Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this article I seek to show in what manner the Stoic principle of total blending, illustrated by the example of the penetration of fire into iron, finds its refraction in Byzantine Christological teachings. According to the Stoics, total blending occurs when one body accepts certain qualities of the other, while remaining itself, or when both mixed bodies acquire qualities of each other while preserving their natures. I argue that Origen’s use of the example of incandescent iron had an effect on the later theological discourse. There it appears in two contexts, Christology and deification. In this article the focus is on Christology. I claim that the example was introduced into the Christological discourse by Apollinarius of Laodicea. Then, I investigate how it was transformed in later theological writings by (Ps.-) Basil of Caesarea, Theodoret of Cyrus, Cyril of Alexandria, Sever of Antioch, John of Damascus, and the Corpus Leontianum. In this context, I pay special attention to the discrepancy between John of Damascus and Leontius of Jerusalem as regards the issue of the complexity of Christ’s hypostasis. I clarify the causes of this discrepancy.

The key question proposed by this study is: how do the language and motifs in the Son-Father logion (Matt. 11:25-27; Luke 10:21-22) relate to the Fourth Gospel's representation of the Son-Father relationship? This study aims to provide the answer by defining the Son-Father relational pattern. The pattern delineates the Son-Father relationship in the Son-Father logion as it corresponds to that of John. The core methodology of this study is the comparative analysis of the logion, which consists of two parts. First, by locating each logion of Matthew and Luke in their context and comparing the results with the Fourth Gospel. Second, by analysing the four motifs in the Son-Father logion (the Son, the Father, knowledge, revelation) with these motifs in other ancient literature. The key findings of this study are twofold: (1) if the Son-Father logion is viewed in terms of the Son-Father relational pattern, the tendency to emphasise divergence between the Synoptic tradition and Johannine tradition is lessened; and (2) if the Son-Father logion is demonstrated to be a point of commonality between John and the Synoptics, the greater comparability between John's Christology and Synoptics' Christology seems more plausible than the model of Christological development from Synoptics to John. Therefore, this study concludes that: (1) the Son-Father logion in Matthew/Luke and the Fourth Gospel itself are distinct from other parts of the Synoptic gospels and other primary texts because the Son-Father relational pattern only occurs in the logion and in John; and (2) all comparative analyses of the four motifs in the logion illustrate a close similarity with that of John, in contrast to the divergence in each concept between the primary texts and John. Thus, the affirmation of continuity between the Jesus traditions, when looking at the Son-Father relational pattern, is supported by this study.

This article explores the theological question, “If man had not sinned, would Christ still be incarnate?”, by comparing the thought of John Duns Scotus and Francis Turretin. It first traces the influence and reinterpretation of Scotus’ Christological ontology within Reformed orthodoxy, highlighting scholarly debates over his legacy. For Scotus, incarnation was about Christ serving as the ontological foundation and ultimate mediator betweenGod and creation. By contrast, Turretin appropriates epistemological distinctions from Scotus but reframes them through the lens of covenant theology. For Turretin, the incarnation is necessitated by the fall, and Christ’s role as mediator is soteriological, focused on restoring the covenantal bond. Through a comparative analysis of ontology, epistemology, and Christology, this article demonstrates a theological shift from Scotus’ Christcentred ontology to Turretin’s covenantal ontology. It concludes that, for Turretin, the incarnation is a redemptive response to human sin, marking Christ’s fundamentaloffice as mediator between creator and creature.

Despite the scholarly consensus according to which, to the apostle Paul, Christ was a pre-existent being, that can hardly be considered the only possible interpretation of his thought. In this article, I propose a reading of six passages from his authentic letters in light of the hypothesis of adoptionist Christology. This work puts forward two considerations: on the one hand, arguing for an incarnation Christology imposes on the text a theology that was only later developed; on the other hand, whereas the perspective of incarnation raises contradictions with the overall Pauline thought, adoptionism provides a more consistent understanding of the same. Should this hypothesis be correct, it also presents a more plausible framework for the origin and evolution of the early Christian movement. encarnacionista impõe ao texto uma teologia que se desenvolveu apenas mais tarde; por outro lado, enquanto a perspetiva da encarnação parece apresentar contradições com o pensamento paulino, a da adoção providencia uma compreensão coerente do mesmo. Caso esta hipótese esteja correta, ela apresenta igualmente um enquadramento mais plausível para a origem e evolução do nascente movimento cristão.  

