The Gospels, which are the core of the New Testament and an important part of it, are permanently kept on the Holy Table in every Orthodox Church. From this table the priest takes the text, known liturgically as the “Holy Gospel,” to read it in the liturgical meeting of the faithful and then returns it to its place after the reading. This indicates the important status of the Word of God as well as the depth of the relationship that exists between the Holy Writings and the Orthodox Church. The Church not only preserves these books and then reads them to believers, but also interprets them in a responsible manner throughout the ages.

We will now start with an analytical presentation:

• a. The basic features of the Orthodox interpretation of the writings go back, in particular, to the New Testament.
• B. For the relationship between the Holy Scriptures and the Church in a concise way.
• T. We will conclude the dialectical relationship that exists between fidelity to tradition and the urgent need today to present the Gospel word more effectively.

A- The basic features of the Orthodox interpretation of the writings

To better understand the Church's interpretive work, we must keep in mind the following three basic assumptions:

1. Orthodox theology distinguishes between the truth, which is God Himself as revealed by Jesus Christ and who “dwelt among us” (John 1:14), and the recording of the salvific truth in the books of the Bible. This distinction between codification and truth leads, according to Theodore Stylianopoulos, to the following important consequences: First, it prevents the identification of the mystery of God with the literalism of the writings. Secondly, it allows the experience of many people in their relationship with God to be seen in the Gospel written in their own language, in their time and circumstances, in their symbols and images and in their own ideas about the world. In other words, it allows for a dynamic relationship between the Word of God, which is found in the books and constitutes the truth of the Gospel, and the words of men, which are human forms through which the Word of God is transmitted. Third, it assumes that the Orthodox Church also highly venerates other writings about experience with God, such as the writings of the Holy Fathers, liturgical forms and texts, and the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. This saves the church from limiting its focus to the Bible. Finally, recognizing a dynamic relationship between letter and spirit eliminates dogmatic Biblical extremism as a theological position (which is the claim that God dictated words that were later transmitted literally by dedicated writers), and thus protects the life of the Orthodox believer from the error of fetishistic veneration of the text of Scripture (bibliolatry). ). With all that, this distinction between codification and truth is not intended to diminish the importance of the Gospel. If the Orthodox Church values other writings about experience with God, then the Gospel remains the first recording in the theological tradition and in the worship of the Church.[1].

2. What we call “tradition” in the Orthodox Church is nothing but the Church’s living experience with the Bible throughout its history[2]This is what non-Orthodox theologians do not understand. Since imitation is life, that is, it is the act of receiving and handing over the treasure of faith, it is not in any sense a static and weak matter, but rather it possesses the basic components of any living being: movement, progress, assimilating the surroundings and its changes, and finally, the elimination and rejection of the special elements that have lost their organic connection to the body. The living Christ.

3. Interpreting the Bible was the mission of the Body of Christ in the historical journey of the Orthodox Church. Which means that interpreting the books of the Old and New Testaments cannot be the task of an individual person working on his own, no matter how high his academic standing, but rather it is the task of the Church and it is a work fueled by and gifted by the Holy Spirit. However, the individual interpretive attempts of some theologians, past and present, have gained merit and appreciation if they agree on fundamental points with the consensus of ecclesiastical consciousness, even if the ways of expression of these theologians are quite innovative and personal.

There is an observation we make regarding these three hypotheses: that some theologians equate the truth with the literalism of the Bible (in other words, they have idolized the biblical text), and that they view tradition as a factor that hinders the reality of life rather than as a living experience of the Bible, and that they do not interpret the Bible as committed members of the Body of Christ. If these three deviations exist, which are the pathological form of the above-mentioned hypotheses, then Orthodoxy and all its forms in the non-Orthodox world will be directly affected. In any case, the power of truth remains derived from God Himself, even if the human presentation of this truth is weak.

After taking these assumptions into account, we can now detail the basic features of the Orthodox interpretation of the Bible:

1. Christianity has a clear historical character, on the basis that it is the divine revelation in history. Neither theology nor biblical interpretation, in particular, can ignore serious consideration of the historical conditions assumed by the books of the Old and New Testaments, in order to prevent deviation towards a type of Gnosticism. The Church of the first centuries relentlessly fought the Gnostic heresy, which, within the Hellenistic mentality of the duality of principles, weakened the historical foundations and led people to the incomprehensible and immaterial. The Church did not confront this deviation with the “metaphysics” of Christianity, but with the “stumble” of the historical event of the crucifixion, which is the pinnacle of divine management and, rather, “the secret of divine management.” The Word of God “became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), in order to redeem humanity and transform the world not only eschatologically but also historically, in the present.

