Ambrosiaster: Trinity, Jesus the Great Angel & Hypostatic Union

The excerpts cited here are all taken from Ambrosiaster’s Commentary on the Pauline Epistles: Romans, Translated with Notes, by Theodore S. de Bruyn, with an Introduction by Theodore S. de Bruyn, Stephen A. Cooper, & David G. Hunter. It was published by SBL Press in 2017. All emphasis will be mine.

5.1. The Context

The Commentary presents itself as transmitting what Paul, the “teacher of the gentiles” (1 Tim 2:7),¹ taught about God, Christ, the gospel, faith, salvation, and the Christian way of life. Nonetheless, Ambrosiaster also interprets the topics of the apostle’s discussion in light of the doctrinal and ecclesiastical developments in the three centuries that separated Paul from our anonymous commentator. Of particular import were the Trinitarian debates about the status of Christ in the period between the Council of Nicaea (325) and that of Constantinople in 381, which reauthorized the Nicene Creed in slightly modified form.² In the meantime a dispute about Christology broke out because of a suggestion proffered by Apollinaris of Laodicea (a supporter of the Nicene Creed) to account for the God-human union in the incarnation.³ His “extreme version of the Word-flesh Christology” supposed the Logos to have taken the place of a human mind in Jesus, a view that became controversial after the Council of Alexandria in 362 and was officially condemned at Constantinople.⁴ An additional point of dispute was the status of the Holy Spirit. This issue rose to prominence in the late 350s, when Athanasius in his four letters to Serapion denounced any who regarded the Spirit as a creature.⁵ Opposition to such “Pneumatomachians” (later called “Macedonians”6) became “a new norm of orthodoxy” after the Synod of Alexandria in 362.⁷ The Roman church’s awareness of the various debates was keen in the late 370s (or early 380s), as is evident from a missive of Damasus to Eastern bishops.⁸

As a Roman presbyter, Ambrosiaster probably would have been familiar with these developments through documents connected to the Roman church in the years leading up to its engagement in the Council of Antioch of 379. These discussions prepared the ground for the Council of Constantinople. We are informed about this by synodal letters from Rome dating from the mid-370s, which make up a dossier called the Exemplum synodi. The documents of this collection—known as Confidimus, Ea gratia, Illut sane, and Non nobis⁹—all combat doctrinal deviations related to the Trinitarian controversy, in particular to erroneous views of the Holy Spirit. The second of these Roman letters, Ea gratia, states that “we confess even that the Holy Spirit, being uncreated, is of one majesty, of one ousia, of one power with God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.” An even clearer anticipation of Constantinople occurs in the opening salvo of Ea gratia: “We all say with one voice that the Trinity is of one power [unius virtutis], one majesty, one divinity, one ousia, such that it is an indivisible power [inseparabilem potestatem]—but we do assert there are three persons.”¹⁰ A slightly later text of the Roman church, the Tome of Damasus (Tomus Damasi),¹¹ documents the Roman council of 382, which sought to implement the decisions of the council at Constantinople.¹² Both the creed of Constantinople and its affirmation at the Roman council framed themselves as reaffirmations of the Nicene Creed (hence the Tome of Damasus opens with a Latin translation of the Nicene Creed). The Tome denounces both older heresies as well as the more recent error, namely, those who “dare to say with sacrilegious mouth that the Holy Spirit was made through the Son.”¹³ Further anathemas excoriate other failures to recognize or properly articulate the full divinity of the Spirit. In language similar to that of Ea gratia, the Tome emphasizes the necessity of maintaining the distinctions of one and three: “anyone who will not say that there is one divinity, majesty, power, and dominion of the Father, Son, and Spirit … is a heretic.… If anyone will have said there are not three true persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit … he is a heretic.”¹⁴ (Pp. lxxvii-lxxix)

5.2. The Mystery of the One God and the Mystery of the Trinity

Using a metaphor drawn from imperial Rome, Ambrosiaster saw the promotion of monotheism as part of Christ’s mission:²² “Just as an emperor asserts power over his kingdom through his soldiers, so too does the savior through us his servants defend the profession and practice of the one God” (In 2 Cor. 10:4). Unlike the philosophical elucidation of the nature of God in the opening treatise of Ambrosiaster’s Quaestiones (a work titled “What Is God?”; Quaest. 1 [CSEL 50:13–17]),23 his exegesis of the epistles makes only occasional use of the commonplaces of philosophical theology, which had long been melded with the God of the Bible by both Jews and Christians. The Commentary betrays an author disinclined to discuss the divine reality abstractly but ready to show how God is knowable in human experience even apart from Scripture or revelation. “The rigors of bodily existence” in the world of transient things, which are all in themselves “futile,” can lead to understanding of “the mystery of the creator,” in whose light the goodness of created things can be rightly used (In Rom. 8:20 [§1a]). Ambrosiaster explicitly grounds the authority of Scripture in its character as witness to the revelation of the mystery: “The scriptures are holy because they condemn faults and because in them is contained the mystery of the one God and the incarnation of the Son of God for the salvation of humankind, attested by miraculous signs” (In Rom. 1:2 [§3]). Paul’s role in transmitting the mystery that has been revealed makes him “singular” (singularis) among the apostles and therefore “dubbed a chosen vessel (Acts 9:15) by divine judgment” (In 1 Cor. 2:10 [§1]).

