evening and welcome to lecture fifteen of our history of historical theology indoctrinate on the trinity is even for a long time going through the early church fathers in the inner goals to work up to i think the second segment will go up to around six hundred will finish off with uh... sorry for his name can't caught my tongue oh Maximus the confessor who interestingly had his tongue cut out so that was funny I couldn't say his name and the man actually had his tongue cut out so anyways we're going to be looking at Ambrose of Milan get my slides here going Ambrose of Milan a little quote from him the word is God not as an utterance of speech but of celestial excellence definitely Profound thinker, and as you will see, if you've heard the name, you are probably most familiar with him because he was the one who baptized Augustine. He was saved through, Augustine was saved by hearing the gospel preached from Ambrose, and Ambrose, like many of his contemporaries, were engaged in stopping the corrupting influence of Arianism. If you've been following our videos, you see Arianism as a constant heretical position that was really quite rampant. We're going into the 400s here pretty soon, and it's been a problem for a long time. But his works were, like others, aimed at refuting Arian heresy, paying special attention to the exposition and defense of the divinity of Christ and Trinity. Ambrose formulates his arguments according to the Nicene Orthodoxy, quoting direct statements from the Creed in his treatises. His main work from which we will draw his theological concepts of his Doctrine of God is the book called The Exposition of the Christian Faith, or De Fide in Latin. And that will be our primary text in our lectures today. Interestingly, this work was written by the request of the Emperor Gratian, specifically wanting a treatise that proved the divinity of Christ to repel a Gothic invasion of Arian heresies. Now this book, I'm going to refer to as De Fide, which is much simpler, is comprised of five books. Not chapters, they call them books. Chapters are something more we see now, but most often these kind of works, where either we call it a book, or they are actually divided by books within the main work itself. In these five books, he offers an exposition of Christian doctrine focused on proving the full divinity of Christ, co-equal in substance, wisdom, power, and glory as God the Father, by constantly appealing to the scriptures, elucidating the plain sense of the text. He addresses some new objections from the Aryans, ultimately refuting their false interpretations. So he begins book one with the underlying presupposition that the declaration of our faith is that God is one. The declaration of our faith is that God is one. The oneness of God is declared in scripture in that he is the Lord Almighty who beholds all things and is demonstrated as such through his works. And in doing so, Ambrose sets out to prove the deity of the Son, demonstrating his oneness with the Father and the Spirit in the Blessed Trinity. Again, the Arians held that God is one. So, by beginning with the shared basic biblical teaching, Ambrose seeks to show the inseparability of Christ from the Father in the scriptural design. I think my last one, I didn't do that. I think I made it clear, but let me say this sentence one more time. Ambrose seeks to show the inseparability of Christ from the Father in the scriptural designations of the divinity of Christ, which are proper to the Father, thus coherently retaining the oneness of God. Again, the Arians held that Jesus was a creature. There was a time when the Son was not, as the slogan goes. Ambrose begins by appealing to the baptismal formula in the New Testament revealing the triune God, which God is one in name and one in power of the Trinity. The difference of the persons is observed, but their unity of essence is demonstrated, as Christ Himself testifies that He and the Father are one, and there is no separation of power and nature. Quoting the Athanasian Creed, clause 4, Ambrose writes, quote, the Father and the Son are one, not by confusion of person, but by unity of nature, end quote. He moves into the classic text and expressions in the Gospel of John, pointing the reader to the power and works of God displayed by the Son as the validation of his full divinity, same as the Father, as John 5, 19 and 5, 30. God is eternal, good, almighty, true, and perfect, and it is in Christ whom all the fullness of the Father dwells, Colossians 2.9. Thus the eternality, goodness, almightiness, truthfulness, and perfection dwells in Him. And seeing that Christ is God, Ambrose writes, he is by consequence good and almighty and eternal and perfect and true, for these attributes belong to the essential nature of the Godhead, end quote. Excuse me. So the son is related to the father through generation, not procreation, which the heretics erroneously assume. Well, sorry, they assume procreation. Through generation, the father is begetter and the son is begotten. The son is one with the father, one in eternality and divinity, yet distinct by relation. So again, let's go through this. The persons are relations. They're not distinct centers of consciousness. There's no tripartite-ness in the being of God, but it's the relations. The relations indicate the persons. Ambrose points out that we do not use mere names to make the distinction, but rather through signs of power manifesting itself in his works or in the works. And again, if you've been tracking, he's following the same line with the Eastern