MTh theses

Abstract reads : "In classical Reformed dogmatics the holiness of God has been understood as referring simultaneously to the ontological transcendence and moral purity of the divine being, locating it as an attribute inherently proper to the immanent Trinity. Current systematics, influenced by the contributions of Barth, have seen a reorientation of the attributes based on a greater emphasis on the economy, which has resulted in numerous proposed redefinitions of divine holiness related to the freedom of God in his acts of revelation and grace. The current project seeks to evaluate the theology of the holiness of God as presented by John Webster with principle reference to his monograph Holiness to determine whether his work on this subject adheres to and fulfils the vision for systematics that he presents in his broader work. Of particular interest is whether Webster’s presentation of divine holiness as a relational attribute that provides the nexus between the immanent and economic Trinity in “God the Holy One in our midst” may be regarded as coherent. Webster’s work will be examined to determine to what extend it exhibits both formal coherence (i.e. it corresponds with the form of systematics that he advocates) and material coherence (i.e. his particular conclusions are supported by the standards which he sets for himself). Chapter Two of this project presents an overview of Webster’s theological vision and key principles with reference to the place of systematic theology within the academy, the nature of the authority of scripture, and his preferred definition of systematics as redeemed thinking in the presence of God. Chapter three reviews Webster’s broader work on the doctrine of God against the background of the Reformed tradition and Webster’s engagement with the topic within the context of post-Barthian systematics. Chapter Four examines Webster’s presentation of a threefold formula for the holiness of God –in his triune identity, in his works, and as the holy one in our midst –as presented in the Holiness monograph, and concludes that while Webster’s presentation manifests formal coherence with his theological vision his attempt at an exegetical systematic is inconsistent at key points and thus has not been sufficiently demonstrated as meeting the requirements to be considered materially coherent. Chapter five continues the analysis of Webster’s presentation of the holiness of God as evidenced in the holiness of the church and individual Christian, similarly concluding that Webster’s theology appears formally coherent but cannot be conclusively deemed materially coherent owing to inconsistency in the exegetical warrant for several of Webster’s conclusions. Chapter six summarises the analysis of Webster’s work presented in the prior chapters and suggests avenues for future research in the theology of the divine attributes in general and the holiness of God and the church in particular." Chapter One: Introduction Chapter Two: The Theological Method of John Webster Chapter Three: John Webster on the Doctrine and Attributes of God Chapter Four: John Webster on the Holiness of God Chapter Five: John Webster on the Holiness of God in the Church and the Individual Christian Chapter Six: Conclusion This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Master of Theology, Pathway 2, Moore Theological College.

Abstract reads : "Throughout his career, Graeme Goldsworthy disseminated the Robinson-Hebert schema widely. This has had a significant impact, yet also received criticism. For some, Goldsworthy opened Scripture up to them, for others, he restricted its voice. This thesis assesses to what extent his three-epoch, macro-typological biblical theology allows Scripture to be heard without distortion. To assess this, the rationale behind Goldsworthy’s method is explored. Through this process three potential issues arise and are then assessed. Firstly his macro-typological schema shies away from details to prevent falling into allegory. This mutes the OT to some extent. It is argued that Goldsworthy’s work would benefit in a shift from being Christ-centred to being Christotelic so as to let the details breathe more. Secondly, it is asked if his three-epoch schema de-historicizes the prophets since he argues prophets mainly function to confirm types. It is found that the three epochs do function to remove the prophets from their original context and that a shift from typology as the overarching structure to progressive salvific history would