The existence of God had always been an object of possible human knowledge through the evidence of creation, the natural law, and then the books of Moses.²⁴ As the growth of sin rendered humankind under collective condemnation, the inadequacy of these provisions became evident. From all eternity God had a more effective intervention in mind. The statement in Titus that “the saving grace of our God has shone upon all” elicits a telling comment: “The truth of the one God has been revealed in Christ, so that in a godly profession we may proclaim the creator in the unity of the Trinity” (In Titus 2:11 [§1]). Likewise Ambrosiaster refers to “the mystery of the one God … in Christ” (In Eph. 3:10 [§1]). Paul was sent to teach the gentiles this mystery “with a dual focus”: to teach that Christ “is always in God” and that through him God made salvation available to gentiles “without circumcision and other commands of the law.”²⁵

Ambrosiaster speaks more generally of “the mystery of the Trinity” in pointing out how Paul’s doxological greeting of Romans includes all three divine persons, even when the text does not do so explicitly. “In saying Son of God, he meant of God the Father, and with the addition of the Spirit of sanctification he displayed the mystery of the Trinity” (In Rom. 1:4 [§1]). The gospel is thus the revealing of “the mystery of God,” which is Christ (In Rom. 1:1 [§5a]). The appropriate response to this revelation, as Ambrosiaster observes, is faith, which “removes the cloud of error and bestows perfect knowledge of God in the mystery of the Trinity, which had not been known by the ages” (In Rom. 2:28 [§2]). When the error of “the supposition of many gods” has been removed through the revelation of the divinity of Christ, humanity will be able to “adore the one God in Trinity” (In 2 Cor. 5:17). This revelation of Christ, Ambrosiaster is careful to specify, brings about a renewed proclamation of “the creator in the unity of the Trinity” (In Titus 2:11 [§1]).

More explicit traces of the fourth-century doctrinal controversies are the unmarked phrases from the Nicene Creed found throughout the Commentary. Ambrosiaster explains how Christ was “born, not made” (non factus sed natus est) (In Rom. 8:29 [§3]); he states that Christ is “God from God” (In Rom. 14:11).26 The latter creedal phrase recurs in revised comments (In Eph. 1:17 [§2]).27 Ambrosiaster also employs a number of formulations to express the ὁμοούσιον, which was translated variously in Latin. Marius Victorinus had suggested consubstantialis or eiusdem substantiae;²⁸ and the Tome of Damasus renders the term with unius substantiae.²⁹ Explaining how all things are “from him (i.e., God) and through him and in him” (Rom 11:36), Ambrosiaster invokes the controversial phrase: “Because they are from him, they began to exist through his Son, who is in truth of the same substance [qui eiusdem utique substantiae est] and whose work is the Father’s work” (In Rom. 11:36 [§1]). He uses substantia as the functional equivalent to οὐσία to signal the common nature of the persons, as he states, “the Father and Son are one power and one divinity and substance” (In 2 Thess. 2:16–17).

Paul’s references to the Father and the Son are the most frequent occasions for Ambrosiaster’s Trinitarian elucidations. At the opening thanksgiving in 2 Cor 1:3 (“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”), he remarks on the apostle’s manner of writing: “In every letter he always transmits the order of the mystery as he comes to speak about God the Father, about his gift, and about his son, the Lord Jesus Christ.… Just as two things are mentioned, two would also be understood to exist, such that each would be considered a subsistent reality [subsistens], although they exist as a single substance.” Parallel to the efforts of Greek theologians, Ambrosiaster sought coherent language to distinguish the individual reality of the persons through the term subsistens (= ὑπόστασις, in the later technical sense)³⁰ from that which is one (the divine substantia or οὐσία). Discussing the “one God” and “one mediator” of 1 Tim 2, he distinguishes the person while referring to the divine substance as a single nature: “Father and Son are one not in respect of their person but in respect of their indistinguishable nature [sed indifferenti natura]” (In 1 Tim. 2:5 [§1]). Likewise his comments on 2 Cor 5:18b–21 (“It is God who through Christ reconciled us to himself etc.”) draw on both substance and relation language for the Trinity:

Because their substance is one [una substantia], the Father is understood to be in the Son. For where there is no differentiating factor [nulla est differentia], there exists unity. And that is why they are mutually related [ac per hoc invicem sunt], since there is one image and one likeness of them, such that one who sees the Son would be said to have seen the Father, just as the Lord himself states: One who has seen me has also seen the Father (John 14:9). (In 2 Cor. 5:18–21 [§2])

A similar discussion of the Father-Son relation recurs in Ambrosiaster’s comments on Col 1, which also incorporate language of seeing from the Fourth Gospel. Apropos of the statement that Christ is “the image of the invisible God,” he clarifies that the “seeing” by which one sees the Father through the Son is not “with their fleshly eyes” but “by their understanding [intellectu] of his divine works” (In Col. 1:15 [§3]). The coordination of Pauline and Johannine utterances in a number of such doctrinally oriented passages is a significant element of Ambrosiaster’s attempt to create a solid scriptural foundation for pro-Nicene theology. The Commentary, however, does not replicate the thoroughness of Ambrosiaster’s Quaestiones in treating these issues.³¹

Ambrosiaster emphasizes the Holy Spirit as a fully divine member of the Trinity at numerous passages, although the Commentary’s latest recension (recensio γ) contains many more such references than the earlier version(s). As noted above, Ambrosiaster’s comments on 1 Thess 3:9–10 (§2) in recensio α make no mention of the Holy Spirit, but the later recension shows an expansion on these remarks with an additional comment on the Trinity aimed at clarifying the equal rank of the Spirit.³² In this comment Ambrosiaster is most explicit about the need for appropriate Trinitarian distinctions:

There is one way to discuss the nature of the Father and the Son, and there is another way to discuss the persons. The Father is Unbegotten, but the Son is Begotten. In respect to the persons, there is distinction, although the unity of nature is undivided. For the unity exists not in person, but in substance. But the Holy Spirit is not considered as inferior because he is ranked third.

