Journal of Theological Interpretation (2022)

Since the fourth century, Mark 13:32/Matthew 24:36 have regularly been taken in hand as evidence of Jesus’ ignorance and used to advance subordinationist, kenotic, or Ebionite Christological agendas. Meanwhile, modern biblical scholars regularly use patristic commentary on this passage as evidence that the classical Christian tradition advanced ahistorical, docetic eisegesis. In this essay, I consider patristic commentary on this pericope to show that these criticisms are unwarranted.

Modern Theology (2020)

Albert Schweitzer wrote that, at Chalcedon, the “doctrine of the two natures dissolved the unity of the Person, and thereby cut off the last possibility of a return to the historical Jesus.” In this article, I argue that a likely cause of this pervasive perception of Chalcedon is the reflexive deployment by modern thinkers of a Lockean concept of personhood grounded in consciousness.

Scottish Journal of Theology (2019)

This article argues that the quests for the historical Jesus have largely operated with an understanding of history hindered by a severely constricted range of divine and human possibilities. It suggests ways that metaphysical and theological forms of reasoning could expand the horizon of possibilities available to historical Jesus scholarship in a way that will augment access to the historical figure of Jesus.

Crux (2015)

In this article I argue that the doctrine of the eternal generation served for both earlier (Origen) and later (Nicaea) Christology as the biblically ordained language through which the church was enabled to speak truly about the unity and distinction of the Father and Son, securing the status of the Son as equal in divinity with the Father while differentiating the two in ways that upheld biblical revelation.