side. Basically, it's the manifestation of the works. It's the power that's manifested that belongs to God alone. and therefore if the son does the same work as the father and the spirit it's only one work it's not three works by three beings it's three persons one work all co-eternal equally doing that same work even though even though certain effects are attributed to one of the persons. For example, the son taking on flesh is one work of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, but the created effect, the taking on flesh, terminates on the son. Terminates on the son. So he is the one who ultimately bears the flesh. All right, that was a freebie. Excuse me. And in Scripture's designation that God is Father, he then must have a son, and the son does the same works as his father, which testify that there is no difference either of substance or will. Ambrose refers to Old Testament passages that show the unity of operation and of name, whereby we do not speak of two individual gods, but rather the unity of the Godhead. The Pauline formula in 1 Corinthians 8.6, where Paul specifically modifies the Shema from Deuteronomy 6.4, lexically extends the unique identity of the one God to consist of God the Father and the one Lord the Messiah through whom all of creation exists. You can see the biblical text of Isaiah 42.5, 44.34, and 45.12. So again, back to this passage in 1 Corinthians, Paul's concern was for monotheistic worship in which eating food offered to idols in participating in temple banquets to anyone or anything other than God. is an abomination. Sorry, I had really good Indian food. It's kind of, you know, the broth, not the broth, but the sauce is like a coconut milk, so it kind of creates that kind of phlegm. So if you hear me kind of hacking and gagging, I apologize. So, therefore, to mitigate any confusion in Corinth as to what Christ is, i.e. is he an idol, Paul incorporates Christ into the Shema, the highest confessional statement of monotheism in all the scripture. In chapter 7, Gamber still in book 1, Ambrose takes up his proof of the divinity of Christ by examining Paul's statement that the Son is the image of the Father the image of the invisible God, Colossians 115. Others before Ambrose have referred to this passage to defend the deity of the Son. But I think Ambrose's treatment has a certain analytical clarity I find particularly helpful that boxes in his opponent, resulting in the incontrovertible truth the Son is equal to the Father. Ambrose remarks on Hebrews 1.3 which says, quote, the son is the radiance of God's glory in the exact expression of his nature. So coupled with Colossians 1.15, Ambrose builds his argument against Arius who denies the son's sameness in essence with the father. So looking at these passages, we must ask what is meant by image, especially image of that which is invisible. Ambrose cites Psalm 369, in which the psalmist writes, Therefore, Ambrose concludes, In the sun the Father's glory shines clearly. And then when Christ says to Philip, he who sees me sees the Father, John 12, 45, Christ as the image of the invisible Father cannot mean that Christ is the physical representation of God. Rather, he is the image, quote, simply derived from God coming out from the Father, drawn from the fountainhead, end quote. Ambrose continues, he who looks upon the Son sees in portrait the Father. And what must entail from this statement? If you look upon your own portrait, who do you see? Yourself. And because God is invisible without form, what do we see in the portrait of the Father in Christ? Ambrose writes, Truth, righteousness, the power of God, not dumb, for it is the word, not insensible, for it is wisdom, not vain and foolish, for it is power, not soulless, for it is life, not dead, for it is the resurrection. John 1 is given special attention as a proof for the eternality of the Son like the Father, but the indivisible unity of the eternal Godhead, demonstrating that in the Word being with God, the Word abides in God, not confused or mingled according to Nicene Orthodoxy, but is distinguished by the perfection unblemished. Ambrose concludes, the Word is God, not as an utterance of speech, but of celestial excellence. That's a good quote. In chapter 9, Ambrose directly challenges the heretic's assertion, the Son existed before all time, yet is not co-eternal with the Father. He grounds his argument in the scriptural teaching that Jesus is the agent of creation, and as such, he is the creator of time. Therefore, as the ruler of his own work, he cannot have begun to exist after his own work. God is immutable, and so if he is unchangeable, then he has to have always been Father. Therefore, to be called Father and unchangeable, God must have had a generation of the Son that is not in time. Thus the Father and necessarily the Son are co-eternal, thus suffering no change. Ambrose's forceful argument shows the folly of the heretics if they hold to the view that the son is not eternal. The father is mutable, which they strictly deny. The father begets impassively, as Ambrose says. In chapter 16, Ambrose addresses the error of confusing uncreated and created, particularly the Arian's blasphemy of Christ, and assuming that created and begotten are one and the same. He looks to the apostle Paul, who forbade creature worship, yet professed to be a servant of Christ, asking why would Paul call himself a servant of Christ if he were a created being? And how could there be any created nature in God, for he is uncompounded? God alone is divine, nothing can be added to Him. He fills and