The first theologian in the Church who emphasized the historical character of the mystery of God’s saving plan was Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who, in his writings against heresies (second century AD), presented the history of the Bible as a play whose heroes and stars are God and man, placing them against each other within Sensory situations that exist at any given time. Within these sensual historical situations, one of the two heroes seeks the other. The first (God) seeks, in particular, towards the second (man), who constantly slips and sins until they finally end up meeting each other in reconciliation, in Christ who “gathers all in himself,” according to the Pauline expression favored by Irenaeus.

The patristic interpretive tradition as a whole converges on the line of the historical character of redemption, despite the different situations, which determine the needs and positions of every interpreter, in every time. It must be noted here that patristic interpretation is done through a biblical perspective and not according to abstract philosophical assumptions. At the same time, this tradition emphasizes the paradox of history based on the fact that the fathers accepted: A - the absolute power of God and human freedom at the same time. B-By the sacred divine grace, and also the role of human sin in history. C-With the historicity of eschatology and beyond its historicity, at the same time.

2. The ecclesiological characteristic: This is a second major feature that characterizes Orthodox biblical interpretation. Its character as a church work is due to the interpreter’s experience of the mystery of thanksgiving and his enlightenment by the Spirit of God. The fact that Jesus lived in a specific historical time and physical place on earth and that he taught, performed miracles and was crucified under Pontius Pilate is a fact that can be proven by conventional historical means. However, the truth that Jesus is the risen Lord who can work effectively in the life of every human being is a truth that can only be accepted by those who live “in the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:3). In other words, history (without ceasing to be the solid ground for the interpreter) becomes theology when we keep in mind not only the historical event itself but also its value to people when it occurred and in our present time, and here lies its existential message. The special understanding of the Bible is that it is a movement that goes in two directions: a direction towards the time in which the text was written, which is the interpretation of the text (this is what we previously referred to in presenting the first feature of Orthodox biblical interpretation, i.e. its historical character). The other direction is towards our time, which is the main interpretation of the text, i.e. its message. This is what the Church has always adopted in its interpretation - with the Fathers and in our time - and this is still the case at any time and with whomever.

3. The patristic character gives the Orthodox interpretation a special character. This feature, if properly understood, indicates a creative continuity of the spirit of the Fathers, and this is not a blind regurgitation of their interpretations in our historical, social and academic variables, but rather a devotion to the living method of transforming the meaning of evangelical history into a life sermon and an existential appeal, in a theological way. Needless to say, this sincerity is the fruit of the engagement between the hermeneutical tradition and the life of the Church.

In our days, some, through deliberate and unintentional misunderstanding, have raised the question of the relationship between the Bible and the Fathers. We can say here that biblical history, and the events of the Bible, have extensions in the life of the Church. We can also say that the Orthodox conscience understands the Holy Bible and experiences it from a realistic Ecclesiological and Revealed perspective. The Old Testament sees a mirror that reflects the image of Christ and His Church, and the New Testament sees the book of the Church, and thus the book becomes, through the Eucharist, a life experience. All these considerations do not justify any museum stagnation. The Spirit of God who founded and guided the Church is a spirit of freedom and not a spirit of slavery. In the name of this spirit, we must take into account the constant pursuit of preserving the message. What we need today is a revival of the creative thought of the fathers within the framework of modern conditions, instead of a blind revival of the fathers.

The analytical study of patristic approaches to Scripture helps us understand what was said previously.

A- For the Fathers of the Church, interpretation was not an academic approach or a scholastic work within libraries, but it was a sermon delivered in the gathering of the people of God. Therefore, it is direct and alive and addresses the mind and heart of the listener at the same time. It does not intend to fill their minds with knowledge derived from the Holy Bible, but rather it aims to guide them to actions, and to take a position, and rather to renew their position (i.e. repentance), regarding the cross and the resurrection of Christ. This is the essence of the covenant. Particularly new. In this sense, as preachers of the Word of God, the Fathers faithfully relate this Word of Life to their time in a way that is useful to their listeners and to their subsequent readers. They link them to the sensitive issues facing Christians of their time, with the aim of providing practical solutions to protect and teach believers. They did not hesitate for a moment to analyze the parable of the sower in order to accurately identify contemporary and familiar heresies as the rocky and thorny land and to compare the gradation of good soil with the categories of Christians of their time (a typical example is the sermon of St. John Chrysostom “Concerning the sower who went out to reap...”).[3])

