Skip to main content

Ambrose: A Nicene Defense of Jesus Not Knowing the Day or the Hour ~ Mark 13:32

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

Popular posts from this blog

Gregory of Nyssa: Trinity–Not Tri-deity

Gregory, a bishop of Nyssa in 371, was part of the Cappadocian trio, and was instrumental in the development of Trinitarian orthodoxy. His theological prowess proved vital in response to the Arian and Sabellian heresies. Key to Gregory’s theology we find “an emergence of a pro-Nicene ‘grammar’ of divinity through his developed account of divine power,” [1] conceived through a nature-power-activity formulation revealed in the created order and articulated in Scripture. Understanding the Triune God in this manner afforded a conception of the Trinity that was logical and thoroughly biblical. And this letter is paradigmatic on Gregory’s account of the divine nature. (* This article was later published with Credo Magazine, titled, “ The Grammar of Divinity (On Theology). ” See link below) To Ablabius, though short, is a polemical address whereby Gregory lays out a complex argument in response to the claim that three Divine Persons equal three gods. Basically put, Ablabius (his opponent,

St. John Chrysostom — for God is simple

Below is part of the introductory section to my exposition of John Chrysostom’s doctrine of God. I posted it because I thought it was fascinating to find such an important theologian known for avoiding (even having a disdain of) speculative theology refer to the classical doctrine of divine simplicity as common place in his thoroughly biblical doctrine of God. Toward the end I include a link to my full exposition. John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407) was the archbishop of Constantinople. Being the most prolific of all the Eastern fathers, he fought against the ecclesiastical and political leaders for their abuse of authority. He was called Chrysostom (meaning “golden-mouthed”) for his eloquent sermons. [1] This most distinguished of Greek patristic preachers excelled in spiritual and moral application in the Antiochene tradition of literal exegesis, largely disinterested, even untutored in speculative and controversial theology. [2] On the Incomprehensible Nature of G

John 17:3 – Eternal Life is Knowing God and Christ–the One, True God

    John 17:1–5. “ Jesus spoke these things, looked up to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him. This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and the one you have sent—Jesus Christ. I have glorified you on the earth by completing the work you gave me to do. Now, Father, glorify me in your presence with that glory I had with you before the world existed .”

A Brief Exposition of Augustine's Doctrine of Divine Immutability

To much of the Western world, Augustine has no rival. He is the preeminent—uninspired—theologian of the Christian faith. When reading the titans of the church—i.e., Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin—Augustine’s theology and ideas are voluminously parroted all throughout their writings. His influence is unparalleled. Even the secular world sees Augustine as a mammoth figure in the shaping of human history. And its Augustine’s doctrine of God we will divert our attention to, looking specifically at his articulation of divine immutability Augustine’s doctrine of God is classical, through and through. He writes, “There is One invisible, from whom, as the Creator and First Cause, all things seen by us derive their being: He is supreme, eternal, unchangeable, and comprehensible by none save Himself alone” ( Ep . 232.5).[1] When reading his works, the doctrine of immutability is paramount, coming forth repeatedly. For Augustine, immutability, or God’s unchangeableness, is consequential

Gregory of Nazianzus: The Trinity - Not a Collection of Elements

Gregory of Nazianzus   One of the Cappadocian fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus (c.330–389), given the title, “The Theologian,” was instrumental in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically the distinct terms to describe the Persons of the Godhead (Unbegotten, eternally begotten, and procession). Gregory’s main contribution to the development of Christology was in his opposition to Apollinarius. He argued that when Adam fell, all of humanity fell in him; therefore, that fallen nature must be fully united to the Son—body, soul, and mind; ‘for the unassumed is the unhealed’.   Gregory’s Doctrine of the Trinity His clearest statement on the Trinity is found in his Oration 25.15–18. Oration 25 is part of a series of sermons delivered in 380. As a gesture of gratitude, Gregory dedicates Oration 25 to Christian philosopher Maximus the Cynic, as a sort of ‘charge’ for him to push forward and remain strong in the orthodox teachings of the faith. And these sections are that or

Isaiah 45:7 - “ . . . I make peace, and create evil.” — Does God create evil?

My daughter watched a video this morning where a deconstructionist, an ex vangelical, was attempting to profane the goodness of God, by pointing out that Isaiah 45:7 says God creates evil. She was referring to the KJV version of this passage which says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” So, what do we do with that? Below is a brief response. Proper biblical interpretation considers context when seeking the meaning of a passage. Furthermore, when it comes to difficult or obscure passages, a helpful rule of interpretation is to look to the plainer passages of the Bible and draw examples from them to shed light on the more obscure passages ( thanks Augustine ). We let Scripture interpret Scripture. The point is to remove all hesitation on doubtful passages. So, in this passage, on the face it seems to imply that God creates evil, thus making God evil. But is that what the Bible teaches about God? The plainer passages te

Clement of Alexandria: Nuances of the Classical God

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215) was the head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria (c. 190), and the teacher of Origen. Concerned that Christianity is not seen as an unsophisticated religion, Clement sought to reconcile his faith with the best of Greek philosophy, specifically in the usefulness of Middle Platonism.[1] He believed that the kernels of truth found in Plato and Greek Philosophy were preparatory for the Gentiles in leading them to Christ, just as the Law was a guide or guardian for the Hebrews. Clement’s esoteric exegesis and speculative theology emphasized a higher knowledge, but this knowledge was obtained only through the Logos.

Origen: How is the Son the Invisible Image of the Invisible God?

Early Church Father Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–c. 254), considered the “greatest theological luminary of his age,” [1] his prolific writings amassed to some six thousand works. While his exegetical contribution to the formulation of Christian doctrine greatly shaped the theology of the fourth century, he is also a controversial fellow. Nevertheless, it is important that when we read such figures writing theology in the nascent stages of the Christian Faith, we must do our best to keep them in their context—to prevent hasty anathematizing. We have the privilege of 1900 years of theological development to stand on, passed on to us through toil, tears, and even death. Anyway...   I have been studying Origen’s writings, particularly his First Principles ( De Principiis) , and came across a wonderful insight that illuminated my thinking on Christ as the image of God. I am working on a doctrine of God course. Below is an excerpt from my lecture material. So, we are going to drop right i

“A New Heaven and New Earth” ~ A (Partial) Preterist Reading of Isaiah 65:17–25

When God says he will create a new heaven and a new earth, what will this new heaven and earth be like? Is it describing an obliteration of the material world, with a new material heaven and earth to follow? Early Church Father Jerome did not see a destruction of the elements; instead, he saw newness , a change into something better. Commenting on this passage, he writes, “The Apostle Paul said, ‘for the form of this world is perishing’ [1Co 7:31]. Notice that he said ‘form,’ not ‘substance.’”[1] Thomas Aquinas sees the new heavens and earth to be “the restoration of goods, for behold I create a new heavens , with new help from heaven, and a new earth , new benefits from the earth; this refers to the day of judgment, when the world will be renewed to the glory of the saints: the former things have passed away (Re 21:4).”[2] Closer to the immediate historical context, another understanding sees this as “a hyperbolic expression of the future restoration of the people of Judah after the