penetrates all things, yet nothing can fill or penetrate Him. He is present everywhere, which means He is fully present to every part of His creation, every moment of its existence, which He sovereignly sustains. So explaining that the son is from the father, Ambrose writes, his proceeding from God is not an act of creation, but of relation and oneness of the divine essence. And then he cites John 8, 42, a classic text, yet not overly explicative of a doctrine of procession. Now my modern translation says, excuse me. Jesus said to them, if God were your father, you would love me because I came from God and I am here. For I didn't come on my own, but he sent me. Now one can read this passage and assume that Jesus' words meant he was sent from the father, which is what he states at the end of the passage. Like he sent him on a mission. He came from one place and then went to the other place. But the phrase, I came from God, has a particular nuance which becomes more distinct in John 16, 28, which says, quote, I came from the Father and have come into the world, end quote. In looking at both passages, we have a distinction between the coming from the Father and the coming or being sent into the world. The Greek is much more helpful in understanding this clearly. The word Jesus uses when speaking of his coming from the Father is the Greek word εξέλθον, which means to go out of or come out of. And this is particular to the Johannine usage of Jesus. We see this in John 13, 3, John 16, 27, 16, 30, and 17, 8. And elsewhere in the gospels and in Acts, we see this word used to refer to spirits that come or go out of persons. There's a whole litany of these passages. I'll give you a few, Mark 1, 25, Matthew 12, 43, Luke 4, 36, Acts 8, 7. So I would say Ambrose's argument, exegetically speaking, is sound. It's quite sound, demonstrating that if God has nothing created in his nature and Christ comes from the Father, then Christ is not a created being. Ambrose remarks on the works the Son does, which belong properly to divinity. These works the Son does because he sees the Father doing them. And if he does the same works the Father does, then he's equal in power and importantly, in demonstration of their unity. Ambrose writes, the Godhead is proper to each person, and freedom lies not in any difference, but in unity of will. So now we're going to move into Book 2, Chapter 2 of Book 2. And this chapter of Book 2 is quite instructive for us in that we see the interpretive liberty Ambrose takes, which we do not see in modern historical critical hermeneutics. The previous chapter in the first book, Ambrose demonstrates that the son carries out divine operations as the father does, attributing the works of God to Christ can only mean he is divine. Now, in chapter 2, Ambrose makes the lexical move to place Christ in the Old Testament to show the Son's goodness proved from his works, quote, namely, his benefits he showed towards the people of Israel under the Old Covenant and the Christians under the New, end quote. Ambrose places Christ at the Red Sea in Exodus 14, demonstrating His goodness, making the waters, quote, flow around the faithful. He places Him standing on the Rock of Horeb in Exodus 17, which we also see referenced in 1 Corinthians 10.4, showing the handiwork of the true Creator, causing the rock to stream forth water. Ambrose places him in the wilderness, bringing manna from heaven so that Israel does not perish due to famine, sustaining them even down to imperishable shoes on their feet. of the Bible reveals Christ. Therefore, Ambrose and all premodern interpreters of scripture see that the work of God is a work of the triune God in every divine action we see in the text, whether the old or the new. Ambrose shifts the discussion to the oneness of the Son of God. The essence of the Son is the same as the Father. God is one, which means there are no other gods. So if God is in Christ, like we see in John 17, 2-23, we have two distinct persons of the Godhead, but there is no division of their Godhead. And in the oneness of the Son and the Father, the Godhead, the Son is omnipotent. Ambrose bases this on the authority of the Old and New Testaments. The Son is Lord, the Lord is Almighty, therefore the Son of God is Almighty. The Almighty is the one Alpha and the Omega, who is, who was, and who is to come. Christ is Almighty Lord and God. In showing the unity of the Son with God and that He is God, Ambrose addresses the challenging doctrine of the Incarnation, specifically the Son assuming a human will and affections, clarifying the distinctions between His deity and humanity. The unity of Christ with the Father is identified in their unity of working. God's will issues straight away in actual effect." And that's a quote. The human will of Christ is observed in his fear of death, but the passion of the Son to suffer for us depended on the divine will. The scripture says he bore our grief and sorrows as the prophet Isaiah declared in 53-4. Well, Isaiah 53-4, excuse me. His death therefore, quote, made an end of death, end quote. In taking on human nature, he took the affections of a human soul because, quote, God could not have been distressed or have died in respect to his being God. Only human nature would cry out in being forsaken being man. Therefore, Ambrose writes, quote, he is distressed, as man he weeps, as man he is crucified, end quote. In Ambrose, he cites Paul and Peter affirming this distinction, who said, quote, they have crucified the flesh of Christ, Galatians 5, 24. And in 1 Peter 4, 1, Christ says he