Although it has become clear to Ambrosiaster that language about the nature of God is different from that required for discussions of the persons, he struggles to articulate abstractly what in the persons—that is, in the distinct persona of each—is the basis of their differentiation. At Eph 2:3 he gives some thought to the problem as it emerges in his reflections about “God” as a name or term (nomen): “Nonetheless, there is this distinction between the Father and the Son: that the Father receives this name from no-one; the Son, however, receives all things from the Father through his being begotten [per generationem], so that the Son differs in nothing from the Father in terms of power, substance, and name.” Following a path laid down in Latin theology by Tertullian,³³ Ambrosiaster locates the distinction between Father and Son in the divine begetting, which is what ensures the Son’s full inheritance of all that God is and does. Ambrosiaster has not achieved the clarity of the Cappadocian solution—where the terms indicating what is particular (ἰδίωμα) to the persons do not designate substance but signify the nature of the relation (σχέσις) between the persons³⁴—to the point of articulating the Spirit’s peculiar mode of relationship to the other person as that of “processing.” Rather, his account of the Holy Spirit simply insists on the fully divine nature of the Spirit, as in his comment on 2 Cor 5:4, where he states that the Holy Spirit “in substance is Christ.”³⁵

In line with his arguments grounded in the Fourth Gospel, which present the common action of Father and Son as proof of their unity, Ambrosiaster asserts the same as regards the Holy Spirit. The Spirit’s activity is evidence that the Father is “in the Holy Spirt” (In Rom. 11:36 [§2]). The Holy Spirit, moreover, is the Spirit of both Father and Son³⁶—the idea of the filioque is foreign to him, as Langen noted³⁷—and this too is an argument for their identity of substance and nature. His comments at Eph 3:17 (“for Christ to dwell in your hearts through faith”) effectively synthesize Pauline and Johannine passages to promulgate a scriptural basis for recent pro-Nicene positions articulating the distinction between the personae of the Trinity and the divine natura (πρόσωπον and φύσις, in contemporary Greek theology):

We should have no doubt that Christ dwells in us, through the Spirit, obviously. For the Spirit is another Advocate (John 14:26), between whom and Christ there is a difference of persons, not of nature, because the Spirit receives what is of Christ (see John 16:14) and is sent forth from God.³⁸ Those realities whose unity belongs to their nature are mutually related to each other.³⁹ That is the sense of the Lord’s saying: All that the Father has is mine, and what is mine is of the Father (John 16:15). (In Eph. 3:17 [§§2–3])

While Ambrosiaster does not cite in the Commentary any Johannine passages mentioning the Paraclete, that title features in his explication of the closing doxology in Romans. Although it was only at the time of Christ that “the mystery … hidden in God was proclaimed,” believers must understand that “both the Word and the Paraclete are with him from eternity” (In Rom. 16:25–27 [§1]). (Pp. lxxxi-lxxxvi)

30. For the conscious shift made by Greek theologians away from the usage of hypostasis as synonymous with ousia, see Khaled Anatolios, “Discourse on the Trinity,” in Constantine to c. 600, ed. Augustine Casiday and Frederick W. Norris, vol. 2 of The Cambridge History of Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 439–41. (P. lxxxiii)

31. See particularly the treatise Quaest. 122, “De principio,” where he engages with the creedal phrase deus de deo in light of the first two verses of the Johannine Prologue and a number of Pauline passages (1 Cor 1:24 and Col 1:15–16). “The gospels of the apostles John and Paul agree,” he states, “for they are saying the same things: that the Son God was begotten before any creation in order to create the spiritual powers and the world and the things that are visible in it” (CSEL 50:369). (P. lxxxiv)

5.3. The Mystery of Christ

Many passages of the Commentary contain formulations relating to the debates about the person of Christ in the period leading up to the Council of Constantinople in 381.⁴⁰ Martini has maintained that Ambrosiaster (at In Rom. 1:3 and In Phil. 2:10) anticipates the centerpiece of the creed of Chalcedon (451)—the doctrine of hypostatic union—even if Ambrosiaster has not quite formulated its “two natures” stipulation.⁴¹ Concerns about Christ needing to have a full human nature had already been part of the front against Apollinaris’s truncation of Jesus’s humanity. Yet Ambrosiaster retained some exegetical independence of this context. As Desmond Foley, author of the fullest study in English on Ambrosiaster’s Christology, has observed, the anonymous commentator “believes in the unity of Christ and in his divinity and humanity, but he does not seem to feel the need to involve himself in the terminology being worked out by his contemporaries to deal with the problem.”⁴²

Ambrosiaster’s defense of Christ as fully human and fully divine appears first in the commentary on Romans, in his remarks on Paul’s opening declaration about himself as a “slave of Jesus Christ” (Rom 1:1). The question concerns what is signified by the names “Jesus” and “Christ,” and why they appear sometimes together and sometimes apart. In Paul’s epistolary greeting, the apostle “referred to both names of Jesus Christ in order to indicate the person of both God and the human being, since the Lord is present in both.” According to Ambrosiaster, this greeting in the twofold name “Jesus Christ,” on the one hand, excludes the Christology of Marcion (which denied the reality of Christ’s body), and on the other, confounds “the Jews” and Photinus,⁴³ who deny his divine nature. But what if the double name is lacking in a mention of Christ? Ambrosiaster formulates a rule that allows context to determine each case: “Whenever scripture says either Jesus or Christ, it sometimes means the person of God, sometimes the person of the human being” (In Rom. 1:1 [§§2–3]).

Other Pauline references to the double name “Jesus Christ” find similar explanation. Ambrosiaster comments on the statement in Rom 1:3 that Christ was “from the seed of David according to the flesh” so as to elaborate the explanation offered at Rom 1:1 and also to correlate the epistolary text with the incarnational elements of the Johannine prologue:

He says that he who was Son of God according to the Holy Spirit—that is, according to God, because God is spirit (see John 4:24) and is undoubtedly holy—was made Son of God according to the flesh from Mary, as in the verse: And the Word was made flesh (John 1:14). As a result, there is now one Son of both God and a human being, Christ Jesus, so that just as he is true God, so also was he a true human being. He will not, however, be a true human being unless he is made of flesh and soul, so as to be complete. (In Rom. 1:3 [§2])⁴⁴