be more appropriate. Thirdly, it is shown that unity in a theme leads to singularity. Even though themes are useful for interpretation, overall unity should be found in Christ rather than any given theme. In light of these findings the logical question to ask is if the real problem is the macro structure since this is what underpins all these issues. Is it a matter of making a shift in these three emphases or rather rejecting the model all together? Use of a macro structure is unavoidable as it is impossible to come to the text without some kind of framework. What is important is that the hermeneutical spiral is used and that exegetical priority is exhibited. However, it is also found that a great benefit of the macro structure is the way that it keeps the subjective firmly grounded in the objective, which allows the interpreter to ‘preach grace’ faithfully. Thus in returning to the question of if Goldsworthy’s model allows Scripture to speak, it is found that it facilitates this especially in regards to allowing one to keep God’s work central. However, it would benefit from shifting from a Christ-centre to Christotelic approach, from typology to progressive revelation as the overall base, seeing unity in Christ rather than a theme and finally, further use of the hermeneutical spiral." Chapter one: Introduction and method Chapter two: The Rationale behind Goldsworthy’s Christ centred Macro Typology Chapter three: Three potential issues of Goldsworthy’s Macro Structure Chapter four: Are macro Structures valid interpretive methods? Chapter five: Final Conclusions

Abstract reads : "This thesis analyses and evaluates Karl Barth’s endeavour to reformulate the traditional account of the relation of the essence and attributes of God in line with his principle that God is who he is in the act of his revelation. We inquire whether his diagnosis of problems in the tradition represented in Protestant Orthodoxy is accurate and to what extent Barth’s account amounts to a substantial and consistent reformulation of the tradition. To answer this we examine the doctrine of Amandus Polanus, who isa central representative of Protestant Orthodoxy in Barth’s work. We also examine Isaac Dorner’s doctrine of God, for Barth approves his approach to the attributes. We then examine Barth’s treatment of God’s being and perfections in §§28-30, analysing his approach, his criticism of the tradition and his development of his reformulated account, and comparing and contrasting it with what we find in Polanus and Dorner. Regarding Barth’s criticism of the tradition, we argue that Barth misreads certain statements in the Protestant Orthodox upon which his critique relies and overlooks the role divine perfection plays in the tradition. We conclude that this greatly weakens his case for the necessity of reform. Regarding the role played by Dorner in the development of Barth’s account, we argue that Barth takes up many of Dorner’s arguments against the tradition, and especially shares Dorner’s conviction that revelation discloses objective divine attributes. Yet we argue that Barth develops this line of thought in his own way, not departing from the tradition as far as Dorner does. Regarding the role played by Polanus and the tradition he represents, we argue that they are both friend and foe for Barth, although his criticism is more prominent than his appreciation. In 29 Barth criticises Protestant Orthodoxy for an overemphasis on divine unity, but in §30 he criticises it for an insufficiently integrated exposition of the attributes. We argue that Barth’s basic discontent with Protestant Orthodoxy lies in his conviction that revelation conveys a positive knowledge of God, not merely what God is nowhere that Barth’s principle that God is who he is in the act of his revelation provides a source of coherent development for his account. It reformulates and reorganises the traditional doctrine of the divine essence and attributes. The interaction between the Protestant Orthodox tradition and Barth’s revelation principle provides Barth’s account of the being and attributes of God with an underlying logic that gives it substance and consistency and distinguishes it from both the conceptualism of Protestant Orthodoxy and the realism of Dorner. Introduction Part one — Conceptualism and realism Part two — Against ‘semi-nominalism Part three—Barth’s developed account of the perfections Conclusion A thesis submitted in fulfilment for the degree of Master of Theology, Moore Theological College.