suffered according to the flesh. The Godhead is secure from death. Christ in the flesh obviously is not. In conclusion, Ambrose notes that when the text says the Lord of Glory was crucified, 1 Corinthians 2, 4, it is because He who is man is also God. It is by virtue of His divinity that He could take on humanity in the man Christ Jesus. Again, I've said this before. It is theologically accurate to say, in the person of Christ, God died. Or you can say, God died on the cross. Or you can say, the Lord Jesus created everything before the world began. That term, because of the incarnation, is theologically correct. In possessing both natures, he endured the passion of his humanity in order that, without distinction, he who suffered should be called both Lord of Glory and Son of Man, even as it is written, who descended from heaven. In the next chapter, Ambrose sets out to reconcile one of the more challenging passages that many see assert that the son is inferior to the father. This is John 17, 28, which is the father is greater than I. Ambrose follows the great tradition in his interpretation, making the proper distinction between the Economia and the Theologia. The error is taking texts that are proper to Christ's humanity and inferring it to his divinity and the inverse. The skapos of scripture is the revelation of God in Christ. The revelation is accommodated to humanity in that the divine essence is revealed in human essence. Revelation is not a transformation or mutation of the divine essence. Therefore, a consistent interpretation must apply a canonical understanding of God which reveals that His essence is not creaturely. So, when God takes on human nature, we must be careful to avoid interpreting passages in a manner that place human properties in the Godhead. And that is what Ambrose does. He reminds the reader about what is proper to the divine essence. God is always present in every place and does not pass from place to place. Therefore, Christ is not speaking of his divinity but of his humanity being lower than the Father. The unity of will and display of divine work demonstrates his deity. Ambrose takes us to another passage to prove his point, Psalm 22. And here we see an example of the modern term to refer to this type of exegesis is called prosopological exegesis. mentioned earlier, but this interpretive tool situates Christ in the Old Testament in the first person. Christ is speaking in the character, which is the Greek word prosopon, character or mask or face, but in the character of David engaged in a divine dialogue with the Father. This again is referring to Psalm 22. Ambrose's point is to further strengthen his argument regarding the distinction between Christ's humanity and divinity. And to do so, he draws our attention to Christ's words in Psalm 22 and then he buttresses it with Isaiah 53-7 that Ambrose puts in parallel fashion to John 17-28, lexically extending the New Testament into the Old and vice versa. So Ambrose writes, How indeed can he be a lesser God when he is perfect and true God? Yet in respect of his humanity he is less, and still you wonder that speaking in the person of a man he called the Father greater than himself when in the person of a man he called himself a worm and not a man, saying, quote, but I am a worm and no man. And again, he was led as a sheep to the slaughter. Again, he's using what he's referring to what David spoke in the Psalms. And he's saying that Christ is in the person of man through David saying these things about man. And that's the prospological interpretive tool. The scripture does not speak of his inferiority, of his begottenness, rather he was made lower, that is, made inferior. In his taking the form of a servant, Christ did not part with what he was, rather he took up what he was not, a servant. Ambrose notes the categories of greater and lesser, they lose their meaning when we are speaking of the divine essence. Such categories are proper to corporeal existences. One who is greater is so in respect to rank or qualities or at any rate of age. He was made lower according to creaturely distinction so that he might taste death for everyone. It's quite simple. The divinity of Christ, the divine Christ. The second person of the Trinity could not taste death until what? Until he was made, until he took on flesh. He took on the body, right, of our Savior. Well, not on the body. He became flesh, excuse me. So he could taste death for everyone. Hebrews 2.9. Ambrose remarks with a tone of absurdity, stating, if we do not affirm this distinction, then lest we should suppose the Godhead, not the flesh, to have endured the passion. Exclamation point. That was pretty good. Exclamation point. That's absurd, is it not? How does the divinity of God experience passion, suffer? It cannot, right? God cannot suffer. we can say God suffered in Christ. So while the Jews were in grave error for rejecting Christ as the Son of God, their error proves to be instructive for us, thus an implicit biblical argument for the divinity of the Son. The Jews were in error because they understood the implications of Jesus' outlandish claims, Yahweh, in human form. Ambrose points out that the Apostle John testifies that the Son is not lower than the Father, just by reason of being the Son. When Christ said in John 5.17, My Father is still working, and I am working also, his words incited the Jews to want to kill him because they understood the claim he was making, that he was what? Making himself equal to God, John 5.18. And how does Jesus respond? He further proves his