The interest of the Fathers is clearly focused on their contemporaries, and for this reason their interpretation approach starts from Christ and the apostles to their time, in contrast to modern research in the West in particular, where researchers search for the voice of Jesus himself (ipsissima vox jesu) through the texts and also through the group of the first listeners to whom Jesus addressed. . This backward path towards the first target and the first group of listeners has of course academic appreciation, however, the opposite path from the first group of listeners to the last listener, reader and talker, so to speak, also has additional educational value. This path receives the support of the Fathers who are, first and foremost, preachers and teachers of the congregation in the Church.

B- In addition to the organic connection of the Biblical text to their time, the interpreting fathers used the scientific knowledge of their time in order to understand the writings. This is what the Cappadocian Fathers emphasized in the fourth century, as is the case in Saint Basil’s wonderful work “The Six Days Hexaemeron,” which consists of a collection of morning and evening sermons delivered in Caesarea Cappadocia during the period of fasting in the year 370 AD. This patristic method of using scientific knowledge to better understand the Word of God has special significance in our time. On the one hand, the multitude of scientific and technological developments, if used correctly, can help interpret the Word of God within the realistic frameworks of our time, and on the other hand it shows how alien it is to the Orthodox tradition. The position of some pious people who consider that knowledge, even theological, is unnecessary and even contrary to faith and against faith. This position is completely opposite to the interpretive approach of the Fathers.
 
C- The interest of the interpreting fathers in linking the Gospel event to the problems of their time, in addition to their constant use of scientific knowledge for a clearer understanding, naturally led them to an existential interpretation of the Gospel message. In the same way that the writers of the Holy Books focused on humanity, meaning that God’s saving plan through Christ, previously announced in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament, is a plan linked to humanity and its salvation. Thus, in patristic thought and theology and thus in their evangelical interpretation, humanity and its troubling existential problems are a central point that cannot be overlooked.
As a typical example of this type of existential and humanistic interpretation, we can mention the interpretation of parables related to talking about the last day (judgment). Without neglecting the eschatological reality of these parables, the Fathers focus on the biological reality of the end of every human being's life and emphasize constant spiritual awareness in view of this end, lest humanity, especially believers, be taken unawares. St. John Chrysostom's interpretation of the parable of the watchful householder (Matthew 24:42-44) is a typical parable, as he considers the sudden coming of the Son of God to be interpreted as a symbol of the end of every human life.[4].

D- We can find a great diversity of interpretive patterns in the father himself and even in the work itself. This diversity demonstrates the validity of the patristic interpretive tradition. In addition, the interweaving of the multiple interpretive voices of the Fathers developed around a common theme: the Church's belief in the central event of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection and the consequences of this saving event experienced by every human being in the Church. Within this faith no multiplicity of voices is possible. However, within the context of different biblical themes, the intermingling of multiple voices is not only permissible, but necessary to highlight the richness of the Bible.

The aforementioned facts do not exhaust the breadth of the horizons of the patristic interpretation of the Bible, but they show at least four typical aspects of it and they deserve to be studied as references, not in the sense of an exact repetition of them today, but in the sense in which the contemporary interpreter must stand within the frameworks of the real problems of our time.

4- From the above-mentioned features of Orthodox biblical interpretation emerges the following result of the Church’s interpretive work: paving the way towards anything positive that God’s visible creation, creation and history, can offer, that is, accepting “all that is true, honorable, just, and pure, and all that is desirable and of good repute, and that which “virtuous and worthy of praise” according to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians (4:8). On the basis of this acceptance of the totality of created truth, the Church has introduced throughout the ages, without fear and hesitation, “everything that has been truthfully said by any human being,” in the words of Saint Justin.

An example of such a creative combination is the paving the way of the Fathers through the philosophical ideas of their time that are still used today as a clear guide. The Church has never hesitated to adopt everything that would express Christian truths in the field of arts and literature. In this context, the phrase of the Greek poet Menander (4th century AD) “There is an eye of justice, which watches all things”[5] For example, it was introduced without any problem into the iconostases of a number of Orthodox churches and expresses the omnipresence of God and His just rule.