This thesis evaluates the claims of some modern scholars who have contended that the response of the Carolingians to Hispanic Felicianism, by assuming Chalcedonian parameters, is misplaced and based on a problematic misreading of Felician Christology. I agree with the general defence of the Felician Christology offered by John Cavadini, but argue that his conclusion, that because Pope Hadrian and Alcuin misrepresented Felicianism the allegation of Nestorianism does not hold, should be rejected. An analysis of Iberian Christological sources antedating the Felician controversy will be used to demonstrate that the Spanish theological tradition highly valued the Chalcedonian position. This, then, clears the way to argue that the Carolingian's Chalcedonian approach to the Felicians is quite warranted. The interactions of Paulinus and Benedict with Felicianism elucidate that they substantially understood Felician Christology but that an accusation of Nestorianism nevertheless holds. Moreover, the intimate knowledge of Felicianism also becomes evident in the fact that, for Paulinus and Benedict, Felicianism could also be understood as a form of Arianism. However, Agobard's work shows that Felicianism around 818 is more unambiguously Nestorian. Regarding the Carolingians' own Christologies, this thesis suggests that a Neo-Chalcedonian reading of Chalcedon inspired their Christological programme and that attempts are made to unite this Cyrillian description and understanding of Christ with the sensibilities of those in the West. It highlights and discusses the idiosyncracies of each thinker in their own right and shows how these particular methods are employed to counter the Felician notion that Christ, secundum humanitatem, should be considered as an adoptivus Filius Dei.

Yet the agreement between verb and noun is often assumed rather than demonstrated.4 Indeed, it is quite possible for the two terms to bear different forces: one could be taken more positively, and the other more negatively.5 Matthew 11:12 may intend a contrast between the negative image of the βιασταί and the positive image of the kingdom of heaven that advances despite the efforts of the βιασταί to stop it. Modernday translations can go either way, though they typically understand the noun negatively and the verb to be in the passive voice.6 Recent scholarship on Matthew seems more divided on the issue.7 These are difficult exegetical questions, but I aim to shed light on Matthew 11:12 and the surrounding context by considering a possible OT background to this verse that has rarely been brought to the fore. [...]βιάζεται in Matthew 11:12 is best understood as present middle (rather than present passive), indicating that the eschatological kingdom of heaven is, through Jesus, breaking through against violent opposition in the present age. [...]I show the biblical rationale for relating the term βιάζω to the Hebrew root ... in view of Micah 2:13, which speaks of an eschatological kingdom breakthrough. [...]I argue that David's victory at Baal-Perazim (2 Sam 5; 1 Chr 14)-a location that features this same Hebrew root-provides an important precedent for a consequential kingdom breakthrough against opposition. The reference to David in the opening phrasing of Matthew also leads seamlessly into the discussion of Jesus's royal birth as the fulfillment of the prophetic word to King Ahaz (1:18-23, note 1:20: ...), his birth in Bethlehem (2:1), the threat he posed to King Herod (2:1-12), and his proclamation of the kingdom of heaven (4:17).

This article investigates the of the of the eucharist in the thought of Thomas Aquinas, attempting to fill a lacuna in eucharistic theology. It proceeds from the questions on Christ’s in the and the of the , with a short synthesis arguing that Christ exists by one . Then, it argues that the eucharist exists by this same by answering two possible objections, taken from the many instances of the eucharist across the globe and Christ’s unique mode of sacramental presence, to the eucharist only having this one

In this paper I will address the question whether Aquinas’ political analogy can be properly applied to Christ as having political or despotic rule over his passions. I will argue that a close reading of various texts of Aquinas, especially the more mature Compendium of Theology, leads to the conclusion that Jesus’ reason exercised a despotic rule over his passions, not a political rule. His propassions were totally under the control of his reason and could not resist it; they did not retain “something of their own”, which is the ability to resist reason. The case of Mary’s passions in the writings of Aquinas make this point even more clear.

Christians, from Jerusalem to Jakarta and from the 1st to the 21st century, worship the same Jesus. However, the way that Jesus has been depicted throughout history and throughout different cultures has not been monolithic. The reason for discontinuity can be varied. One reason beneath the different descriptions of Jesus inhabits the issue of methodology. By “methodology,” I mean the ways people make sense of Jesus and present him to others. Generally, there are two main approaches to the study of Christology: “from below” and “from above”. This article explores the concept of Christology “from below,” examining its historical development, assessing its theological assumptions, and investigating its contextual applications in the global context to cultivate some biblical principles for ongoing contextual theological conversations.

This article explores two questions: (1) What obstacles does the Christology of the Council of Nicaea pose for communicating faith today? (2) What does it mean that the Council of Nicaea, with its ontologically charged Christology, finally separated itself from Judaism? In the course of the investigation, it becomes clear how closely the two questions are related. The aim of the essay is to provide assistance for the inculturation of a biblically based Christian faith in postmodernity by rediscovering the relevance for faith of the fact that “Jesus is a Jew and always will be” (Pope John Paul II). The essay therefore argues strictly from a biblical perspective. It warns urgently against sophistical Christological disputes far away from life experiences. It asks what ‘truth’ is and warns against the appropriation of truth in the question of power. Against this background, the denominational differentiation of Christianity can also be viewed positively as a return to the plurality of the beginnings. Finally, two examples are used to illustrate the need for ontological disarmament in Christology and to provide a strictly biblical justification for this: (1) Who is Jesus, the Anointed One of God (= Christ): “God of God, very God of very God” (Creed of the Council of Nicaea) or “the image of God” (vgl. 2 Cor 4,4; Col 1,15; Jn 14,9), symbol of God’s faithfulness? (2) How is the unity of God the Father and Jesus, his Anointed One, to be understood: ontologically or as a functional unity?