divinity, stating, quote, For whatever the Father does, the Son likewise does these things. That's John 5, 19. In chapter 10, Ambrose takes up the objection that the Son is inferior because he disobeyed God and obeyed his mother. Surely this is a strange objection, but it provides Ambrose with the opportunity to demonstrate the unity of power in the Godhead. Interestingly, Ambrose notes that the events in and after the Passion are exemplary of the oneness and power of the Trinity. He writes, Thus we have learnt the power of the Trinity as one, as we are taught both in and after the Passion itself. For the Son suffers through His body, which is the earnest of it. The Holy Spirit is poured upon the apostles, into the Father's hands the Spirit is commended. Furthermore, God is with a mighty voice proclaim the Father. We have learned that there is one form, one likeness, one sanctification of the Father and of the Son, one activity, one glory, finally one Godhead. What we observe in Ambrose's Trinitarian theology is a constant reference back to the unity of the Godhead. Even in an event where scripture seems to speak most clearly of the separation of the Son from the Father, Ambrose sees it as a marvelous display of the unity and oneness of the Triune God. All right, so now we're going to get into book three. It's only two paragraphs, real short. Again, there was a lot more to go through, but I'm just trying to cover some of the key things regarding Ambrose's doctrine of God and the Trinity. So we're going to start in Chapter 14 of Book 3. In this section, Ambrose considers the question of the Son's substance, which he argues is one with the Father. Scripture teaches that the Son is the image of the Father's substance, indicating that there is nothing of the Godhead that the Son doesn't share with the Father. Ambrose cites John 16, 15 where Christ says, quote, everything the Father has is mine, end quote. Ambrose doesn't interpret this passage in a manner that implies everything is material, like as if husband and wife are together, and I have this house, and my wife says, well, everything my husband has, I have too. Well, she doesn't have the same essence as me, right? We are distinct persons. Now, we are one flesh through the unity of marriage, but that's not what Christ is talking about here, and Ambrose is picking up on that. He doesn't interpret it that way, but he says he has everything by an act of giving to the Son. Hold on, I just misquoted myself. Let me restate that sentence again. So Ambrose doesn't interpret this passage in a manner that implies the everything is material or something he has by an act of giving to the Son. Rather, it is in virtue of his likeness with the Father that he has everything of the Father. Ambrose writes, quote, we cannot then deny substance to God for indeed he is not unsubstantial who have given to others the ground of their being. Those be different in God from what it is in the creature. The son of God by whose agency all things endure could not be unsubstantial, end quote. Heretic's error in not interpreting this passage according to theologia, but rather to economia. All right, we're done with book three, on to book four. In this book, he continues to refute Aaron Hersey's, specifically showing their inconsistent interpretations and applications of scriptural passages that distort the oneness of the Son with the Father. Ambrose considers the Arians' interpretation of Ephesians 5, 23-5, in which they assert it teaches that God is the head of Christ, thus making him inferior to God. As we can see, their mistake is blending or blurring the lines between theologia and economia. Ambrose outlines the distinction in the context of the passage, clarifying that God is the head of Christ, quote, insofar as his form of a servant that is of man, not of God, is considered, end quote. Excuse me. And this taxonomy is proper to the context of economia. So what Paul is saying is correct, right? Because Paul has the right understanding. Now, I'm not saying that Paul understood theology and economy in the way that we're making the distinction, but Paul understood that the context of that Jesus as man, that God was his head. According to the reality of Christ's assuming of flesh, He is likened unto men. Therefore, accordingly God is the head. It has no bearing on the theologia as it pertains to the Son of God. Regarding His Godhead, He is one with the Father. We do not take His sovereignty away, but attribute compassion to Him. And while the Economia reveals a distinction of the persons, the persons share in the divine substance. And therefore, there is no separation in power or in wisdom. The father is in the son, not to sanctify, but according to their mutual indwelling. The word, the son is in the father, the father in the son, and the spirit in the father and the son. In the Oneness or the Unity of the Divine Substance, Ambrose writes, Nor is the power of the one increased by the power of the other, for there are not two powers but one power. Nor does the Godhead entertain Godhead, for there are not two Godheads but one Godhead. Ambrose then notes the distinction when it comes to the indwelling of God in man, in that power received comes from the one Christ indwelling in us, but also the Father and the Spirit. And while the unity is common in the divine essence, the substance of God and the substance of man are different. Therefore, Ambrose writes, the unity that we have with the triune God, quote, shall be won by grace, end quote. Ambrose's aim is to delineate the ontological categories that the