Doctrine, Opinion and Interpretation (1970)

Source: Bishop Epiphanius: A Face Shining with Love, edited by the School of Alexandria (Cairo, Egypt: G. C. Centre, 2018): 539–548.

Arabic PDF
Bishop Epiphanius delivered this lecture at a conference in al-Ma‘adi in 2017. It is a close study of three central terms in doctrinal theology: (1) dogma, (2) opinion or theologoumenon, and (3) interpretation. The footnotes are all original except for the final one, marked “Translator’s Note.” The translation and original text were produced in co-operation with the Monastery of St Macarius.

Doctrine, Opinion and Interpretation[1]This lecture was delivered at the Institute of Doctrine (Ma‘had al-‘aqīda), Al-Ma‘adī in 2017.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, there began a general movement of renewal in the ecclesiastical understanding among both Eastern and Western scholars. This movement necessarily included liturgical understanding. The main conclusion arrived at by this movement of general ecclesiastical understanding was that the Church is not dogma alone, but also and more fundamentally, activity, work, prayer, and deep, lively spiritual and social service. As a result, worship becomes the starting point for understanding the Church, and the study of the Church becomes a starting point for worship.[2]Fr Matthew the Poor, The Eucharist and the Liturgy (2000), p. 25.

For this reason, any doctrinal study must include an understanding of the life of ecclesiastical worship, for sound spiritual life in the Church rests on sound doctrine, and the declaration of sound doctrine is one of the practices of the living Church.

The Christian Faith consists of two parts:

The first half is the theological, doctrinal, ecclesial and universal faith, expressed by St Paul in these terms: “Till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:13). It is the content of the revelations expressed by Christ concerning the nature of His person, His relationship with the Father, His powers and authority; and a summation of what is delineated in the Four Gospels concerning the nature of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the one, consubstantial and self-existent Holy Trinity. This is combined with what has been set down in general in the Church’s theology through the recognised Ecumenical Councils (the Creed), and the official ecclesial, patristic tradition the Church has received, which is recognised in the Church and moves within its boundaries (the sacraments of the Church).

— 539 —

The second half is the personal faith that the believer expresses concerning his particular relationship with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the extent of his reliance upon God and Christ and the action of the Holy Spirit in his thinking, conduct and words, and the extent of his witness to Christ before others in his works, conduct and speech.[3]Fr Matthew the Poor, How Should We Build Ourselves Upon our Holy Faith?, 1st edn, (2000), pp. 3–4. This half is governed by many laws, of which the most important is the extent of the conformity of the definition of the second half upon a person’s conduct and spiritual life.

Having established this spiritual definition of what faith consists of, we can now look at the linguistic definition of doctrine, theologumenon and interpretation.

1. Between Doctrine and Heresy

The etymology of the word ‘doctrine’:

The Greek word dogma is derived from the verb dokein which means, to seem, or to view, or to think, or to believe. In ancient Greek, it bore the following meanings:

  1. What a man personally believes; what he deems correct.
  2. What seems correct from the perspective of official authorities; here it bears the meaning of a decree or a law.
  3. A philosopher’s teaching or philosophical view, which his disciples and followers ought to believe in.

Later on, the technical sense of dogma evolved from this third meaning. This is more or less the meaning that meets us in the pages of the New Testament; the fathers adopted this third meaning and began to explain Christian doctrine in opposition to pagan doctrine. Hence, doctrine (dogma) took on its ecclesial definition in the fathers, especially in the saints Basil the Great and John Chrysostom,

— 540 —
namely, that doctrine is the truth announced through Christ to the Church, and it therefore transcends our human way of thinking. That is to say, doctrine is subject to God’s revelation to humanity, and not just to human thought and wisdom in the systematic arrangement of ideas.[4]“Dogma,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 4, pp. 647–48.