Abstract reads : "Divorce and remarriage is a controversial topic in relation to biblical interpretation. In seeking to interpret Jesus’ teaching on the topic (as presented in the Synoptics), the exegete faces various interpretive uncertainties. The thesis of the present study is that an examination of Paul’s use of the Jesus Tradition (JT) on divorce and remarriage in 1 Cor 7 can shed light on such interpretive uncertainties. The study first outlines a model for the use and transmission of JT. This in turn leads to a method for identifying the stable core of a JT as well as the kinds of flexibility applied to it. This model is applied to four instantiations of the divorce/remarriage JT in the Synoptics (Matt 5:32; 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12; Luke 16:18). As well as identifying a stable core and certain kinds of flexibility, this process also identifies seven interpretive uncertainties in relation to the Synoptic instantiations. The study then turns to Paul. It first establishes that he is a faithful interpreter of the JT, legitimately developing JT for his audiences within his rhetorical purposes. It applies the above method (adjusted for genre) to Paul’s use of the divorce/remarriage JT in 1 Cor 7. In doing so, it identifies three particularities of Paul’s understanding of divorce/remarriage that are not explicit in the Synoptics. In the seventh chapter of the study, these particularities are used to shed light on the seven interpretive uncertainties identified in the Synoptics. The study concludes that the stable core of the JT could be clarified in the following two ways : 1.The focus of the JT is neither divorce alone, remarriage alone, nor divorce in cases of πορνεία. Its primary focus is divorce for remarriage. It probably also relates to divorce and remarriage when reconciliation is still possible and possibly also to cases when reconciliation is not possible (excepting cases when the former spouse has remarried). 2.Illegitimate divorce does not end a marriage (hence the remarriage is adulterous), however such a remarriage ultimately dissolves the marriage union. Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Literature review Chapter 3: Identifying Jesus tradition Chapter 4: The divorce/remarriage Jesus tradition in the synoptics Chapter 5: Paul and Jesus tradition Chapter 6: The divorce/remarriage Jesus tradition in 1 Corinthians 7 Chapter 7: How 1 Corinthians 7 sheds light on synoptic uncertainties Chapter 8: Conclusion of study Submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Master of Theology, Moore Theological College.

Abstract reads : "‘Chapter 1: Introduction: Definitions & Issues’ clarifies the systematic-¬‐theological terms ‘active’ and ‘passive’ obedience of Christ, in the light of the recent interaction between exegetes and systematicians in the debates about imputation. The recent interpretation of Romans 5:18-¬‐19, particularly dikai,wma, differs markedly to that which pertained historically. Some advocates of imputation adopt an exposition of Romans 5:18-¬‐19 that is vulnerable to criticism. Reasons for re-¬‐examining Romans 5:18-¬‐19 are provided. Chapters 2 to 3 provide an analysis of important exegetical matters that partly have arisen from the recent debates about imputed righteousness and partly from trends in NT scholarship. They provide necessary preparation for the main contentions of this thesis. ‘Chapter 2: Genesis 15:6 and the meaning of righteousness (dikaiosu,nh)’ analyses the key text (Genesis 15:6MT/LXX) which uses the language of ‘imputation’ (logi,zomai) and ‘righteousness’ (dikaiosu,nh). It investigates whether dikaiosu,nh has an habitual moral or ethical connotation. ‘Chapter 3: Paul’s appropriation of Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4’ analyses the Pauline usage, informed by a parallel construction in Romans 2:26. Chapters 4 to 8 form the heart of the thesis. These chapters not only test and apply insights from NT scholarship to Romans 5:16-¬‐19, but also extends the application of some recent Pauline scholarship, and challenges other exegetical decisions of modern scholars, whether ‘Reformed’, ‘broadly Evangelical’ or ‘NPP’. Chapter 4: Receiving and possessing the gift of righteousness (Romans 5:17)’ exegetes Romans 5:17 in context, and argues that the text ‘those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness’ (oi` th.n perissei,an th/j ca,ritoj kai. th/j