In addition, today we can affirm that paving the way for interpretation towards the modern system brings more benefit to the Church than harm. Modern physics, molecular natural sciences, social research, and technological advances can be used to better understand God's Word in our time. The example of Saint Basil is ultimately very educational: “Resisting from reckless listening to theological talk, but rather scrutinizing every word and every letter to investigate the hidden meaning, is not the business of those who are lazy in piety, but rather those who know the purpose of their calling, because what is required of us is to imitate God according to the ability of human nature.” . But there is no imitation without knowledge, nor knowledge without teaching. …The truth is difficult to control, so we must trace it wherever it may be.”[6]. Nowadays, we can apply Saint Basil's expression (wherever he is, from every direction) in a fruitful way and within the multiple possibilities of this saying. His systematic interpretation of the Word of God cannot be applied only within narrow frameworks, without having a living connection with the spaces of knowledge occupied by other creatures of God.

5- From the heart of Orthodoxy emerges the principle of the priority of the text in relation to the interpreter. Awareness that the biblical text precedes the modern interpreter by several centuries, and that between the text and the interpreter there is the life of the Church and the honorable tradition, are two things that make the interpreter characterized by a spirit of humility and aware of his weaknesses. Self-confidence and blind fanaticism are alien to the Orthodox interpretation and interpreter. The task of the interpreter is to serve the truth and seek, through the Holy Spirit, to interpret the text in his time. In this way, he provides a service to the body of Christ while being aware that the truth is superior to him. On the contrary, when he employs the truth in his service, instead of being a servant of it, in pursuit of his own purposes, then he is not a servant of the body of Christ but only of himself. He must firstly sacrifice himself for the sake of the truth, when necessary of course (and this is what happened during the long decades of the Church’s life), and secondly he must sacrifice the truth.

B-The Church and the Gospel

All the main features of Orthodox biblical interpretation come together when its ecclesiastical foundations are acknowledged. But also according to modern scholastic research, especially with regard to the field of the Apostles and more precisely in their background, it is generally accepted, beyond the individual differences of research, that the church community and its traditions are at the top of the chronological order, with regard to time, compared to the writing of the Apostles and the rest of the books of the New Testament.

Accordingly, it is not right to emphasize the superiority and supremacy of the Gospel over the Church. On the other hand, the emphasis on the absolute authority of the Church over the Gospel is also unjustified. Exaggeration in either direction may create positions alien to Orthodoxy during the historical course of the Church.

Of course, the Church without the Gospel is like a ship without a rudder, and also the Gospel without the Church and outside of it remains unexplained. Within the Church, the interpretive work in the Holy Spirit guarantees the correctness of the interpretation, of course, provided that the interpreter carries out his important function accurately and in a research manner and not negligently, as recommended by the Second Canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. At the same time, we must not forget that the Church itself acknowledges and views the Gospel as a law that regulates the correct faith and lives of its members.

Saint John of Damascus writes in this regard: “Just as a tree planted by streams of water is also the soul that is watered by the Divine Book, and it is nourished and bears ripe fruit, I mean upright faith, and it flourishes with its evergreen leaves, by which I mean its works that are pleasing to God. If we follow the guidance of the Holy Bible, we will step on the path of virtuous biography and pure enlightenment, and we will find in it a reason for every virtue and an aversion to every vice.”5

C- Tradition and novelty

Those who today work in the field of the word and who are active in the field of the church and in the field of the academic system are increasingly aware of the need to revive the evangelical message and at the same time stress the importance of fidelity to tradition.

We must not confuse fidelity to tradition with fruitless conservatism and adherence to the immutable and rigid formalities of the past tense. In fact, fidelity to tradition requires its constant revival. Emptying traditional interpretations into a new form without any interaction and connection with modern reality remains a poor presentation of Orthodoxy and therefore does not serve the Christian Messenger much.

Behind the epithet of conservatism hides laziness, weakness, and even deficiency and lack of experience with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has not stopped working in the Church and illuminating its members since He established the entire institution of the Church.

“My Father works, and I also work,” Jesus says in (John 5:17). Likewise, the responsible interpreter and every conscious Christian also works actively to possess the revealed truth and the effects of the saving work of the Cross of Christ. Christian truth is an offering from God, revealed as a gift from Him, but it is also usurped from man. Whoever rejects inspiration and the manifestation of truth is, in fact, rejecting Christianity. He who does not accept the painstaking work of acquiring it rejects the worthiness of God's creation and rejects God Himself. In the field of biblical interpretation, this means that the Orthodox interpreter, on the one hand, accepts the legitimacy of his tradition and, on the other hand, does not reject the painstaking work of the latest scientific research, but after dealing critically with it, points to its positive achievements.

