Ambrose (c. 339–397), was Bishop of Milan (northern Italy). His name is familiar to many because of Augustine, in that it was through Ambrose’s preaching that Augustine was saved by the gospel. Ambrose was a rigorous exponent of Nicene orthodoxy, and as with his other contemporaries, he was an ardent opponent against Arianism. His works, therefore, were aimed at refuting Arian heresy, paying special attention to the exposition and defense of the divinity of Christ and the Trinity.
In his most prominent work, The Exposition of the Christian Faith (abbr.
De fide), Ambrose makes a lucid, scripturally saturated articulation of
the Christian faith couched in Nicene orthodoxy. De fide is devoted to
proving the full divinity of Christ, co-equal in substance, wisdom, power, and
glory as God the Father, derived through elucidating the plain sense of the
text. Ambrose’s aim is polemical and apologetic, addressing and refuting
objections from the Arians. This post will explore Ambrose’s exposition of Mark
13:32, the Arian “kryptonite” passage, when Jesus says, “Now concerning that
day or hour no one knows—neither the angels in heaven nor the Son—but only the
Father.” It is here that an exegesis guided by an ekonomia–theologia
interpretation proves most formidable and instructive in defending the deity of
the Son, in a manner that maintains consistency and clarity of Scripture as
a whole, as compared to a reading of Scripture that formulates theologia through
ekonomia, instead of the inverse.
Ambrose writes, responding to Mark 13:32, “For how could the Son of God be
ignorant of the day, seeing that the treasures of the wisdom and knowledge of
God are hidden in him?” (Col 2:3) (De fide. 5.16.193). Now, Ambrose
could have just left it there, letting one passage expose the inconsistency in
their interpretative approach to Scripture. But he uses the opportunity to
silence their erroneous claims. First, Ambrose inquires about the nature of
knowledge that Paul attributes to Christ in Colossians 2:3. He asks, by what
nature (i.e., how and /or place of origin) does he have this “knowledge
of God”? Does he have it “by reason of His being or by chance?” Creatures have
certain aspects of knowledge by nature of their creatureliness and some by
learning. Horses can run due to knowledge of nature as do fish swim. Humans,
however, can only swim by learning to do so. So then, what do we say of this
“knowledge of God” that the Son has? If he has this knowledge through learning,
then we cannot call him, as Scripture does, begotten as Wisdom and gradually
began to be perfect, which implies he was once not perfect. But, if he has it
by nature, “then he was perfect from the beginning. He came forth perfect from
the Father; and so, needed no foreknowledge of the future” (De fide.
5.16.194).
Ambrose refers to the pattern of Christian truth, that Christ is the “the
Wisdom of God.” And therefore, as the Wisdom of God, there is no way
that the Son could be ignorant of the “day or the hour.” And since Scripture
tells us that the Son created all things, how could he be ignorant of some
thing or some aspect of his creation? Ambrose’s attention to this point is
significant. Reason being, many falsely assume that while God brought creation into
existence with time, time—particularly the future—seems to function as an
entity apart from God. And therefore, time is not part of creation, thus
it escapes God’s sovereign rule, until such-and-such time comes into reality.
Hebrews 1:2–3 says, “In these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son. God
has appointed him heir of all things and made the universe through him. The Son
is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of his nature,
sustaining all things by his powerful word. After making purification for sins,
he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” The Greek word
translated as universe in my modern version is αἰῶνας, which literally is ages.
It is the ages—past, present, and future—that the Son created and
sustains. Ambrose writes,
How then were those made which are future, unless it is that His active power and knowledge contains within itself the number of all the ages? For just as He calls the things that are not as though they were [Rom 4:11], so has He made things future as though they were. It cannot come to pass that they should not be. Those things which He has directed to be, necessarily will be. Therefore, He who has made the things that are to be, knows them in the way in which they will be (De fide. 5.16.198).
Ambrose’s
point concludes that if the Son has made and sustains the ages—past,
present, and future—we must believe that he is not ignorant of the day of
judgement because that day, though future to us, nevertheless, “the Son of God
has knowledge of it, as being already made by him.” (De fide. 5.16.198).
And then we see Ambrose’s lexical extension of the depiction of God as the
Creator in the OT to include the Son, stating, if the Creator—the Son with the
Father—has numbered all the stars in the sky and has given them names (Ps.
147:4), how could he be ignorant of some things in his creation? Scripture says
that the Father made all things in wisdom (Ps. 104:24), through his Son, who is
the Virtue and Wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:24) (De fide. 5.16.195–96). Would
we dare say that there is something in or about creation that the Father
doesn’t know?