Here is a clear rejection of anything resembling the “Word-flesh” Christology of Apollinaris. Christ possessed a complete human nature, although Ambrosiaster carefully insists elsewhere that his being “true God” and “true human being” does not detract from the unity of the person Jesus. Thus, he states that “since the Son of God is the same one [idem] as the Son of Man and is said to be both Jesus and Christ, he is called by two names so that he would be signified to be both man and God” (In 2 Tim. 4: 22). Other passages similarly emphasize the unity of the person of Jesus.⁴⁵

The question of Christ’s birth from Mary, however, is only one facet of the “mystery concerning Christ”—a mystery on account of the fact that “what became incarnate had been hidden from the ages in God” (In 1 Cor. 2:1–2 [§§1–2]). Elsewhere in the Commentary Ambrosiaster also refers to the incarnation as a “mystery” (In 2 Cor. 11:26 [§1]).⁴⁶ The Christ-hymn of Phil 2:5–11, a passage of the greatest interest among patristic exegetes,⁴⁷ elicits from Ambrosiaster extensive discussion of many questions surrounding this mystery. His remarks on this pericope involve greater digression than usual from the strict analysis of the text, whether for the sake of pro-Nicene pleas for the full divinity of Christ or to treat issues pertaining more specifically to the relation between the human and divine natures in Christ.48 Here we attend briefly to the some of the latter.

Ambrosiaster’s concern for correct christological teaching is evident in his worry about the potential of some parts of the passage to be misinterpreted, particularly Phil 2:7, with its ambiguous phrasing: “But he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, made in human likeness and found in the human condition.” The expressions “likeness” and “like a human being” could suggest the incarnate Christ did not possess a full human nature. Clearing up this potentially troublesome language requires the right understanding of the opening of the passage. What does it mean that Jesus “was in the form of God” (Phil 2:6)?

The Son of God born as a man was in the form of God in this way: although he appeared a human being, he was doing the works of a god. One thought to be only a human being seemed to be a god in the things he did. His works indicated his form.…What is the form of God, except a concrete instance of God’s appearance in raising the dead, giving hearing to the deaf, cleansing lepers, and the rest? Why then is he said to have been made like a human being, if he was just human all along? And what is the reason he was discovered to be human in condition, if he were not also God? (In Phil. 2:7–8 [§§4–5])

Only of one who was so clearly like a god in power does it make sense to speak of as being “made like” a human being. Here Ambrosiaster notably has rejected the dominant patristic exegesis that “taking the form of a slave” meant the assumption of human nature by the preexistent Logos. Ambrosiaster and Pelagius were exceptional in arguing that it is precisely the incarnate Christ who was “in the form of God” (Ambrosiaster, In Phil. 2:7–8 [§2]; Pelagius, In Phil. 2:5–8).⁴⁹ 

Ambrosiaster’s way of warding off potential christological errors lurking beneath the words “in the likeness” is also idiosyncratic:

Paul speaks of him as being like a human being to make this point: that he was also God. He is saying that Christ was a god who was made like human beings in respect of weakness. He expresses this in what follows, saying: He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. From here one may deduce the sense of his being discovered to be human in condition. Withholding his power so that it would not be apparent in him, the one who knows no death was killed and seemed like a human being. (In Phil. 2:6–7 [§6])

Just as “in the form of God” means one who appeared divine in his works, so too his being found “human in condition” signifies Jesus’s apparent subjection to mortality. While Christ was truly human, his death for Ambrosiaster was something he willingly embraced, not a fate he was compelled to share with all humanity. As Foley has noted, the identity of the preexistent Christ with the incarnate one is the central feature of Ambrosiaster’s interpretation of the Christ-hymn, for it means that Christ “can act in both capacities, consecutively, as man and as God.”⁵⁰ It is in this dual capacity that Christ can save, that is, impart the immortality his own human nature received in virtue of his divinity. It is in this regard, according to Ambrosiaster, that “the whole mystery … of God’s revelation [omne mysterium sacramenti dei] lies in Christ. For he is the one in relation to whom all creatures will perish unless they have placed hope in him” (In Col. 2:1–3 [§2]). (Pp. lxxxvii-xc)

49. Henry, “Kenose,” 124. Pelagius thinks the dominant interpretation is insufficiently anti-Arian; the self-emptying refers not to his divine nature but to his services rendered, such as foot washing. Martini cites Hilary, Trin. 10.22, as an exegete whom Ambrosiaster may have had in mind (Ambrosiaster: De auctore, 115 n. 3). See also Marius Victorinus on this verse, who suggested a number of interpretive options (CSEL 83.2:188–89). (P. xc)

1:1 Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ. (1) He calls himself Paul—that is, “changed”—after having been called Saul.¹ Because Saul means “turmoil” or “tribulation,” he calls himself Paul—that is, “tranquil”—after he came to faith in Christ, since our faith is peace now.2 Although initially he inflicted trials upon the servants of God out of zeal for the law,3 subsequently he himself suffered trials on account of the hope that earlier he had denied out of love for Judaism. (2) Moreover, by declaring himself to be a slave of Jesus Christ, he shows himself to have been freed from the law. He referred to both names of Jesus Christ in order to indicate the person of both God and the human being,⁴ since the Lord is present in both, as the apostle Peter also attests when he says, He is the Lord of all (Acts 10:36). Since, then, he is Lord, he is also God, as David says, The Lord himself is God (Ps 99:3 LXX = Ps 100:3 ET). The heresies deny this. (3) Thus, to Marcion it seems right out of aversion for the law to deny Christ and his body, and to profess Jesus.⁵ But to the Jews and to Photinus it seems right out of zeal for the law⁶ to deny that Jesus is God.⁷ For whenever scripture says either Jesus or Christ, it sometimes means the person of God, sometimes the person of the human being,⁸ as in the gospel, among other passages:⁹ And one Lord Jesus through whom are all things (1 Cor 8:6),¹⁰ which assuredly refers to the Son of God, in that he is God. Also in the gospel:¹¹ For Jesus increased in age and wisdom (Luke 2:52), which certainly befits a human being.

