Dogmatics as an Interpretation of the Bible
Author: His Eminence John Zizioulas, Metropolitan of Pergamum
The issue of hermeneutics is crucial not only for dogmas but also for the Bible itself. Essentially, they present the same challenge. Without interpretation, the Bible remains a lifeless text, just as dogmas become mere historical artifacts if they are not continuously interpreted. In fact, dogmas are themselves an interpretation of the Bible.
The Two Aspects of Interpretation
Interpreting dogmas or Scripture involves two key aspects:
A) Understanding the Historical Context
To interpret dogmas or the Bible correctly, one must first understand the historical circumstances in which they were formulated. This requires answering key questions:
– What challenges did the Church face at that particular time?
– What traditions—written or oral—were available to address these challenges? Each council took previous tradition into account.
– What vocabulary and philosophical concepts were used in that historical and cultural context? For instance, the term consubstantial (ομοούσιος), central in the 4th century, does not appear in the New Testament. Later centuries introduced different theological concepts.
– What spiritual experiences—such as worship practices, ascetic traditions, or theological disputes—shaped the formulation of dogma (e.g., New Testament testimony, the veneration of icons in the Seventh Ecumenical Council, or hesychasm)?
A sound historical foundation is essential for interpretation, as misinterpretation arises when historical realities are misunderstood. Just as one cannot interpret Scripture without an accurate historical study, the same applies to dogmas. A good theologian must also be a competent historian.
B) Addressing Contemporary Issues
Secondly, interpretation must relate to the present:
– Identifying new heresies or fundamental questions impacting humanity, including issues related to technology, ecology, or modern religious movements (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses).
– Understanding the terminology and philosophical categories used today. The Church Fathers were contemporaries of their time and did not rigidly adhere to the wording of the New Testament; rather, they introduced terms like consubstantial to express dogmatic truth.
– Recognizing how the Church’s liturgical and ascetic life, while retaining its essence, has evolved in form and emphasis. For instance, martyrdom in the early Church, hesychastic prayer, or the influence of monastic practices on public worship have shaped theological interpretation over time.
A good theologian should not only be an accomplished historian but also have philosophical insight and pastoral sensitivity. Understanding contemporary philosophy, engaging with the real concerns of people, and knowing the Church’s liturgical and canonical life are all essential in interpreting dogma. Since no single person can master every field, theologians must stay informed about the latest scholarly research.
The Relationship Between Dogmas and Scripture
The relationship between dogma and Scripture is fundamentally hermeneutical.
Following the Reformation, Western theologians debated whether divine revelation had one or two sources—Scripture alone (sola scriptura, as the Protestants insisted) or Scripture along with Church Tradition (as the Roman Catholics maintained). This debate entered Orthodox theology through the “Orthodox Confessions” of the 16th century, whose answers varied depending on Western theological influences (e.g., Peter Mogila inclined toward Catholicism, while Cyril Lucaris leaned toward Calvinism).
However, Orthodoxy differs from the West in two crucial ways:
1. Revelation Is Personal, Not Merely Rational
In Orthodox tradition, revelation is always personal—God revealed Himself to Abraham, Moses, the Apostles, and the Church Fathers. Therefore, the idea of “new revelations” or additions to revelation (as in John Henry Newman’s theory of developing doctrine) does not apply.
2. Truth Is a Relationship, Not Merely Propositional Knowledge
In the West, Scripture and Church doctrine have often been objectified as “repositories” of truth. In Orthodoxy, however, both Scripture and the Church serve as witnesses to the existential experience of truth. Truth is not simply about logical statements but about relationships—between God, humanity, and creation.
For example, knowledge of the Trinity is not merely intellectual; it is existential. One does not truly know the Trinity by merely accepting that God is triune but by participating in the life of the Triune God. A simple believer, through life in the Church, may “know” and experience the Trinity more deeply than a scholar who studies it merely intellectually.
Revelation as a Personal Encounter
If revelation is primarily an existential and relational experience, then the Scriptures, which testify to this revelation, contain the full essence of divine revelation. However, the manner of revelation has differed throughout history:
– In the Old
Leave a Reply