Ambrose makes a clever move, calling the heretics’ attention to Matthew 11:27,
where Jesus says, “All things have been entrusted to me by my Father. No one
knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and
anyone to whom the Son desires to reveal him.” Therefore, Ambrose asks, if the
Son is the only one who knows and can reveal the Father, how is it possible
that he does not know the day? (De fide. 5.16.200). Demonstrating beyond
a doubt that the Son knows the day, Ambrose points us to the Son’s words in
Luke 17:20–31. In this section, Christ speaks of the day when the Kingdom
comes, mentioning the signs, the time, places, or persons, all leading up to
that day. He says, “On that day, a man on the housetop, whose belongings are in
the house, must not come down to get them. Likewise, the man who is in the
field must not turn back.” How then, Ambrose exclaims, could he be ignorant of
the day? He continues recalling the times and signs that will pass as that day
closes in. Therefore, he who is Lord of the Sabbath, how does he know all these
events yet not know “the day”? (De fide. 5.16.202–07).
Ambrose continues to display the continuity of Scripture, by examining passages
that appear to show discontinuity, answering the question of why Christ
was unwilling to state the time of that day. Simply put, “it was not to our
advantage to know; in order that we being ignorant of the actual moments of
judgment to come, might ever be as it were on guard, and set on the watch-tower
of virtue, and so avoid the habits of sin.” And this follows suit with what
Scripture has prescribed, as a means for sinners to keep a close eye on their
manner of conduct, knowing that the judgment will come on them when they least
expect it. If they know the hour and the day, then there is no fear of
punishment. “For impurity generally spurs them on, but fear is irksome to the
end” (De fide. 5.17.208–09). But again, the question is asked, why did
Christ not refuse his disciples as one who knew, but would not say; and why did
He state instead that neither the angels nor the Son knew? Ambrose draws his
answer from other texts that speak about God or the Godhead, not specifically
of the Son because he does not separate or isolate passages specific to the
Person to demonstrate deity; rather, he argues from the unity of will and power
of the Persons and then examines passages that speak of one Person as
pertaining to all the Persons—all for one, and one for all.
So, in answering this question, he makes a reductio absurdum argument.
Ambrose looks to Genesis 18:20–21, in which it appears that God is ignorant of
sinful human activity. The text says, “Then the Lord said, ‘The outcry against
Sodom and Gomorrah is immense, and their sin is extremely serious. I will go
down to see if what they have done justifies the cry that has come up to me. If
not, I will find out.’” Ambrose remarks, when God says he will go down to see
if Sodom and Gomorrah’s sin is so heinous, deserving of God’s immediate
judgment, does this mean that God was ignorant of the sins they were
committing? And then in the Psalms when the psalmist writes that the Lord
looked down upon the children of the earth to see if any of them understand and
seek for God (Ps. 53:2), does this imply that God was ignorant of their merits?
(De fide. 5.17.213). The answer to both questions is obviously no; God
did not have to go down to man to learn of man’s ways. The language of
Scripture is accommodated to mankind’s understanding, so that man can grasp the
things of God, in the unfolding of his will and revealing of his nature.
Ambrose
takes the reader through a few other passages that seem to imply an ignorance
or lack of power in God (cf. Luke 20:13: Matt 21:37; Mark 12:6). He responds by
applying the Arian’s interpretive logic (i.e., whereby they deny the true deity
of the Son due to passages of ignorance applied to him) to passages of
ignorance or being deceived that pertain to God the Father, which both sides
would never understand imply denial of divinity (De fide. 5.17.213–18).
Ambrose’s approach is brilliant, by deploying an ekonomia–theologia
hermeneutic, he destroys the validity of their arguments. We cannot let one
element rule our interpretation; we maintain the unity of the Godhead,
specifically, the skopos of revelation, and interpret all texts
considering it. And in the passages noted, we see the Father “hiding” what is
known to him and the Son, “hiding” what is known to him (De fide.
5.17.218).
In Ambrose’s theology we observe a consistency in his handling of the Word, in
that he keeps the unity of the Godhead as taught in Scripture as the governing
rule in how he interprets it. Because of this guiding principle, the essence
and nature of God overrides any notions of creaturely properties that Scripture
posits of God (i.e., anthropomorphic language). Doing so promotes continuity in
the will and decree of God, which would be lost if an overly literal
interpretation, as observed in the Arians, has the upper hand in one’s
interpretation. The outcome of such an approach is that we will end up denying
the very doctrines about the essence and attributes of God that the Bible
professes about him. In Ambrose we see a continuation of a Nicene-Trinitarian
classical metaphysics (spiritual exegesis, dogmas, and metaphysics), forming
the basis of his interpretive approach to Scripture, becoming the hallmark of
the Great Tradition.
~ Romans 11:36
Comments