The Greek word dogma occurs five times in the New Testament, and is translated in the Van Dyck Arabic version into four different words. From these verses, we can glean the fundamental meaning of the word:

And it came to pass in those days that a decree (dogma) went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. (Lk 2:1)
And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees (dogma) to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. (Acts 16:4)
Jason has harboured them, and these are all acting contrary to the decrees (dogma) of Caesar, saying there is another king—Jesus. (Acts 17:7)
… having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances (dogmata), so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace. (Eph 2:15)
… having wiped out the handwriting of requirements (dogmata) that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (Col 2:14)
The verb that comes from the word dogma occurs once in the New Testament:
Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations (dogmatizomai)? (Col 2:20)

— 541 —

In the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament however, the word occurs 18 times, all of them in the later Greek books (Daniel, 3 and 4 Maccabees).

It is also used frequently in the writings of the fathers, where it means view, doctrine or faith, and in accordance with the book of Acts which applies the word to the commands or decisions promulgated by the council of Jerusalem, the word was applied to the canons promulgated by the church councils.

We cannot confine doctrine in the New Testament or the writings of the fathers to the word ‘dogma’ alone, because there are words used more frequently to refer to doctrine, such as faith (pistis) or teaching (didaskalia or didachē), which were used to denote statements of faith such as:

‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.’ (Eph 4:5)
‘But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit’ (Jude 20)
‘[I] write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3)
‘And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine (didachē) and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.’ (Acts 2:42)
‘… holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught (didachē), that he may be able, by sound doctrine (didaskalia), both to exhort and convict those who contradict.’ (Ti 1:9)

— 542 —

‘But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine (didaskalia)’ (Ti 2:1)

In view of the use of the word dogma for the ecclesial and conciliar canons, this word became the one used to refer to doctrine, which is matched in European languages by the word doctrine/doktrin (from a Latin root) that bears the same meaning. The word took on a special force because it expresses the true faith in distinction from the unsound faith of the heretics. It became necessary for an orthodox Christian to believe all the teachings that are classified under the term ‘doctrine’.

Heresy and Schism

The words schisma (schism) and hairesis (heresy) are both used in the New Testament, but not with the technical definitions with which the Church employed them later. The word schisma (“splitting”) and the verb schizō in the New Testament are used to describe the splitting of the veil of the Temple (Mt 27:51) or the tearing of garments (Lk 5:36) or the divergent views within the Church of Corinth (1 Cor. 1:10; 11:18; 12:25). As far as the Fathers are concerned, the first one to use it was Saint Irenaeus with the meaning of a separation from the body of the Catholic Church.

Similarly, the verb haireomai occurs in Ancient Greek with the meaning of “to choose,” that is, to choose a teaching or a school of thought. This meaning is apparent in St Paul the Apostle: “My manner of life … all the Jews know. They knew me from the first, if they were willing to testify, that according to the strictest sect (hairesin) of our religion I lived a Pharisee” (Acts 26:4–5).

See also:

— 543 —

Then the high priest rose up, and all those who were with him (which is the sect [hairesis] of the Sadducees), and they were filled with indignation. (Acts 5:17)

But some of the sect (haireseōs) of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:5)

When the Jewish orator Tertullus referred to Christianity as a sect of Nazarenes (Nazaraiōn haireseōs, Acts 24:5), he meant that they were a faction within Judaism. The same meaning is found in the words of the Jews of Rome: ‘… concerning this sect (haireseōs), we know that it is spoken against everywhere’ (Acts 28:22); and the words the Apostle Paul: ‘… according to the Way which they call a sect …’ (Acts 24:14).

When Paul uses this word in a Christian context, he uses it with a negative meaning, to describe a group that is trying to divide the church:

… idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies (haireseis) (Gal 5:20)

For there must also be factions (haireseis) among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. (1 Cor 11:19)

However, it is St Peter’s use of the word that is the beginning of its contemporary usage:

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies (haireseis apōleias),

— 544 —

even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. (2 Pt 2:1)

In the thought of the Church Fathers, beginning from the second century, heresy came to mean: deviation from the teaching of the orthodox, catholic Church. It differs from schism, which does not come about for doctrinal reasons, but from erroneous church practices which lead to a schism of the Church. Heresy is against doctrine, but schism is against the ecclesial love. Heresy became not only an error of expression, or a point of view, but rather referred to a person or organised group that embraces wrong teaching that is against the teaching delivered to the Church, thus separating itself from the body of the universal church.