Called an apostle. (4) Because he acknowledged the Lord and confesses him, having become a capable servant, he indicates that he was promoted when he says called an apostle, that is, sent by the Lord to do his work. By this he shows that one who serves Christ, not the law, has merit before God.¹² For the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath (Matt 12:8). (Pp. 7-8)

Who was made for him from the seed of David according to the flesh. (2) He says that he who was Son of God according to the Holy Spirit—that is, according to God, because God is spirit (see John 4:24) and is undoubtedly holy²¹—was made Son of God according to the flesh from Mary,²² as in the verse: And the Word was made flesh (John 1:14). As a result, there is now one Son of both God and a human being, Christ Jesus,²³ so that just as he is true God, so also was he a true human being. He will not, however, be a true human being unless he is made of flesh and soul, so as to be complete.²⁴ When God wanted him who was Son of God from eternity but was not known by creation to be revealed for the salvation of humankind, he made him visible and corporeal,²⁵ because he also wanted him to be recognized in power, so that by his passion he might wash people from sins,²⁶ death having been vanquished in the flesh. (3) He was made from the seed of David in order that, just he was born of God as king before the ages, so too he would derive his origins according to the flesh from a king. He was made by the work of the Holy Spirit from a virgin—in other words, born²⁷—so that, by virtue of the veneration reserved for him on account of this, he might be acknowledged to be more than a human being. For he departed from the human law of birth, as had been foretold by the prophet Isaiah: Behold a virgin will conceive in the womb and so on (Isa 7:14), so that when this novel and remarkable event was observed, one might discern that a certain providence of God regarding the visitation of the human race was unfolding.

1:4 Who was predestined Son of God in power according to the Spirit of sanctification by the resurrection of the dead of Jesus Christ our Lord.²⁸ (1) In saying Son of God, he meant of God the Father, and with the addition of the Spirit of sanctification he displayed the mystery of the Trinity. Thus, he who was incarnate, who hid what he was, was predestined according to the Spirit of sanctification to be revealed in power as the Son of God when he rose from the dead, as is written in Ps 84: Truth has sprung from the ground (Ps 84:12 LXX). (2) All uncertainty and doubt about his resurrection were crushed and suppressed, since even the centurion, seeing the mighty acts, confesses him to be the son of God while he was still on the cross (Matt 27:21–54). For even the disciples had doubts in the face of his death; Cleopas and Ammaus,²⁹ among others, said: We supposed that he was the one who was beginning to set Israel free (Luke 24:21). In fact, the Lord himself says: When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he (John 8:28). Again: When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all things to me (John 12:32), that is, then I will be recognized to be Lord of all. (3) Moreover, the apostle did not simply say by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but added of the dead, because the resurrection of Christ gives rise to the general resurrection.³⁰ In fact, in Christ one sees this great power and victory: that when he was dead he worked the same power that he had worked when he was alive.³¹ From this feat it is clear that he made a fool of death in order to redeem us.³² This is why the apostle calls him our Lord. (Pp. 10-12)

24. This sentence is found only in recensio γ. It is directed against Apollinaris, who held that in Jesus the divine Word or Logos displaced the human soul or mind. See de Bruyn, “Ambrosiaster’s Revisions,” 60–61. (P. 11)

1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (1) They exchanged the truth of God for a lie when they gave the name of God who is the true God to those who are false gods.¹³⁵ For, divesting stones and wood and various metals of what they are, they attribute to them something they are not. Consequently, when a stone is called God, the truth of God is a lie.¹³⁶ When this happens, it defames the God who is true, so that, because false and true are contemplated by a common name, the true God is likewise believed to be false. This is to change what is true into what is false. (2) For a thing is no longer called stone or wood, but God. This is to serve the creature rather than the creator.¹³⁷ They do not, in fact, deny God; rather, they serve the creature.¹³⁸ They have applied the honor of God to these things so that it seems right that they worship them. Consequently, the worship of these things is an injustice to God. They increase their punishment because, while they know God, they dishonor him, who is blessed forever. Amen, that is, truly. (3) To God indeed, he says, be blessing forever, because God endures, whereas ungodliness renders honor to idols¹³⁹ for a time. For that reason it is not true honor; in God, however, truth abides. Elsewhere he applies this benediction to the Son of God, saying, among other things: And from them comes Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen (Rom 9:5). Either each of the passages refers to Christ,¹⁴⁰ or he said the same thing about the Son as he did about the Father.¹⁴¹ (Pp. 29-30)

141. I.e., Rom 1:25 applies to God the Father, and Rom 9:5 applies to God the Son. In recensio γ this sentence is attested only by MSS Amiens 87 and St. Gall 101, in a second hand. (P. 30)

8:3 For—what was impossible for the law inasmuch as it was weakened by the flesh—God, sending his Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin, for a sin condemned sin in the flesh. (1) The apostle says this to reassure the baptized that they¹² have been set free from sin. For what was impossible, he says, for the law. For whom was it impossible? Clearly, it was impossible for us to fulfill the commandment of the law because we had been subjected to sin. For this reason God sent his Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin. The likeness of the flesh consists in this: although his flesh is the same as ours, it nevertheless was not formed in the womb and born in the same way our flesh is. It was sanctified in the womb and born without sin, and besides, he did not sin in it.¹³ (2)¹⁴ A virgin womb was chosen for the Lord’s birth so that the Lord’s flesh might be distinct from ours as regards sanctity. It is similar in condition, but not in the quality of sinful substance. The apostle therefore spoke of similarity, because from the same substance of the flesh the Lord did not have the same birth, since the body of the Lord was not subjected to sin. (3)¹⁵ For the Lord’s flesh was purified by the Holy Spirit so that it was born in the kind of body that Adam had before sin, except that only the sentence handed down to Adam remained. Therefore, when Christ had been sent, God for a sin condemned sin, that is, condemned sin through its own sin. For when Christ was crucified by sin, who is Satan, sin sinned in the flesh of the body of the Savior.¹⁶ Once this happened, God condemned sin in the flesh, where undoubtedly sin sinned, as the apostle also says in another letter: triumphing over them in him (Col 2:15), that is, in Christ. (3a)¹⁷ Now, it is also customary to state the reason for which a condemned individual has been condemned; one replies, for example, “for murder.” Accordingly, sin too was condemned in the flesh, that is, in the sin which it committed in the flesh. (4) So, having been found guilty through this sin, Satan lost the right to detain souls, so that he does not dare to hold in the second death those who have now been signed with the sign of the cross, by which¹⁸ he was vanquished. The apostle discusses this, therefore, to reassure us.