dwrea/j th/j dikaiosu,nhjlamba,nontej), in the light of Philippians3:9 and Romans 9:30-¬‐10:6, provides a corrective for those who assert that ‘righteousness’ cannot be given or possessed. It also discusses the relationship of imputation of righteousness with the motif of union with Christ. Chapters 5 to 8 engage in detailed exegesis of Romans 5:16, 18-¬‐19in context, with discussion of the key terms dikai,wma and dikai,wsij. ‘Chapter 5: The Meaning of dikai,wma and dikai,wsij and the motif of resurrection in Romans 4’, consists of a broad usage survey of dikai,wma and dikai,wsij in the Graeco-¬‐Roman corpus, theLXX, the non-¬‐Pauline NT, and Paul’s usage prior to 5:16, 18 and 8:4, and closes with exegesis of Romans 4:25 in context. The motif of resurrection (Romans 1:4, 4:17, 24-¬‐25; cf 1:17; 2:8)brings the resurrection of Christ into relationship with Paul’s doctrine of justification. ‘Chapter 6: The Resurrection in Romans 5 and the Meaning of dikai,wmain Romans 5:16’ continues the analysis of the motif of resurrection into Romans 5, determines the probable referent of e`no,j in verses 12, 15-¬‐19, and assesses the recent suggestion of J R D Kirk, that dikai,wmameans in Romans 5:16, ‘judgment’, ‘penalty’, or ‘reparation’, and not ‘justification’,1against the modern consensus. 1Kirk, ‘Reconsidering Dikaiōma’ (2007), 787-¬‐92. ‘Chapter 7: Thee`no.j dikaiw,matojof Romans 5:18’ argues that dikai,wma in Romans 5:18 should be rendered ‘sentence of justification’, as it is in Romans 5:16, against the modern exegetical consensus. The phrase ‘the justification of the one’, refers to the resurrection of Christ as his divine judicial vindication, which then produces the ‘justification of life’ for those in Christ. Support for this contention is found in Isaiah 53:11 LXX and 1 Corinthians 15:21-¬‐22, 45-¬‐49, and the arguments of some modern NT scholars. Imputation’s modern advocates will find that if they accept these arguments, which simply re-¬‐institute the accepted understanding of dikai,wma from Augustine to the start of the 20th Century, they will have a sound foundation for the exegetical grounding of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience in Romans 5:19, subject to the findings of Chapter 8. ‘Chapter 8: The referent of th/j u`pakoh/j tou/ e`no.jand the action of kaqi,sthmi (Romans 5:19)’finds firstly that ‘the obedience of the one’ refers to the whole course of Christ’s obedience, and there is no reason why any of Christ’s obedience should be excluded from its reference. Second, after a survey of Graeco-¬‐Roman, LXX and NT texts, the conclusion is drawn that kaqi,sthmiin Romans 5:19 means ‘judicially establish’ (cf Susanna 1:60LXX), and does not connote ‘transformative righteousness’. Thus Romans 5:19 teaches that through the obedience of Jesus Christ, being his entire life of obedience to the precept of the Mosaic law, and any other intratrinitarian command received by him, the many will in the future be judicially established as righteous before the tribunal of God. Further, against a number of proposals, both the ground and instrument of initial and final justification is seen to be the same, the ground being the active and passive obedience of Christ, and the instrument being faith. Justification’s beginning, continual progress, and consummation is by fiduciary faith, not works (however categorised). The final chapter ‘Chapter 9: Beyond Romans 5: Re-¬‐evaluating dikaio,win Romans 6:7 and dikai,wma in Romans 8:4’ provides an initial sounding which works outthe implications of the exegesis offered in Chapters 4 to 8 to two key texts in justification debates. First, in Romans 6:7, (‘For the one who died has been justified from sin’), it is suggested that Paul is speaking primarily about Christ’s own experience of death and resurrection, the latter of which was his justification, and secondarily about the believer’s union with Christ in that justification, in which both Christ’s death (Romans 3:21-¬‐26; 4:25) and resurrection (Romans 4:25, 5:18-¬‐19; cf Romans 5:9-¬‐10) bring about the believer’s justification. The justification spoken of is forensic. Second, another key text(Romans 8:3-¬‐4), thought by many to say nothing regarding imputation, is considered in context, especially the key phrase to. dikai,wma tou/ no,mou plhrwqh/| evn h`mi/n(8:4). After providing an account of Paul and the law in Romans 1-¬‐7, and especially looking at Paul’s