2. Opinion

Opinion (gnōmē) refers to a particular point of view on certain matters in the Church, but which does not rise to the level of doctrine. We can define the word ‘opinion’ from the way it is used in the New Testament, especially in the writings of St Paul the Apostle:

Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy. I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress—that it is good for a man to remain as he is: Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. (1 Cor 7:25–27)

But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment—and I think I also have the Spirit of God. (1 Cor 7:40)

— 545 —

And in this I give advice: It is to your advantage not only to be doing what you began and were desiring to do a year ago (2 Cor 8:10)

The word gnōmē (opinion) occurs in the writings of the fathers with many meanings: it can mean ‘mind’, or refer to opinion, doctrine, faith or perspective, or to the will, and also to decisions and decrees and canons and advices.

The opinions of the Church Fathers differed on many issues of faith that do not fit in the category of doctrine.[5]Western studies apply the term theologoumena to those religious opinions which do not rise to the level of doctrine. It is close in meaning to the word “opinion,” but it is not used in our Church. According to the opinion of most, a theologoumenon is a theological opinion that does not contradict the Church’s doctrine, but on which the fathers do not agree, and which no Ecumenical Council has made any decree about. For example: when does the human spirit come into a fetus? And is it born of both parents (as St Augustine supposed), or is created anew in every case (as St Jerome supposed), or created from eternity (as the Scholar Origen supposed)? There was a debate between Saints Jerome and Augustine, and they differed in opinion. The problem here was linked to abortion and the inheritance of sin. Another question on which interpreters differed was: what is the nature of the body and blood in the Mystery of the Eucharist? Does it undergo a “transubstantiation” (as per the Catholic Church),[6]The Byzantine Church accepted this term (metousiōsis) in the seventeenth century at the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672, but subsequently avoided using it. In the agreement between the Catholic and Anglican Churches of 1971, {the Catholic Church} began to abandon the term somewhat, and it was said that the transformation was “mysterious and radical.” or a mystical change (as per the Orthodox Church)? Then there are the opinions of the different modern denominations: is [the Eucharist] the Real Presence of the Lord Jesus (Luther, consubstantiation), or does it point symbolically to Christ’s presence according to the faith of the communicant (Zwingli), or is it merely a way of partaking in a commemoration (as per most modern Protestant denominations)?

One of the most famous issues on which the fathers and interpreters differed is the nature of

— 546 —

life after death and the waiting place of the spirits. Many problems are linked with this issue, such as the salvation of children and pious people after the incarnation whom the faith of Christ did not reach …

3. Interpretation

The word hermēneia occurs with the meaning of an explanation or translation:

Then Jesus turned, and seeing them following, said to them, “What do you seek?” They said to Him, “Rabbi,” which is to say, when translated (methermēneuomenon), Teacher), “where are You staying?” (Jn 1:38)

To another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation (hermēneia) of tongues (1 Cor 12:10)

How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation (hermēneian). Let all things be done for edification. (1 Cor 14:26)

This word occurs in the writings of the fathers with the meaning of ‘interpretation’, especially the interpretation of Holy Scripture, and also the meaning of translation (especially the Septuagint translation), and sometimes with the meaning of a dictionary. It has passed into modern languages as “hermeneutics,” the science of interpretation. As we know, there are schools of interpretation, whether symbolic or historical or spiritual or literal or contemplative …

From the above, it is clear that doctrine is binding upon all to believe, and to act in accordance with it, while an opinion is a point of view on some matters in the Church in the interpretation of doctrine; the fathers disagreed on many opinions. Interpretation, for the Church Fathers, is the explanation of the Holy Scripture, according to what the Holy Spirit gives to the interpreter, and the capacity of the interpreter
 
— 547 —

and the receiver, and also according to the circumstances of time and place. The Church accepted the different interpretations of the fathers on the condition that the interpretation did not contradict the teachings and tradition of the Church. There is no room at all for disagreement about doctrine, but there is no problem with differences in opinion and interpretation.

