Doctoral Colloquium 'Empowered Through Humility'

The annual Doctoral Colloquium is an essential part of our PhD program. Students working on a dissertation gather during this week and meet with their professors, prepare for exams and present their research. Public defenses of dissertations also usually take place during this week.

This year’s theme is “Empowered Through Humility.” The context of the celebration of the 40th ETF Doctoral Colloquium is one of polarization, geopolitical shifts and a cultural climate emphasizing strength, power and standing forcefully against military, economic or cultural enemies. This year’s theme, therefore, focuses on Jesus Christ and how He was Empowered Through Humility. He was exalted to the highest place and given a Name above every name, so that every knee in heaven and on earth will bow, because He humbled himself and became obedient to death (Phil 2:6–11). Hence, not only Paul, but also James (Jam 4:10) and Peter (1 Pet 5:5–6) call to be humble, while Jeremiah prophesied not to boast in strength or riches, but in the Lord, who exercises mercy, justice and righteousness (Jer 9:23–24).

Accordingly, the theme invites to reflect theologically on the question how Jesus’ humility and being humble empower and bring justice, and how to stand firm against the powers of the world as Jesus did.

You are welcome to attend one or more sessions of the public program.

If you want to attend a doctoral defense, please register by August 25, 2025 via the registration form (not available yet). You don’t need to register to attend the opening chapel, morning devotions or faculty lectures. Attending the sessions is free of charge.

There is the option to join a meal before or after a session. Payment for meals will be processed immediately upon submission of the registration form.

• Lunch (at 13:00) is € 20,-
• Dinner (at 18:30) is € 40,-

Public program

Monday 1 September

Tuesday 2 September

Wednesday 3 September

Thursday 4 September

Friday 5 September

Abstracts

1. Knowing God in Humility through Faith, Hope, and Love
By Prof. Dr. Ronald T. Michener (ST)

In the seventeenth century, Francis Bacon submitted that “knowledge is power.” Years later, this axiom was appropriated (via a Nietzschean lens) by Michel Foucault to uncover the power structures that afford claims to knowledge. Knowledge and power have certainly been used to legitimize unjust political and religious structures in the name of Christian “truth.” For the Christian theologian, this raises a question as to the relationship between postures of power and claims to knowledge of God. Of course, this depends on what is meant by “knowledge.” Due to the breadth and complexity of this question, this essay will restrict its focus on God’s knowability within a Christian theological context and commitment. To consider this, I will primarily engage with Justin Thacker (Postmodernism and the Ethics of Theological Knowledge, 2007), while also considering the work of Esther Lightcap Meek (Longing to Know: The Philosophy of Knowledge for Ordinary People, 2003; Loving to Know: Introducing Covenant Epistemology, 2011), and Dru Johnson (Biblical Knowing: A Scriptural Epistemology of Error 2013). Thacker, Meek, and Johnson all draw from Michael Polanyi’s framework of tacit knowledge, and advocate for a “whole person” way of knowing that stems from our participation in Christ in relationship with others. Rather than reducing knowledge to the power of autonomous, individual cognition, these views seek to promote epistemological humility, situating knowledge of God in the virtues of faith, hope, and love in the context of community.

2. Humility and the Kingdom of God (Mark 10:1–31): Broadening the Markan Sandwich
By Dr. Jeremy Otten (NT)

Jesus’s dispute with the Pharisees about divorce (10:1¬–12) and his encounter with the rich man (10:17–31) have at first glance little in common: one encounter is with a group seeking to entrap him, the other with an individual coming in earnest; the first ends with Jesus outwitting his adversaries, the second with him lamenting the fate of one he loves. Yet the two encounters clearly parallel each other in both stylistic and rhetorical features. Both involve questions for people of standing regarding an ethical question. In both cases, Jesus’s response asks after what the law says, and in both cases, his interlocutor(s) respond in a way that show them to be technically keeping the requirements of the law while still failing to live up to its purpose. Nor is this connection merely formal or apparent, for it is strengthened by the presence of multiple catchwords (notably ἐντέλλω/ἐντολή, μοιχεύω, τὸν πατέρα…καὶ τὴν μητέρα). At the center of this arrangement lies Jesus’s blessing of the children and his warning that only those who approach the kingdom like children may enter it (10:13–16), thus placing the posture of humble dependence on God far above not only legalistic righteousness and selfish ambition, but also riches and well-intentioned piety. While these passages are generally the focus of ethical debate, this paper will highlight the focus on humility that emerges as more important even than the specific ethical stances they advocate. Observations will also be made on implications for our (too narrow??) understanding of Mark’s use of “sandwiching”?