15. In section 3 recensio α has “But the flesh of the Savior was purified from sin through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when Christ had been sent, for a sin he condemned sin. The apostle says this because sin was condemned through its own sin. How? When Christ was crucified by sin, sin sinned in the flesh of the body of the Savior. Through this sin he condemned sin in the flesh. It was condemned in the place where it sinned. As the apostle also says elsewhere: triumphing over them in himself.” (Pp. 145-146)

8:27 And he who searches hearts knows what the Spirit desires, because it intercedes for the saints according to God. (1) It is obvious that to God, for whom nothing is unspoken or unseen, the prayer of every spirit is known,¹¹⁵ and even more so the prayer of the Holy Spirit, (1a) who is without doubt of the same substance, and who speaks not by the movement of air nor as the angels nor as any other creatures, but as befits his divinity.¹¹⁶ (2) The Spirit therefore speaks with God, though to us he seems to be silent, because he sees though he is not seen¹¹⁷ and asks for those things that he knows are pleasing to God and good for us. This same Spirit rightly interposes himself for us¹¹⁸ when he knows that we ask for things that are wrong out of ignorance, not out of arrogance. (Pp. 161-162)

To be conformed to the image of his Son. (2) The apostle says this because they are predestined for a future age precisely so that they may become like the Son of God, as he noted above (see Rom 8:14–17).

In order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (3) Firstborn is the right word, because he¹²⁴ was born, not made, before all of creation. God has deigned to adopt human beings as his children in accordance with the model of the Son. He is the firstborn in the regeneration of the Spirit;¹²⁵ he is the firstborn of the dead, with which he is unacquainted by nature; and he is the firstborn to ascend into heaven once death was conquered.¹²⁶ So, our brother is said to be firstborn in all things because he deigned to be born a human being. Nevertheless, he is the Lord, because he is our God, as the prophet Jeremiah says: He is our God (Bar 3:36).¹²⁷

127. Recensio α does not have “Jeremiah.” Ambrosiaster also cites Bar 3:36 as a testimony that Christ is God at In 2 Cor. 6:16–18 (§1) and in a tract against the Arians, Quaest. 97.7 (CSEL 50.176–77). The verse is cited under the heading “Christ is God” by Cyprian, Test. 2.6 (CCSL 3:35), who, too, attributes the book to Jeremiah. The attribution was traditional. (P. 163)

8:34 Who will be there to condemn? Is it Christ who died, yes, who also arose and is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us? (1) The apostle refutes the claim that God brings a charge against us, since God justifies us.¹³⁶ He adds, moreover, that Christ cannot condemn us, because he loves us with such feeling that he died for us and, rising from the dead, always acts on our behalf before the Father. His requests cannot be spurned because he is at the right hand of God, that is, in a place of honor because he is God. Thus, confident in God the Father and in Christ his Son who will come to judge, we rejoice in their surety. (2) This is why it is said to the apostle Peter: Behold, Satan has demanded that he might sift you like wheat. But I have pleaded for you that your faith might not fail (Luke 22:31–32). In this way, then, the Savior intercedes for us. For, knowing the might¹³⁷ and the profound malevolence of our enemy once he has mobilized against us, the Savior intercedes for us—provided that we do not consent to the enemy—so that he dare not do us any sort of violence and his arrogance is kept in check. Although the Son himself accomplishes everything and is equal to God the Father, the Son nevertheless is said to intercede so that, given that God is said to be one, the Father or the Son may not be thought to be singular or a union:¹³⁸ the scriptures speak in this manner to distinguish between the persons,¹³⁹ to present the Son as someone who is not different from the Father¹⁴⁰ and at the same time to give precedence to the Father because he is the Father and because all things are from him (see 1 Cor 8:6).¹⁴¹

138. The problem Ambrosiaster tackles here is the subordination implicit in the act of interceding. In the course of the fourth century it had become unacceptable among pro-Nicene theologians to speak of Father and Son as either singular entities (singularis) or a single entity (unio). In Hilary of Poitier’s anti-Arian work On the Trinity—which Ambrosiaster knew; see Alexander Souter, The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927), 66—the term unio refers to the notion of a personal identity of Father and Son, attributed to Sabellius (Hilary of Poitiers, Trin. 6.11, 7.5 [CCSL 62:207–8]), and the term singularis refers to the notion of a single, solitary God, articulated in different ways by both Sabellius and Arius (Hilary of Poitiers, Trin. 7.5, 7.8 [CCSL 62:264–65, 267–68], and continuing against Arius throughout book 7); see R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 479–80. In their own opposition to Sabellius, Arians in the West insisted that Father and Son were each singular (singularis) and incomparable (incomparabilis) at the level of nature; see Manlio Simonetti, “Arianesimo latino,” StMed 8 (1967): 704–5. While the act of interceding would preclude thinking of Father and Son as a single entity, it implies that the Son is subordinate to the Father, as Arians in the West observed, citing Rom 8:34; see Simonetti, “Arianesimo latino,” 722 n. 206. Ambrosiaster argues that the Scriptures speak in this way to distinguish the Father from the Son while at the same time maintaining their common substance; see n. 140 below. Thus, although the Son is equal to the Father and capable of accomplishing everything, he is nevertheless said to intercede for the believer. See In Rom. 8:39 (§3) and 16:25–27 (§1).

139. On the use of the term “person” (persona) to distinguish between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, see the introduction §5.2.

