Interpretation of scripture for Orthodox church

[sashatheman]

Hello people. Just like to say a few words about myself first. I am new around here, and was interested to understand more about Eastern orthodox (EO) beliefs. In my life i have family and loved ones who fall under two Christian groups of believers the Russian Orthodox, and Fundementalist Baptists.
I would not classify myself as either Orthodox, nor classify myself as Protestant (Baptist). At this point in time i am really still seeking to understand exactly what i believe.
In fact i love to study all doctorines, and Christian history etc, and i feel that alot of valuable aspects can be attributed to both groups.
My original question was; How does Eastern Orthodox churches interpret the Old and New Testament, in light of the importance of Holy Tradition of the church.
Since The EO churches do not put an emphasis on literal reading that stems from Sola Scriptura and the Exegesis that was developed by the Reformed churches to understand in their view the only source of Christianity, it leaves me interested to know how especially the OT is understood.
I read somewhere else that the OT events are not necesarrily meant to be taken literaly and not seen taken as historicly accurate. The emphsis should be the underlying message of Scripture ei the relationship between God and man, and the core truths for OT Jews and Christians.

 

[buzuxi02]

The OT is interpreted in light of the gospel. We place emphasis on the interpretation of the Church Fathers and what has been revealed to the conscience of the Church thru her worship and practises.

For instance the burning bush of Moses that was on fire but not consumed is a type of the virgin birth. God who is a consumng fire entered the womb of Mary which was not consumed.

Gen 18.1-3 The three angels that appeared to Abraham by the oak of Mamre and where Abraham recognized them as God, is a type of the Holy Trinity and is a canonical representation of the "type" of the Holy Trinity being allowed to be represented in icons.

 

[sashatheman]

I listened to a set of online lectures on early church fathers (which i found really informative and interesting). People like Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius etc.
Would that be the Church fathers you are refering to? or would the Eatestern Orthodox churches consider church fathers which came later like in the 4th century and even later?
The lectures i have done on the church fathers really show me how important their writting are for us to look back in time and see the ancient practises and the development of the Church structure.
But I am wondering how much emphasis does the EO church give to the writtings of the church fathers. Since not all of them share the same opinions. For excample St Augustine, is more responsible in developing the Catholic doctorines and is one of the few writters the Protestant give credit to for developing their ideas on subjects like original sin etc. But from my knowledge the EO does not give as much attention to the man.
So once again, within the EO church are the church fathers writtings used as a window into early Christianity and examples of the traditions, or are they also used as the bases for correct interpretations?

 

[buzuxi02]

I listened to a set of online lectures on early church fathers (which i found really informative and interesting). People like Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius etc.
Would that be the Church fathers you are refering to? or would the Eatestern Orthodox churches consider church fathers which came later like in the 4th century and even later?
The lectures i have done on the church fathers really show me how important their writting are for us to look back in time and see the ancient practises and the development of the Church structure.
But I am wondering how much emphasis does the EO church give to the writtings of the church fathers. Since not all of them share the same opinions. For excample St Augustine, is more responsible in developing the Catholic doctorines and is one of the few writters the Protestant give credit to for developing their ideas on subjects like original sin etc. But from my knowledge the EO does not give as much attention to the man.
So once again, within the EO church are the church fathers writtings used as a window into early Christianity and examples of the traditions, or are they also used as the bases for correct interpretations?

Your right about Augustine. While he is a saint of the Orthodox Church his writings are not held in hi esteem. In fact some of them are considered heretical.

The Church Fathers are authorites only in asmuch that they represent the consensus of the Church, not their own theological opinions. The Fathers have written under different contexts and situations and there are occasions when the Fathers give more exact theological expressions. It is those exact theological expressions which represent the Faith once delivered to all. It is when the Fathers zero in on a particular position, not when they say something in passing, meant to be taken within a much larger context.

 

[Knowledge3]

[{<><}]

 

[Philothei]

Also I would like to add that the consensus of the Church is fully expressed in the Ecumenical councils and the radification of those truths. The decisions of thoese councils are the ultimate Truths of the church's consensus. Patristic participation that was expressed in the coucils are the valid opinions of the Church. In that sense the whole church community participates in interpreting the scripture and its application. Orthodox dogma prevailed due to "systematic" thought of theChurch community... Dogma was a development on the reaction of the Church on heresy not the other way around... that is dogma first and then "gatherring material" to defend it.. Hope that makes some sense...

God bless,
Philothei

 

[vanshan]

Unlike other groups that later developed doctrines using the foreign hermeneutic of sola scriptura, we have always relied on the preservation of the orginal intent and meaning of scripture within the Church. We've accepted that the Holy Traditions have preserved the apostolic understanding of the scriptures and our faith, and continue to guide our understanding for all generations. This deposit of faith that has been passed down is confirmed in the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the consensus of the writings of the Church fathers and mothers. Some of these witnesses date back as early as the 1st century, so there is a clear continuity that assures us of the rightness of our beliefs. By the power of God's Spirit unity has been preserved within the Church despite many struggles. We have the benefit of not having to reinvent the faith, but rather "hold fast to the traditions" passed down by the Apostles.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. 1 Thessalonians 2:15

And as was correctly stated above, the OT is understood in light of the full revelation of God in Christ. We now see the broader meaning of the events of the OT, like Jonah being in the belly of the sea creature for three days pointing to Christ being in the tomb three days, the ark of Noah as a symbol of the Church, and the three angels in the story of the hospitality of Abraham representing the Trinity.

Thanks for your questions, they are definitely helpful for us all.

Basil

 

[-Kyriaki-]

Hi Sasha - I wish I could give an answer, but I really don't know enough to feel confident answering. I am interested though - where in Australia are you? We've got people from a few states here, and I'd love to know PM me if you don't feel confident sharing in the open.

 

[SaintPhotios]

Since The EO churches do not put an emphasis on literal reading that stems from Sola Scriptura and the Exegesis that was developed by the Reformed churches to understand in their view the only source of Christianity

I just wanted to add that sola scriptura doesn't actually emphasize literal interpretation.... but rather literal interpretation where it fits their pre-conceived notions. For instance, if we were to read Scripture literally, we would have to believe in the Eucharist as the actual body and blood of Christ. But in fact, they interpret symbolically with no other Scripture to support that symbolic interpretation..... which is exactly what they so often criticize us for doing.