3. Humble at Heart: How the Humility of Jesus Points to the Better Doctrine of the Trinity
By Prof. D. Nico den Bok (ST)

Is humility a divine attribute? In some recent trinitarian theology it is embraced as the key to God’s inner life while safeguarding against tritheism. As the Father gives his entire being to the Son, and together with the Son to the Spirit, this being is what the divine Persons share without reduplicating it. Balthasar, for instance, states that in God the joyful self-emptying of each Person makes the other Persons exist. But this view is deeply problematic, since for ‘giving oneself’ to another person one must have a will that cannot be given away itself. What prevents a ‘kenotic Trinity’, as corrective of a ‘social Trinity’, to be a community of three Gods annihilating and regenerating themselves? However, when we turn to the alternative developed in mainstream Western trinitarianism, assuming that the Trinity is a feature of the one supreme mind or spirit, we run into another fundamental problem. Augustine already realised that a person is not a mental power (like the will), but the subject of all mental powers. If God has one will, one mind, he must be one Person, not three Persons. Nevertheless, with the notion of God as one incorporeal Person we are closer to a solution – if we follow the lead of the Gospel and see how Jesus’ humility (Mat 11:29) takes us to God’s trinitarian character. That is what I hope to show in this Faculty Lecture.

4. Religious Freedom at the Crossroads of Post-Soviet Geopolitical Rivalries
By T. Kopaleishvili (RM)

This paper examines how geopolitical orientation shapes the quality of religious freedom and other fundamental rights in the post-Soviet space, with particular focus on countries caught in geopolitical crosscurrents. Drawing on Georgia as a primary case study while incorporating comparative analysis with Ukraine and Moldova, we investigate how regionalisation processes affect the extend of religious freedom. We aim to demonstrate it by looking through three lenses: the role of traditional religious institutions in nation-building and impact on the minorities, the recognition policies and state mechanisms for managing religious affairs. By using Georgia as a primary case study, we demonstrate how geopolitical orientation—whether toward Russia or the West—fundamentally shapes religious freedom outcomes. We will conclude, that in countries with stronger Western orientation, religious freedom tends to be balanced with equality and non-discrimination principles, while those in Russia’s orbit often prioritize traditional religious authorities at the expense of religious minorities and other fundamental rights. Most notably, in “in-between” countries with divided geopolitical allegiances, these tensions create uniquely problematic situations where religious freedom becomes instrumentalized in broader cultural and political conflicts. This study contributes to understanding how competing rights claims are reconciled—or left in tension—according to geopolitical factors, demonstrating how constitutional frameworks and policy approaches to religious freedom reflect broader struggles between competing visions of state, society, and individual rights.

5. Disturbing Cruelty and a Primitive God? Some Critical Inquiries in the Sacrifices of the Old Testament
By S. Riecker (OT)

Criticism of the Israelite sacrificial cult is part of a long tradition. This lecture focuses on some modern critical questions of practical interest: Aren’t sacrifices something deeply pagan? Aren’t blood rites primitive? Doesn’t the criticism of sacrifice in the Old Testament itself show that God doesn’t actually want any sacrifices? Is God offended or does he need to be appeased? Why does God need sacrifices if people can forgive just like that? It is shown that the Old Testament sacrifices have a fundamental value for Christian theology and preaching, notwithstanding all modern questioning.

