found'.(46)

In Matthew's community the parable turns up in another context. There are always Christians who live on the periphery. They may be doubters; or people who have lapsed to former habits, like drunkenness or adultery. They may even have committed petty crimes and landed themselves in the city prison. What to do about them?(47) In the oral catechesis, texts were strung together that record Jesus' attitude towards little ones, a term which was obviously understood as referring to such 'marginal Christians':

* who receives a little one, receives Christ (48)
* woe to whoever scandalises a little (49)
little ones also have angels' (50)
* the parable of the lost sheep'(51)

The parable now concludes in this way: 'So it is not the will of my Father in heaven that one of these little ones be lost'. This last sentence was formulated by the catechetical teacher as an explicitation of its meaning. Small wonder that the evangelist Matthew integrated this whole section into Jesus' sermon for pastoral leaders.(52)

Adding to God's Word?

In the book of Revelation we read that no one may add to God's word or detract from it (53) It is clear that we may never presume to 'add' anything to Jesus' teaching as if we could claim a new revelation. In Jesus God's word is final and we have nothing to add.

However, if we look at it from a different perspective it is obvious that God's word will remain sterile unless we add something of ourselves. Jesus has sown the seed. By taking nourishment from our soil this seed has to produce a rich harvest. This is where the adding comes in. We do not add a new revelation, but we add substance from our own understanding, from our own response, from the way Jesus' word produces changes in our life.

As in this wonder waterfall, drawn after M.C.Escher (1898-1971), the living water of Sacred Scripture falls down and produces results in life (the mill). It flows back from life to influence our way of understanding it, so that we know its meaning for us. For a similar cycle, read Isaiah 55,10-11.

God communicates himself to us. In every process of communication all parties are active. In fact, media experts say: The meaning of a message is not in the speaker, but in the hearer. When we say something to another person, it acquires new meaning in the understanding and response of the other. The same applies to God's word. What he says to each individ­ual and each group becomes new and unique when they take it to heart. This is how God's word truly lives on and grows as it is absorbed by more and more people.

QUESTIONS FOR STUDY

1. Read the parable of the sower (Mark 4,1-20) and note especially these words:

Other seeds fell on good soil. They brought forth grain. They grew and increased and yielded thirtyfold, sixtyfold and a hundredfold.  (Mark 4,8-20)

a. If the seed is God's Word and it grows and increases in us, how does this affect that Word?

b. How are the obstacles Jesus mentions in the parable related to God's Word?

2. Jesus spoke these remarkable words (John 12,24):

Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies it remains alone. But if it dies, it bears much fruit.

Jesus said this about his own death. But does the same truth also apply to God's Word? Does it need to die before it can produce fruit in us? How?

3. Jesus promised (John 14,26):

The Holy Spirit will teach you all things and will make you remember all that I have told you.

How does our 'remembering' in the Spirit affect our interpretation of the Gospel?

4. In Mark we read (Mark 9,41; see also Matthew 10,42):

Whoever gives you a cup of water in my name, because you belong to Christ, will not lose his reward.

Since the name Christian only appeared later (Acts 11,26), how would you answer the objection that Jesus could not have spoken those words: 'because you belong to Christ'? If it was added in tradition, does it show the Gospel is not trustworthy?

Footnotes

1. John 14, 16

2. John 16, 13

3. A.BOUCHE-LECLERCQ, Histoire de la divination dans l'antiquité, vols I-IV, Paris 1879-1882; G.DUMEZIL, Archaic Roman Religion, London 1970; see also Acts 16,16-19

4. L.ROBERT, Les Feuilles de Claros, Paris 1954; R.FACELIERE, Greek Oracles, London 1965; R.LANE FOX, Pagans and Christians, London 1986, pp.172-173.

5. This was the omphalos, the 'navel', the symbolic centre of the world which connected heaven and earth.

6. 'Speaking in tongues' can still be a valid form of Christian prayer, an expression of our feelings through sounds rather than intelligible words. It may have been more frequent in the first centuries on account of the hellenistic cultural background and its view of mystic experience; J.WIJNGAARDS, 'I want you all to speak in tongues'. 1 Cor 14,5, Vidya Jyoti 39 (1975) pp. 358-373.

7. The discernment is stressed in 1 Corinthians 12-14; esp. 14,1-33; and in the ancient Christian Document the Didache (11,3 -13,7).

14. H.SCHLIER, 'The Holy Spirit as interpreter according to St John's Gospel', Communio 1 (1974) pp. 128-141; J.WIJNGAARDS, ‘Teacher and Interpreter’, The Spirit in John, Wilmington 1988, pp. 73-78.