Arians fail to maintain between the Son and the Father, and in their examples or analogies from Scripture, they use 1 Corinthians 3a to show the Father and the Son are one, as Paul and Apollos are one in nature of faith. This distinction is noted in Jesus' prayer in John 17, 21, where he says, May they all be one, as you, Father, are in me, and I am in you. Ambrose points out that Jesus did not say, quote, you in us and we in you, but you in me and I in you, end quote, to place him apart from his creatures. The full dignity of the sons of the fathers which he has by natural right of his sonship. We creatures have sonship by grace, not by nature. In chapter 4, Ambrose responds to the Arians' rejection of the Son as the divine substance when Jesus says the Son can do nothing of himself, John 5.19. His approach follows the text and the implications of the text, and then he returns to the unity of the divine substance and the implications that follow. Ambrose notes that their argument is tenuous and that the very next sentence, Jesus explains what he means, adding greater force to his argument of the oneness of the Son with the Father. Jesus qualifying his statement in 519 says quote, but only what he sees the father doing for whatever the father does the son likewise does these things Ambrose asked Why is it not written that the son does, quote, such like things, end quote. If he does the same works the father does, what does that imply about the son? He is distinct by relations, but one in essence, power and will. If he does the same works, Ambrose writes, then let the heretic cease to deny the omnipotence of him who they confess able to do all things that he has seen the father doing, end quote. Ambrose wants to take the argument further, grounding it in divine aseity and divine simplicity. He asks the rhetorical question, quote, is there anything impossible of God's power and wisdom, end quote. His question is a setup. Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, First Corinthians 124. As God's power and wisdom, Ambrose, with the understanding that God is almighty, entails aseity, and that his power and wisdom are not gifts received from another, rather, He is the life, not depending upon another's quickening action, but himself quickening others, because he is the life. So also he is wisdom, not as one that is ignorant acquiring wisdom, but making others wise from his own store. So too he is power, not as having through weakness obtained increase of strength, but being himself power and bestowing power upon the strong. Now while Ambrose does not explicitly deploy a doctrine of divine simplicity, his argument has all the features of origin, i.e. he makes his argument of the sun's divinity, named the wisdom and power of God, from the concept of God's essence as the origin of his being, which means all that he has comes from himself, specifically, he is his attributes. Ambrose does not say the Son has life, but that He is life. Thus He also is wisdom, He is power, and is the source of life, He animates of wisdom, He gives wisdom, and of power He gives power. The bulk of this book consists of proofs for the unity of the Father and the Son as demonstrated through divine acts and power. Ambrose considers passages that seem to imply the inferiority of the Son to the Father, which the Arians continually cite to support the argument of the Son's subservient position by nature to God. Throughout De Fide, Ambrose with relentless resolve and great precision successfully excises the heretical arguments foisted from the Arians asserting the sun as a creature. He has applied rigorous exegesis of the specific passages or rather proof texts on which the Arians base their claims. His approach is consistent in that he does not isolate passages from their immediate context nor the canonical context as the heretics do. This last segment in Book 5, which will be the main text we will continue our study of Ambrose, Ambrose masterfully and carefully handles a text of scripture which is the quintessential go-to passage heretics use to support their claim that the Son is a creature. And this is Mark 13, 32, where Jesus says, quote, Now concerning the day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but only the Father, end quote. It is here that an exegesis guided by an Economia Theologiae interpretation proves most formidable and instructive in defending the deity of the sun, in a manner that maintains consistency and clarity of Scripture as a whole as compared to a reading of scripture that gives more precedence to one side over the other to determine the meaning of scripture. Ambrose writes, responding to Mark 13, 32, he says, 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? Colossians 2, 3. Now Ambrose could have just left it there, letting one passage expose the inconsistency in their interpretive 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. He asked, excuse me, by what nature, as in how and or place of origin, does he have this knowledge of God? Does he have it by reason of his being or just 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? That's the question. 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, Ambrose says, quote, then he was perfect from the beginning. He came forth perfect from the Father, and so needed no foreknowledge of the future, end quote. Ambrose refers to the pattern of Christian truth, that Christ is 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. This is a really good argument, so listen closely. 