Theodore Hiebert’s interpretation of Genesis 11:1-9 as a story of the origins of cultural difference resulted in several responses which critiqued his reading and reasserted the traditional reading of the passage as a story of human pride and divine punishment. In the following article, I combine two threads of Hiebert’s interpretation and his respondents: language and background understanding. Specifically, I compare two views of language on offer in the modern world, illustrate how they may shape the interpretation of Genesis 11:1-9 and argue that the minority view provides a framework which better makes sense of the passage.

This paper considers Hans Boersma's analysis of Bonaventure's account of the beatific vision in his book Seeing God: The Beatific Vision in Christian Tradition. Boersma disputes Bonaventure's claim in his Itinerarium Mentis in Deum that mystical union with God in this life takes place via the will and not the intellect, arguing that union with God must always produce union of the intellect and will. However, Boersma's consideration of the Itinerarium fails to take into account Bonaventure's other works, particularly his Commentary on the Gospel of John, in which he states that the beatific vision does unify the intellect and will, but that sin's effect on the faculties makes the intellect unable to experience union with God in this life. This closer look at Bonaventure's thought shows that Boersma needs a stronger account of the intellect and will to critique Bonaventure effectively.

While the introductory role of Prov 1:1–7 is well recognised, its relationship to subsequent sections has received less attention. This essay argues that Prov 1:1–7 introduces, not the entire book, but specifically the first collection in chapters 1–9. Building on Arthur Keefer's analysis, it posits that a single audience, ‘the wise’ in v. 5, is exhorted to listen to instruction and thereby acquire a sense of direction, with the expectation that, in doing so, they will be equipped to attain three primary aims: (1) to enhance understanding oriented towards the fear of Yhwh, (2) to cultivate moral virtue and (3) to instruct the next generation to do likewise. The introduction's programmatic function is then demonstrated as these aims are traced throughout the first collection.

The distinction between God's absolute power and ordained power was a hallmark of medieval theology, yet its role within Reformed theology has rarely been considered. Even more importantly, consideration of the distinction in Reformed theology by historians is often restricted to theology proper or the nature and necessity of the atonement with little regard for how the concept can inform the question of the extent of the atonement. This paper seeks to fill this lacuna by considering two influential Reformed theologians of the seventeenth century: John Davenant and John Owen. While considerable attention has been given to the distinctly Thomist influence on these two theologians in particular, this paper seeks to qualify these legitimate assessments with the following conclusion: Davenant and Owen both understand the two-powers distinction in a way that differs from Aquinas and reflects a shift in the concept in late medieval theology.

Ambrose of Milan's hymn, ‘Splendor paternae gloriae’, uses metaphors of the sun and light to invoke the Trinity and invite God's sanctifying work. Ambrose's depiction of the Godhead in terms of the sun and its light demonstrates his careful engagement with traditional Christian metaphors, traditions which he carefully rearranges to align with his view of the Trinity. His representation of God's sanctifying activity illustrates the Trinity's inseparable operations, a central focus of his pro-Nicene works. These features suggest that Ambrose intended this hymn to serve as a confessio Trinitatis, perhaps amid the bishop's conflicts with anti-Nicene factions in Milan.

This article offers a hermeneutical account of ambiguity using Luke and Acts as an extended case study. After discussing the difficulties in identifying purposeful ambiguity in biblical texts, verbal ambiguity is distinguished from ambiguity beyond the sentence level, such as ambiguities of plot or character. Instead of approaching ambiguity primarily as a failure of language or a problem to be solved, this article offers a framework for thinking about ambiguity as an invitation to read a text from multiple angles. The discussion is illustrated throughout with a series of examples taken from Luke and Acts. I close with reflections on how this approach to ambiguity is helpful when reading scripture against different cultural contexts and in the study of New Testament Christology.