140. The word Ambrosiaster uses here, dispar, also appears in a tract he wrote against the Arians. To support his point that the Son’s generation from the Father entails that they have one substance, Ambrosiaster twice observes “that what is born is not different [dispar] from what gives birth” (Quaest. 97.5 and 8 [CSEL 50:175, 178]). Because Christ as the Son is not different in nature from the Father, he is on par with and equal to the Father (Quaest. 97.11 [CSEL 50:179]). (Pp. 165-166)

Nor life, nor an angel, nor a miracle, 8:39 nor height, nor depth, nor things present, nor things to come,¹⁴⁷ nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (1) All these are things which are inflicted by the devil in order to capture us. The apostle mentions them in order to protect us, so that if they arrive we may fight back against them, armed with faith and trusting in the hope and help of Christ. What then? If death should be inflicted, is it not the greatest gain to find an occasion to be taken more quickly into the promised kingdom? Even if we were to be promised a present life loaded with honor, it should not avert us from the hope and benefits of Christ, whom we know will benefit us not only in the future but also in the present. Indeed, even if an angel reveals himself to us in order to seduce us, fitted out with the stratagems of his father the devil, he ought not to prevail against us, since we know that nothing should take precedence over Christ, the angel of great counsel (see Isa 9:5 LXX and Isa 9:6 VL).¹⁴⁸ (2) If a miracle were to be performed by someone, as is said to have been performed by Simon the magician, who is said to have flown up into the air,¹⁴⁹ so that he became a scandal to the people of Christ, it should not diminish our faith, since we know that the Savior, when he was taken up in an attendant cloud, ascended above all the heavens (see Acts 1:9). If the devil reveals himself to us in the heights— about which the same apostle says:¹⁵⁰ Are you unaware of the heights of Satan? (see Rev 2:24)—it should not draw us away from our devotion for the Lord Jesus, whom we know to have descended from heaven in order to unite things earthly with things spiritual. (3) If by means of a vision by which he intends to lead us astray, the devil shows us the depths—a wonder to be gazed upon with dread—so that we, terrified, perhaps may surrender to him, even so it would not be worth us breaking our trust in Christ, whom we know to have descended to the depths of the earth for our sake and, after he conquered death, to have set the human race free. If the devil promises us things to come, as he promised Eve (see Gen 3:4–5), we will not give him our approbation, since he has separated himself from Christ, whom we believe and know to be God in power and nature.¹⁵¹ If by the skill and artifice of his cunning the devil creates another creature for a moment, as did Jannes and Jambres before Pharaoh (see 2 Tim 3:8; Exod 7:11–12), it makes no sense that he thereby draw us away from God the true creator,¹⁵² whom we know to have fashioned the creation through Christ his Son, who has existed for ever. (4) To some interpreters it seems that another creature referred to the idols.¹⁵³ But this is not correct, since it ought to mean something that Satan appears to fashion in the form of an amazing but misleading ruse. Now, who among the faithful is misled toward things he abandoned once his mistake had been exposed? But the devil plans and fashions these things to mislead even the elect (see Matt 24:24). There is nothing, therefore, that can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus. God showed his love for us in Christ when he gave him up for us. (Pp. 167-169)

148. Recensio α does not have “the angel of great counsel.” The phrase comes from the VL of Isa 9:6 used in Rome and elsewhere in Italy and Europe. See Roger Gryson, ed., Esaias, VLB 12 (Freiburg: Herder, 1987–1993), 293. (P. 168)

And the glory and the establishment of the law and the worship and the promises; 9:5 to them belong the fathers and from them is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.⁴ (1) The apostle enumerates so many things commending the excellence and the greatness of the Jewish people, as well as the promises, in order to instill sorrow in everyone for them. By not accepting the Savior, they lost the prerogative of the fathers and the value of the promise; they became worse than the gentiles, whom previously they had abominated because they were without God. It is, indeed, a heavier misfortune to have lost standing than not to have had it.⁵ (2) In the course of discussing this, the apostle says concerning the Savior: who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. When no mention is made of the Father’s name and the discussion is about Christ, one cannot claim that God is not the subject of discussion. If scripture is speaking about God the Father and adds a reference to the Son, it often calls the Father God and the Son Lord because of the confession of a single God. If someone, then, does not think that the statement who is God refers to Christ, let him propose the person to whom he believes it refers; there is no mention of God the Father in this passage.⁶ (3) Moreover, what is so surprising about the fact that in this passage the apostle described Christ in plain language as God over all? In other letters he confirmed this understanding of Christ in so many words, when he said: so that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth (Phil 2:10). These are all things over which Christ is God. Nothing is left out of this list to suggest that Christ is not God over everything. Moreover, the knee of all creation can bow only before God. Finally, because the apostle John unwittingly wanted to worship an angel,⁷ he heard the angel say: You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you. Worship God (Rev 19:10). (4) The Lord⁸ would certainly not have allowed himself to be worshiped unless he was God. If not, one would have to say that Christ assumed the position of God unlawfully and sinned, which cannot be the case, since when he rebukes the devil, he himself indicates that one should worship the Lord, God of all things,⁹ and serve him alone (see Matt 4:10). Therefore, it is not prejudicial to God the Father when Christ is worshiped as God, because, even though it is said that one should serve God alone, God is served in Christ as well. For elsewhere the apostle says: One who serves Christ in these things, pleases God (Rom 14:18). What, then, remains to be said, but that the Father is believed to be God and the Son is believed to be God and nevertheless both are believed to be one God?¹⁰ For whether one worships the Father or the Son, one is said to worship one God, and to serve the Father or the Son is to exhibit the service of one God. There therefore is no distinction between them,¹¹ because one who worships the Son worships the Father as well,¹² and one who serves the Father serves the Son. (4a)¹³ To point out that the profession of Christ’s deity is not a matter of flattery, he ended with Amen, that is, truly, so that he might show that Christ is in truth God over all, blessed for ever. (Pp. 172-173)