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. So what does he draw from this text? Well, if you look at the Greek word translated as universe, In my modern version it says universe, but the Greek word is aionos, which literally is ages. It is the ages, plural, past, present, and future, that the sun created and sustains. So Ambrose writes, How then were those made which are future, unless it is that his active power in knowledge contains within itself the number of all the ages? For just as he calls the things that are not as though they were, Romans 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. 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 judgment, because that day, though future to us, nevertheless the Son of God has knowledge of it as being already made by Him. And then we see Ambrose's lexical extension of the depiction of God as the Creator in the Old Testament 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, how could He be ignorant of some things in His creation? Scripture says that the Father made all things in wisdom, Psalm 104.24, through His Son who is the virtue and wisdom of God, 1 Corinthians 1.24. Would we dare say that there is something in or about creation that the Father does not know? Ambrose makes a clever move, calling the heretic's attention to Matthew 11, where Jesus says, 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? I love how Ambrose is just taking one shot after the next, hitting all these passages that no one would think that don't pertain to Christ's knowledge of being equal with God, yet keep saying, how could he not know this day? So I think it's really, really brilliant. And again, he stays within the text. He doesn't get philosophical. He asks these questions and just one after the other starts knocking down these presuppositions. Demonstrating beyond a doubt that the sun knows the day, Ambrose points us to the sun's words in Luke 17, 20 to 31. In this section, Christ speaks of a 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's in the field must not turn back, end quote. How then, Ambrose exclaims, could he be ignorant of the day? He continues recalling the signs and times that will pass as the day closes in. Therefore, he who is Lord of the Sabbath, how does he know all these events, yet not know the day? 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, Ambrose says, 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 watchtower virtue, and so avoid the habits of sin." In 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." 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 examines passages that speak of one person as pertaining to all the persons, all for one and one for all. I think it's the Three Musketeers, right? So, hold on, water real quick. 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. Psalm 53, 2. Does this imply that God was ignorant of their merits? Isn't it brilliant how he takes these passages and he uses them to support his arguments, right? He doesn't try to come up with some kind of weird thing. He takes these passages and the implication of these is that it would be absurd for us to say, no, that God didn't really know, right? And that's his whole point is to show that. But 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. And Ambrose takes the reader through a few other passages that seem to imply an ignorance or lack of power in God, such as Luke 20.13, Matthew 21.37, and Mark 12.6. Ambrose responds by applying the Aryans' interpretive logic, i.e., whereby they deny the true deity of the sun due to passages of ignorance applied to him. Sorry, that was a parenthetical note. Let me just restate my sentence. Ambrose responds by applying the Arians' interpretive logic to passages of ignorance or being deceived that pertain to God the Father, which both sides would never understand imply denial of divinity. Ambrose's approach is brilliant. By deploying an economia 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 Skapos 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 also known to Him. I don't know why I wrote that. So, 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 his guiding principle, the essence and nature of God overrides any notions of creaturely properties that Scripture posits of God, such as anthropomorphic language. Doing so promotes continuity in the will and decree of God, which would be lost if an overly literal interpretation, as observed by the Arians, has the upper hand in one's approach to Scripture. 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 conclusion, 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. This is the book you can get on Amazon or anywhere else. You can get it free, the digital version free. I think the Christian Classic Ethereal Library should have it. It's the Exposition of the Christian Faith by St. Ambrose. Well, again, I hope that was very helpful. I know for me, as a good refresher, I think about the Jehovah's Witnesses that can come to your door. I mean, this is a great way to address their arguments. So I recommend maybe listening to this again, take some good notes, go through your Bible, and be ready for the Jehovah's Witnesses. Again, you know, our church fathers of the Christian tradition have already addressed these objections, these views. already for us, so don't reinvent the wheel, go to these guys, glean the powerful arguments they make from the scriptures to ultimately to take every captive argument, sorry, to destroy every lofty argument leveled against God, right? So anyways, that was Lecture 15, St. Ambrose, we will see you next time for Lecture 16. See ya.