apology for the law in Romans 7:7-¬‐25, an account of Christ’s coming‘ in the likeness of the flesh of sin and for sin’ entails that Christ fulfilled the law’s precept and bore the law’s curse. The polyvalent genitive to. dikai,wma tou/ no,mou firstly refers to the justification of the Mosaic law, the topic of Romans 7:7-¬‐25, which comes by the justification of the Christ, who received court-¬‐approved righteousness (Romans 5:18), and secondly refers to ‘the justification that the law requires’. It is fulfilled evn h`mi/n by God because the theatre of sins operations was ‘in us’ (Romans 7:14-¬‐25), and because Christ dwells in our hearts by faith (Galatians 2:20-¬‐21; Ephesians 3:16-¬‐17)" Chapter 1: Introduction: Definitions & Issues Chapter 2: Genesis 15:6 and the meaning of righteousness (dikaiosu,nh) Chapter 3: Paul’s appropriation of Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4 Chapter 4: Receiving and possessing the gift of righteousness (Romans 5:17) Chapter 5: The Meaning of dikai,wmaand dikai,wsij, and the motif of resurrection in Romans 4 Chapter 6: The Resurrection in Romans 5 and the Meaning of dikai,wmain Romans 5:16 Chapter 7: Thee`no.j dikaiw,matojof Romans 5:18 Chapter 8: The referent of th/j u`pakoh/j tou/ e`no,jand the action of kaqi,sthmi(Romans 5:19) Chapter 9: Beyond Romans 5:Re-­‐evaluating dikaio,win Romans 6:7 and dikai,wma in Romans 8:4 Re-­‐evaluating ‘The one who died has been justified from sin’(Romans 6:7) Chapter 10: Conclusion

Abstract reads : "Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ” (20:17 ESV)λέγειαὐτῇἸησοῦς·μήμουἅπτου, οὔπωγὰρἀναβέβηκαπρὸςτὸνπατέραπορεύουδὲπρὸςτοὺςἀδελφούςμουκαὶεἰπὲαὐτοῖς· ἀναβαίνωπρὸςτὸνπατέραμουκαὶπατέραὑμῶνκαὶθεόνμουκαὶθεὸνὑμῶν.(20:17 NA28) What does Jesus mean when he speaks of his ascension in John 20:17? When and where does this ascension occur? How does the Johannine ascension relate to the way the ascension is depicted in Luke-Acts? Many commentators approach John with the assumption that where there are tensions in harmonizing John with Luke-Acts, the chronology of Luke-Acts is to be preferred. This has a significant impact on how they read the text. Readings of John 20,preoccupied with harmonization questions, tend to misread elements in John’s narrative and read into the text elements of the Luke-Acts account that are not present in John’s narrative. This is particularly evident when the presentations of the ascension in John and Luke-Acts narratives are compared. This paper conducts a reader-response experiment that postpones questions of Gospel harmonization and seeks to understand the Johannine ascension announcement in John 20:17, firstly within the immediate context of the John 20 narrative, then within the wider narrative context of the entire Fourth Gospel, and finally seeking to understand how the Johannine ascension relates to the ascension account in Luke-Acts. Reading John and Luke-Acts as texts in their own right that challenge and complement the perspective of the other, yields a rich and well-rounded theology of the resurrection, the ascension, the exaltation and the role of the Spirit. Counterintuitively, reading John first, before asking questions about harmonization, opens up intriguing and satisfying possibilities for harmonizing John 20 with Luke-Acts. This paper demonstrates that the Johannine ascension is a relational reunion with the Father, as distinct from the spatial translation to heaven in Luke’s account. The Johannine ascension is more akin to what Systematic Theologians call the exaltation of Jesus. " Chapter 1 : Setting the scene Chapter 2 : Issues of method Chapter 3 : First reading : the ascension in John 20 Chapter 4 : Second reading : the ascension in John Chapter 5 : Third reading : the Johannine ascension for readers of Luke-Acts Chapter 6 : Some observations about reading A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Theology Moore Theological College, July 2015

