Comparative theological analysis evaluates Cyril of Alexandria's reading of Pauline kenosis against ancient and modern frameworks, highlighting divergent views on divine impassibility.
Cyril of Alexandria is the final stop on Michael Magree's analysis of the patristic interpretation of Pauline kenosis, serving as the culmination of the historical arc he surveys. Although Magree is careful to avoid overtly judging the success of various interpreters as readers of the Apostle, it is clear that he finds Cyril's appropriation of Pauline kenosis to be the most theologically generative of the figures he covers. To throw into sharper relief Cyril's understanding of kenosis and press Magree to take his argument further, the present response to his book introduces two comparanda: (1) theories of incarnation among ancient Neoplatonists, who understood incarnation as a temporary ‘fall’ into human existence and (2) the kenotic Christology recently articulated by Bruce McCormack which is framed in explicit opposition to theologians, like Cyril, who affirm divine impassibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Matthew R. Crawford (2026) studied this question.