15. John 14,16-17; 14,26; 15,26; 16,7-15; H.F.WOODHOUSE, ‘The Interpreter’, Biblical Theology 18 (1968) pp. 51-53

16. Isaiah 53,4.

17. Isaiah 52,13 -53,12; C.F.EULER, Die Verkündigung vom leidenden Gottesknecht, Berlin 1934, pp. 59-63.

18. Mark 6,41

19. Matthew 14,36; see also 15,36

20. Luke 9,16; see also John 6,11

21. Matthew 26,26; Mark 14,22; Luke 22,19; 1 Corinthians 11,23-24

22. 'He took the bread and said a blessing, then broke it and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened .   .   .   .' Luke 24,30-31.

23. John 6,1-66

24. G.H.BOOBYER, The Eucharistic Interpretation of the Miracle of the Loaves in St.Mark's Gospel', Journal of Theological Studies 6 (1952) pp. 161-171; B. VAN IERSEL, 'Die wunderbare Speisung und das Abendmahl in der synoptischen Tradition', Novum Testamentum 7 (1964) pp. 167-194; I. DE LA POTTERIE, 'Le Sens primitif de la multiplication des pains', in Jésus aux Origines de la Christologie, Louvain 1974, pp. 303-329.

25. Mark 14,38; Matthew 26,41; cf. Luke 22,40.46

26. Although not entirely absent from Jewish thought (see Isaiah 31,3 and 1 Qumran 11,12), dualistic opposition between spirit and flesh is characteristic of Greek influence; see J.WIJNGAARDS, The Gospel of John and his Letters, Wilmington 1986, pp. 51-58; The Spirit in John, Wilmington 1988, pp. 21-40.

27. Mark 14,50

28. Mark 14,66-72. About the admonition in Mark 14,38, read K.G.KUHN, 'Peirasmos-Hamartia-Sarx', Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 49 (1952) pp. 200-222; 'Jesus in Gethsemane', Evangelische Theologie 12 (1952/53) pp. 260-285; F.WULF, 'Der Geist ist willig, das Fleisch ist schwach', Geist und Leben 37 (1964) pp. 241-243.

29. Letter to the Church at Philippi 7,2.

30. Matthew 9,1-9; Mark 2,1-12; Luke 5,17-26.

31. Mark 2,5-12

32. The reasoning is based on a careful scrutiny of used, the style and the themes. K.KERTELGE, Die Wunder im Markusevangelium, Munich 1970; pp. 75-82; 'Die Vollmacht des Menschensohnes zur Sündenvergebung (Mk 2,10)' in Orientierung an Jesus, ed.P.HOFFMANN, Freiburg 1973, pp. 205-213; J.MAISCH, Die Heilung des Gelähmten. Eine exegetischtraditionsgeschichdiche Untersuchung zu Mk 2,2-12, Stuttgart 1971.

33. There are some theological narratives (like the infancy stories, the temptation of Christ and accounts of resurrection appearances) that will require special discussion. See WALKING ON WATER Series, Course Book The Resurrection. As to John, I refer to my commentary, The Gospel of John and his Letters, Wilmington 1986.

34. See especially Acts 15; Romans and Galatians

35. A Samaritan village, Luke 9,51-56; a Samaritan leper, Luke 17,11-19; the centurion, Matthew 8,5-13; the Canaanite woman, Matthew 15,21-28.

39. Matthew 28,18-20; Mark 16,15-16; Luke 3,6; 24,47-48; etc.

40. The most important statement of Jesus in this regard was his express intention to offer his life for all nations ('for the many', Mark 10,45; 14,24; compare Isaiah 53,11-12). J.JEREMIAS has shown that these reflect Jesus' actual, historical words; The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, London 1966, esp. pp.225-231.

41. Matthew 18,12-14; Luke 15,3-7.

47. 1 Corinthians 5,1-5.11-13 deals with the same pastoral problem; it recommends expulsion from the community in a particu­lar case. But read also 1 Corinthians 8,9-13.

52. Matthew 18,1-20. About the parable of the lost sheep, see H.B.KOSSEN, 'Quelques remarques sur l'ordre des paraboles dans Luc XV et sur la construction de Matthieu XVIII 8-14', Novum Testamentum 1 (1956) pp. 75-80; E.F.F.BISHOP, The Parable of the Lost or Wandering Sheep', American Theological Review 44 (1962) pp. 50-56; W.PESCH, 'Die sogenannte Gemeindeordnung Mt 18', Biblisches Zeitschrift 7 (1963) pp.220-235;id., Mattäus der Seelsorger, Stuttgart 1966; P.BONNARD, 'Composition et signification historique de Mt 18,2' in De Jésus aux Évangiles, Gembloux 1967, pp. 130-140.

53. Revelation 22,18-19