We have previously dealt with man's appropriation of the truth and his acquisition of it, because the Gospel is not a book of the past, but is present in every age, and the members of the Body of Christ who are living and constantly increasing, especially those with a special mission such as interpreters, for example, cannot, in the name of fidelity to tradition, evade the serious task of interpretation. Within the structure of their era and within contemporary data.

Father George Florovsky effectively analyzes this last feature of writing: “Revelation is preserved in the Church. Therefore, she is the original and primary interpreter of the revelation. Protected and strengthened by written words; Protect it but don't exhaust it. Human words are merely signs. The testimony of the Spirit brings life to the written words. We do not now mean the appropriate enlightenments of individuals from the Holy Spirit. But what we basically mean is the constant presence of the Spirit given to the church. This is the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). The writings need interpretation. The essence is the message, not the method of expression, and the Church is appointed by God and the constant witness to the truth and the full meaning of this message. Simply put, since the Church is the incarnate body of the Lord, she herself belongs to revelation.

The proclamation of the Apostles, the preaching of the Word of God, clearly belongs to the essence of the Church. The Church bears her witness, and this witness is not only a reference to the past, nor is it only a past memory, but rather it is a permanent discovery of the message once delivered to the saints and preserved ever since by faith. Moreover, this message is re-performed in the life of the Church. Christ himself is always present in the church, being the Redeemer and head of the body, and he continues his saving work in it. The Church not only proclaims salvation but precisely achieves it. Sacred history continues. God's great works are still being accomplished and are not restricted in the past, but are present and continuing in the Church and through her in the world. The church itself is an integral part of the New Testament message. It is itself part of the revelation and story of the “perfect Christ” and the Holy Spirit, as Saint Augustine calls it. The absolute end has not yet come, and the New Testament is lived out truly and fully only within the experience of the Church. The history of the Church is a salvific history. The truth of Scripture is revealed and preserved by the growth of the body.”[7]

Based on the above-mentioned facts, we can conclude that the theory of interpretation and the performance of the Orthodox Church were and still are intertwined with the endeavors and challenges of each era, always according to what is appropriate. The traditional interpretation of the Gospel is imprinted, like other works of the Fathers and their various expressions (such as writing hymns, painting icons, servants, etc.), and it clearly contains within itself the historical dimension in addition to the embodiment of scientific knowledge and all the special features we mentioned, because the Orthodox interpretation of the Gospel was always in harmony with the requirements of its time. . Of course, this does not mean that he was deducing his content from every era, but rather he was deducing it from the church and its head, which is Christ. Rather, it means that it was neither reasonable nor acceptable for the church not to take the vital needs of its era into account. The same applies to the most prominent contemporary problems, such as war and peace, hunger and luxury, loneliness and society, the misappreciation of women in some societies and the excessive theories of gender equality in others, and so on. These problems cannot remain outside the scope of the interpreter’s attention, and if they do, he will no longer complete his work as he should, that is, in an orthodox way, and thus he finds himself outside the scope of the cultural development of his era.

Change is a major feature of every age while the feature of the gospel message is consistency. However, the variable does not constitute theology but rather causes the intervention of theology. On the other hand, the stable foundation of the Gospel, strongly experienced in the life of the Church, of course constituted theology. But this theology remains ineffective unless the conditions of the changing times are taken into serious consideration.

Orthodox biblical interpretation takes seriously the historical, social, cultural and various circumstances of the interpreter's time into account, and for this very reason it is traditional. In addition, since it derives its content from living tradition, it complements this tradition by being contemporary and by not ignoring the problems of each era.

Written by: Professor John Krafidopoulos
Arabization: Father George Barbari

Footnotes

[1] T.Stylianopoulos, Bread for life. Reading the Bible, 1980, 13f

[2] The author of this study is happy to participate in this volume in honor of Professor Otfried Hofius who has very profound knowledge of the orthodox tradition as well as of contemporary Orthodox interpretation of the Holy Scripture

 [3] PG 61, 774f

[4] PG58, 705, Theophylactos PG 123, 420 and Euthymios Zigavinos PG129, 628 and others interpreted this biblical text in the same vein. 

[5] Menandri Sententiae,ed.S.Jaekel, Leipzig, 1964, 45

[6] St Basil the Great, Liber de Spiritu Sancto 1,2, in: PG 32, 67-218: engl. transl. by the Rev.Blomfield Jackson, A Select Library of Nicene and post- Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol.8, 1968, 2.

[7] G. Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, 1972, 25f