6. Discussing Mystery in Ephesians 3 between Marius Victorinus and John Chrysostom
By Dr. Drake Williams III and O. Baban (NT)

Biblical interpretation is frequently guided by modern concerns, but these approaches frequently bypass the wealth of understanding that can be found in the early church’s interpretation. This paper will consider the understanding of mystery in Ephesians 3:3, 4, 9, where Paul most fully develops the idea. Several have suggested that the term reflects the influence of mystery religions (e.g., Bousset, Bultmann). A greater interest seems to trace the idea from Jewish sources in Scripture and second century literature (e.g., Hoehner, Cohick). Early church teachers such as Marius Victorinus and John Chrysostom both found the word mystery to be important in their writing. Both believe that the mystery Paul speaks about does not emerge from human beings. In his commentary, Victorinus emphasizes that the mystery is Christ’s mystery. He describes it through an interesting balance between reason and revelation, through knowledge, memory, and intellect, and the specific action of the Spirit. From his homilies on Ephesians, Chrysostom sees mystery more dependent upon God’s revelation and interpretation. This lecture will present a summation of Victorinus and Chrysostom with regard to mystery in Eph 3, providing results from fresh translation work. Their understanding of mystery in Eph 3 will be compared with each other and then added to the current approach about mystery from modern scholarship.

7. Applying Herem in the Past and in the Present
By M. Theocharous (OT)

The topic of herem or ban in the Old Testament has been a theological puzzle for numerous scholars through time, and an uncomfortable area of discussion for the contemporary church. This paper will trace the afterlife of herem and examine how it was received and perhaps modified in Second Temple Judaism, in the New Testament, and in the Early Church. The aim of this study is to understand how later generations, especially Christians, could perceive the meaning and purpose of herem and find value in the herem command, and hopefully help us reflect on whether the herem command has any room in the life of the Church today and in what forms.

8. The Reception of Late Medieval Scholastic Thought in Early Modern Reformed Theology
By Prof. Dr. Andreas Beck (HT)

My presentation examines the reception and transformation of late scholastic thought in early modern theology, focusing on the Reformed tradition in the seventeenth century. It explores how key concepts, methods, and debates from late scholasticism—particularly those developed by thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, and, more recently, Luis de Molina, Francisco Suárez, Domingo Báñez, and Diego Álvarez —were appropriated, adapted, or contested by early modern Reformed theologians. The study highlights the persistence of scholastic terminology and argumentative structures in the works of figures like William Twisse, Johannes Maccovius, and Gisbertus Voetius, demonstrating that the transition from medieval to modern philosophy was marked by both continuity and innovation. By analyzing primary texts and recent scholarship, the paper reveals the nuanced ways in which early modern thinkers engaged with scholastic doctrines on the doctrine of God, anthropology, and eschatology. It argues that rather than representing a radical break, the early modern period involved a complex dialogue with the scholastic past, resulting in the reconfiguration of theological and philosophical problems and the emergence of new intellectual frameworks. The paper concludes that understanding the reception of late scholastic thought is essential for appreciating the development of early modern theology and for reassessing the narrative of theological progress during this transformative era.

9. The Language of the Ten Commandments as to Designation and Design
By Dr. Creighton Marlowe (OT)

Internal and external Christian and Jewish interpretive traditions differ regarding which directives are named when listing the Ten Commandments (as identified in Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 4:13, 10:4 and implied in Exodus 20:1–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21). The variations typically revolve around the number of commands found in the beginning idolatry or ending covetous verses. At least one study has noted how the total number of commands or prohibitions (in Exod. 20 and Deut. 5) adds up to much more than ten. To date, no consensus exists on which ten were intended. This exegetical and contextual analysis of the Hebrew language of these two Ten-Commandment passages in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 (focused on the former) attempts to end the debate over naming the Ten by demonstrating how these texts contain literary features or devices like chiasm that clearly identify the exact Ten Commands the A/author had in mind: (1) never build an idol; (2) never bow to an idol; (3) never misrepresent YHWH; (4) Observe the Sabbath; (5) Honor parents; (6) never murder; (7) never commit adultery; (8) never steal; (9) never testify falsely against a neighbor; (10) never desire any possession of a neighbor.