While the functional specialty of research makes available or has appropriately retrieved the text for the homilist, the next specialty that comes to play is interpretation, which tries to understand what the text is saying. Interpretation tries to get at the meaning “in its proper historical context, in accord with its proper mode and level of thought and expression, in the light of the circumstances and intention of the writer.”[1]
In interpretation, two important terminologies come to mind; “hermeneutics”, which is the principle of interpretation, and “Exegesis”, which is the application of the principle to the task of preaching.[2] The Interpretation of a text therefore “is the science of hermeneutics, and in order to accomplish its end, hermeneutics relies first of all on exegesis.”[3] Despite the fact that not every text is in need of exegesis because the more a text is systematic in conception and execution, the less does it stand in need of any exegesis, Lonergan went ahead to outline three exegetical operations; understand the text, judging how correct one’s understanding of the text is, and stating what one judges to be the correct understanding of the text.[4] Consequently, the American Conference of Catholic Bishops elucidates some of the requirements of an exegete:
…the exegete must have knowledge of the original language, access to the tools of textual criticism, extensive historical and archeological background, a comprehensive knowledge of the development of biblical faith, and a familiarity with the history of the theological interpretation of texts in both synagogue and Christian churches.[5]
Every preacher ought to have all of these, if not, to a greater extent. And it is obvious that contemporary Seminary formation is not ignorant of these facts. Though many preachers have passed through the Seminary formation, the question left unanswered is whether these preachers took their formation seriously. The answers are not far-fetched as the people of God recount their sentiments and disposition after the Sunday liturgy.[6] It is a wakeup call to those in charge of this aspect of Seminary formation to emphasize and re-affirm the importance of studies for an effective homily in the liturgy and employ the necessary tools at their disposal as offered by various scholars.
And at this juncture, it is worthwhile, as shown by Cantalamessa, to extol and accept the great debt of gratitude Christians owe biblical scholars who have toiled a great deed in elucidating biblical problems: “Problems concerning the very text of scripture, the historical and cultural context of each book, the internal and external sources of the Bible, the exact meaning of each passage e.t.c”.[7]
From the perspective of Lonergan, the functional specialty of interpretation helps the preacher to draw the connection and relationship that exist between the OT and the NT. This insight helps to “develop new aspects of meaning, sometimes quite different from the original sense. A text may also make explicit reference to older passages whether it is to deepen their meaning or to make known their fulfillment.”[8] This is further explicated by Pope Benedict XVI in his work, Jesus of Nazareth. He says:
The proper interplay of the Old and New Testament was and is constitutive for the Church. In his discourses after the Resurrection, Jesus insists that he can be understood only in the context of the “Law and the prophets” and that the community can live only in this properly understood context…. Today’s widespread temptation to give the New Testament a purely spiritual interpretation, in isolation from any social and political relevance, tends in the same direction.[9]
The importance of the inter-textual interpretation cannot be over-emphasized because in the liturgy, readings are drawn from both the Old Testament and the New Testament. For example, on the Third Sunday of Lent A, the Gospel is the story of the Samaritan woman at the well. “It is a marvelous narrative, full of rich baptismal imagery and connections with the first reading from Exodus, in which God gives his people water from the rock.”[10] The interpretation of the Bible in the Church gives the reasons for the choices of particular texts; it is because “there is a mutual illumination and a progress that is dialectic: what becomes clear is that scripture reveals the meaning of events and that events reveal the meaning of scripture, that is, they require that certain aspect of the received interpretation be set aside and a new interpretation adopted.” [11]
Here we see how the history of the interpretation of the scripture remains part of the contemporary meaning of the scripture. Liturgical expressions are fruits of the preacher’s expansion and deepening of the way scriptures speak to us today.[12] Thus, the more a preacher recognizes the value of interpretation in his preparation for homily, the more relevant his word and message will be and find fertile ground with the contemporary situation.
[1] Bernard Lonergan, Method in Theology, p. 127.
[2] Cf. Ibid., p. 153.
[3] NCCB, Fulfilled in Your Hearing, op. cit., p.11.
[4] Cf. Bernard Lonergan, Method in Theology, p. 155.
[5] NCCB, Fulfilled in Your Hearing, op. cit., p.11.
[6] Cf. Ronald Knott, “Claiming Your Pulpit for Spiritual Leadership”, https://www.osv.com, (January 15, 2015).
[7] Cantalamessa Raniero: The Mystery of God’s Word, op. cit., p. 82.
[8] Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, http://www.ewtn.com, (17/10/14)
[9] Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, (New York: Doubleday, 2007), pp.121-122.
[10] Guerric Debona, op. cit., p. 42.
[11] Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, op.cit.
[12] NCCB, Fulfilled in Your Hearing, op. cit., p.12.