Example 1: In the story of Saul’s visit to the Witch of Endor to call up the spirit of Samuel the prophet (1 Sam 28). Who was it that appeared to Saul? Was it the spirit of Samuel, or an evil spirit? The fathers disagreed in their interpretations. Many fathers rejected the idea that what appeared was the spirit of Samuel, such as Hippolytus, Tertullian and St Basil the Great.

But take note that this opinion contradicted the book of Jesus ben Sirach which says of Samuel the prophet: “Even after he had fallen asleep he prophesied and revealed to the king his death, and lifted up his voice out of the earth in prophecy, to blot out the wickedness of the people.” (Sir 46:19, RSV).

Example 2: Was the star that appeared to the Magi (Mt 2:1–6) a true star or an angel? St John Chrysostom supposed that it was an angel that appeared to them in order to show them the way, and the same opinion was held by St Bulus al-Bushi. The Scholar Origen thought that it was a real star. The question then becomes: if it was an angel, what is the reason the Bible did not say clearly: “An angel of the Lord appeared to them in the form of a star”?

Example 3: Did Judas receive communion? The fathers are divided in their answers to this question. Some of them supported the idea that Judas received communion, such as saints Chrysostom and Augustine, while others denied it. In the Liturgy of St Basil which is prayed on Covenant Thursday in the Chalcedonian Orthodox churches, it says: “Judas is truly a brood of those vipers who ate manna in the wilderness and murmured against the Provider; for while the food was still in their mouths, the ungrateful spoke against God; and he, the impiouss, holding in his mouth the heavenly Bread, plotted against the Saviour, how to betray Him.”[7]Translator’s Note: English translation from Fr Seraphim Dedes (ed.), Vesperal Liturgy on Thursday Morning (Charlotte, NC, 2015), 9.

— 548 —

Notes:

Notes:
↑1 This lecture was delivered at the Institute of Doctrine (Ma‘had al-‘aqīda), Al-Ma‘adī in 2017.
↑2 Fr Matthew the Poor, The Eucharist and the Liturgy (2000), p. 25.
↑3 Fr Matthew the Poor, How Should We Build Ourselves Upon our Holy Faith?, 1st edn, (2000), pp. 3–4.
↑4 “Dogma,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 4, pp. 647–48.
↑5 Western studies apply the term theologoumena to those religious opinions which do not rise to the level of doctrine. It is close in meaning to the word “opinion,” but it is not used in our Church. According to the opinion of most, a theologoumenon is a theological opinion that does not contradict the Church’s doctrine, but on which the fathers do not agree, and which no Ecumenical Council has made any decree about.
↑6 The Byzantine Church accepted this term (metousiōsis) in the seventeenth century at the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672, but subsequently avoided using it. In the agreement between the Catholic and Anglican Churches of 1971, {the Catholic Church} began to abandon the term somewhat, and it was said that the transformation was “mysterious and radical.”
↑7 Translator’s Note: English translation from Fr Seraphim Dedes (ed.), Vesperal Liturgy on Thursday Morning (Charlotte, NC, 2015), 9.

How to cite this text (Chicago/Turabian):

Epiphanius (Bishop). “Doctrine, Opinion and Interpretation.” In Bishop Epiphanius: A Face Shining with Love, edited by the School of Alexandria, 539–548. Cairo, Egypt: G. C. Centre, 2018. Translated by Samuel Kaldas and edited by Br. Markos al-Makari Archive of Contemporary Coptic Orthodox Theology. Sydney, NSW: St Cyril’s Coptic Orthodox Theological College. https://accot.stcyrils.edu.au/epiph-doct/.

(For more information, see Citation Guidelines)