Abstract reads : "Against the background of recent discussion of perceived problems within the Definition of Chalcedon, with reference to its conceptual apparatus, and of the growing body of literature on the Acta of Chalcedon, this thesis has sought to investigate the conceptual apparatus of the Definition of Chalcedon. It has sought to identify its contours and whether there are problems present. To do so, the thesis first establishes the interpretive approach the Acta furnish for the Definition, namely, three interpretive strategies given for understanding the Definition. These strategies are then employed, tracing key terminology and their attendant concepts through the 4th-century authorities indicated by the Acta (Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea, and Gregory of Nazianzus) and the two conciliar letters of Cyril (The Second Letter to Nestorius and The Letter to John of Antioch) with the support of Leo’s Tome. The concepts of universality and particularity are chosen as the objects of investigation because of their central importance to the debates of the prior centuries and because they are the source of the problems identified by contemporary authors. The fruit of this investigation is then applied to the Definition, with the conclusion that there is indeed a conceptual problem in the Definition. The Definition sought to present itself as an application of the Nicene Creed, interpreted by select 4th-century fathers, to the debates of the previous decades concerning the incarnation of the Son. In doing so, it juxtaposed two ontological apparatuses that are not readily reconciled, namely, the account of a derivative essence used for the Trinity, by which three hypostases could be said to have one being or nature (ousia, phusis), and the logical account of two natures, by which one hypostasis could be said to have two essences or natures (ousia, phusis). Potential resolutions drawn from the following centuries and contemporary discussion are evaluated without finding an adequate resolution." Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 The Definition within the Acts of Chalcedon Chapter 3 Conceptual Apparatuses of 4th-Century Greek Theology Chapter 4 The Conceptual Apparatus of Cyril's Conciliar Letters Chapter 5 The Conceptual Apparatus of Leo's Tome Chapter 6 The Conceptual Apparatus of the Definition of Chalcedon Chapter 7 Conclusion Thesis examining the relationship between the humanity and divinity of Christ, as explored and discussed at the Council of Chalcedon.

Abstract reads : "While the suggestions on a structure of Ecclesiastes are myriad, where this solution differs is that it both follows the contours of others as well as forging new ground. Combining the suggestions of panelling or alternation with the search for keywords, the proposal in this thesis is that the structure of Ecclesiastes is one of alternating panels of first-person observation and collected wisdom, with the keyword of ראה (to see) giving structure to the observation panels. This thesis begins with an historical review of the attempts to find a structure of the centuries and the converging of those attempts into the current one. The second chapter investigates the use of ראה to give structure to the observation panels as a whole, but also the individual units of each panel. The third chapter looks at the wisdom collections which alternate with the observation panels and considers their relationship to the narration with which they alternate. The fourth and final chapter investigates the bookends and shows how they foreshadow and conclude the type of structure of the body of the book which is proposed in this structure. The goals of this thesis are to present a convincing structure of Ecclesiastes which will enable people to read the book according to the alternating genres of observation and wisdom and also to provide a common footing and even a common structural language for examining the other questions which dominate Ecclesiastes research today." Part One : The Past to the Present Part Two : The Observation Panels Part Three : The Wisdom Collections Part Four : The Book’s Bookends

The Day of the Lord has received little attention in New Testament scholarship, making a study of how it is used in 1 Thessalonians worthy of consideration. Paul employsthe Day of the Lord explicitly in 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 in the context of exhortation. This study explores how Paul uses and appropriates the Day of the Lord, studies the background for Paul’s use of the motif and determines whether the Parousia and the Day of the Lord are interchangeable. This is a New Testament exegetical study. Part 1 is a literature review,which surveys: the Day of the Lord motif in scholarship with special reference to those studies that include 1 Thessalonians; and a review of methodological approaches to 1 Thessalonians. The adopted approach focuses on the Greek text of the epistle to show that the conclusions are drawn from 1 Thessalonians. It is established for purposes of later exegesis that the Thessalonian church is undergoing conflict. Part 2 studies Paul’s source for the Day of the Lord concluding that his source for understanding the motif is the Jewish Scriptures. As there is no common consensus as to the meaning and referent of the Day of the Lord in the Jewish Scriptures, a representative sample of Day of the Lord texts are studied within the books of Amos, Joel, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Malachi. This found that the Day of the Lord motif is; flexible being able to refer to local and eschatological judgment, is imminent, has an ethical appeal which is to turn back to Yahweh, expresses hope and vindication for God’s faithful people and is the day on which Yahweh will reveal himself to the world. Part 3 is the exegesis of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 5:1-11 to ascertain how Paul uses the motif and appropriates it for the Thessalonians. The pericope 4:13-18 is included to assess whether Paul uses the motif of the Parousia interchangeably with the motif of the Day of the Lord and provides context to 5:1-11. It was found that when Paul uses the term Parousia he does so with an eschatological sense which equates similar concepts that are included in the Day of the Lord. The study of 5:1-11 found the Day of the Lord motif: affirms the certainty of the Thessalonians hope, is an ethical call to live sober and alert lives, is imminent, cannot be directly interchanged with the Parousia motif, is positive because of Jesus’ death ‘for us’, and is evidence of Paul’s high Christology.

Abstract reads : "This thesis examines the definitions used by modern scholars to discuss war, particularly holy war, in the Byzantine empireand the Orthodox church between AD 312 and AD 630 (the earliest point that empire and church came into contact with Muslim jihad) with particular reference to AD 610–630. In the introduction I observe the disjunction between Heraclius’ apparent holy war in Persia and the early Christians’ abhorrence of bloodshed. In Chapter 2 I review the three mainstream positions among contemporary Byzantine historians and Orthodox theologians on war and holy war. I note that none of the three mainstream views on the nature of war in Byzantium admit of any variationin Byzantine ideology, due to a widely-held operating assumption based on the strong claim that the Orthodox church and people of the sixth and seventh century universally regarded war as always evil (‎2.1). I show in ‎2.2 that this key strongclaim, though widely held, has very doubtful evidence. Rejecting the strong form of the claim allows the possibility that some wars may be different. I then examine the proposal of Athina Kolia-Dermitzaki, who claims to describe a distinct Byzantine kind of holy war (‎2.3). I contrast the criteria used by Kolia-Dermitzaki to define her “holy war” with two other definitions (‎2.4). Heraclius presents a useful test case for exploring the definitional differences. Before proceeding to the case study in Chapter Three, I examine some issues on which scholars differ and the nature of that disagreement (‎2.5.4). Much of the evidence surrounding ‘holy war’ is a matter of degree. Chapter 3 is a case study on Heraclius’ Persian campaigns. Statements that Heraclius fought a holy war need to be properly defined, and conversely, the application of contested definitions to Heraclius’ case illuminates those definitions (‎3.2). The specific objections of Laiou, Dennis and Kaegi are discussed. The Greek sources for Heraclius’ Persian campaigns were introduced (‎3.4) and their holy war elements were identified (‎3.5). These elements were then shown to meet each of Dennis’s criteria. This study showed that Heraclius fought a holy war against the Persians from AD 622 (‎3.6.5), even under narrow definitions. On two definitional issues, I found that Heraclius operated with significant personal spiritual authority in the period (‎3.7.1), and that his holy war also met Thomas Aquinas’ conditions for a just war (‎3.7.2). In Chapter 4 I conclude with some suggestions for further research" 1. Introduction 2. War and Holy War in Byzantium 3. Heraclius' Persian Campaigns 4. Conclusion A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Theology Moore Theological College, 2016