6. In his tract against Photinus, who denied the preexistence of Christ, Ambrosiaster replies to an imaginary interlocutor who proposes that Rom 9:5 “perhaps refers to the person of the Father” (Quaest. 91.8 [CSEL 50:157]: sed forte ad patris personam pertinere dicatur). There, as well as here, it appears that Ambrosiaster is responding to an interpretation voiced in his own day. His own position is traditional; Rom 9:5 is cited by several writers known to Ambrosiaster as proof that Christ is God. See Cyprian, Test. 2.6 (CCSL 3.1:37); Novatian, Trin. 13.6, 30.18 (CCSL 4:33, 74); Marius Victorinus, Ar. 1.18 (CSEL 83.1:80). (P. 172)

10:13 For “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved” (Joel 2:32). This is stated in Micah.²⁵ God himself, who was beheld by Moses, says: My name is the Lord (see Exod 6:2–3). He is the Son of God, said to be both an angel and God so that he is not taken to be him from who are all things, but rather to be him through whom are all things (see 1 Cor 8:6). Thus, he is said to be God because the Father and the Son are one, while he is said to be an angel because he was sent by the Father as a messenger of the promised salvation.²⁶ Furthermore, he is said to be sent so that he is not believed to be the Father himself, but the one who is begotten of the Father. So it is that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Moses also spoke with this understanding: Everyone who will not heed the prophet will be cut off from the people (see Deut 18:19). If he is the Lord of all (see Rom 10:12), he is the one who is called upon by his servants, and since this is the case, the apostle has added:

10:14 How then are they to call upon one in whom they have not believed?²⁷ (1) Evidently the Jews do not believe that he whom the apostle called the Lord is the Christ. It thus follows, as the apostle said above, that it is necessary to believe first, so that the one may have confidence in making a request. (Pp. 197-198)

25. Recensio α does not have this remark. Paul is in fact quoting Joel 2:32. It has been suggested that Ambrosiaster may have been thinking of Mic 6:9. Alessandra Pollastri, Commento all Lettera ai Romani, CTePa 43 (Rome: Città Nuova Editrice, 1984), 237 n. 13, observes that Cyprian’s version of Mic 6:9 in Test. 3.20 (CSEL 3.1:137) comes close to the sense of Rom 10:13: “The voice of the Lord will be called upon in the city, and he will save those who fear his name” (vox domini in civitate invocabitur, et timentes nomen eius salvabit).

26. Ambrosiaster identifies the angel of the Lord in the theophanies in the Old Testament, including God’s appearance to Moses, with the second person of the Trinity; see Ambrosiaster’s comment on 1 Thess 4:18 (§§2–3). The identification was traditional; see, e.g., Cyprian, Test. 2.5 (CSEL 3.1:33–34). Its significance for a pro-Nicene understanding of the Trinity was explicated in the fourth century by, among others, Hilary of Poitiers, Trin. 4.23–24 (CCSL 62:125–27). For more complete discussion, see Joseph Barbel, Christos Angelos: Die Anschauung von Christus als Bote und Engel in der gelehrten und volkstümlichen Literatur des christlichen Altertums, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Ursprungs und der Fortdauer des Arianismus, Theophaneia 3 (Bonn: Hanstein, 1941), 145–62. (P. 197)

14:9 For to this end Christ lived and died and was raised,26 so that he might be lord of both the living and the dead. (1) The creation was made by Christ the Lord, but when it was estranged from its author through sin, it was taken captive. So that he would not lose his handiwork, God the Father showed the creation what to do to escape the grasp of the pirates by sending his Son from heaven to earth. For this reason the Son allowed himself even to be killed by enemies, so that when he descended to the underworld he might render sin culpable, since he had been killed even though he was innocent. He did this to release those who were held in the underworld.²⁷ (2) Therefore, because he showed the way of salvation to the living and gave himself up for them, and also freed the dead from the underworld, he is lord of the living as well as the dead. He has recreated them again from people who were lost into slaves for himself.

14:10 So why do you pass judgment on your brother for not eating?²⁸ Or why do you despise your brother for eating? For we all will stand before the judgment seat of Christ.²⁹ The apostle teaches that there is no need to pass judgment on this point,³⁰ since it is not discussed in the law, especially while we await God the judge.

14:11 For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess God” (Isa 45:23). This is written in Isaiah, that every tongue will confess God in the faith of Christ. Now, since he was killed, has risen, and will be judge, he rightly says, As I live, says the Lord. Not only I live, but also I will come to judge, and the enemies will acknowledge me and will bend the knee, acknowledging me to be God from God.³¹ (Pp. 245-246)

31. In recensio γ this sentence is attested only by MS Paris lat. 1759. The concluding phrase echoes the second article of the Nicene Creed, which declares that the Son is God from God. (P. 246)

14:18 One who serves Christ in this pleases God and is approved by people. Since Christ has redeemed us, the apostle says: One who serves Christ in this—that is, so as not to offend anyone—submits as is fitting to the redeemer and pleases God. Why? Because God sent Christ to redeem the human race,⁴⁴ as the Lord himself says: One who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him (John 5:23). Therefore, one who pleases God is approved by people. In what way? Because he has received a gift by which he may appear worthy before God. (P. 248)

15:33 May the God of peace be with you all. Amen.⁷⁰ The God of peace is Christ, who says: My peace I give to you, my peace I leave you (John 14:27). The apostle desires that Christ be with them, knowing that the Lord has said: And behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the age (Matt 28:20). Therefore, he wants them to behave in such a way that the Lord Jesus Christ would be with them. Having cut off all human strife arising from error, Christ has shown and provided what is true, so that they may remain at peace in that truth. (Pp. 263-264)

16:25⁴³ Now to him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Christ Jesus, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret from time eternal, 16:26 but now is disclosed through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God for the obedience of faith among all the gentiles, 16:27 known to the only wise God through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever.⁴⁴ Amen. (1) The apostle glorifies God the Father from whom are all things (1 Cor 8:6) so that he may deign to complete what was begun with the Romans—since he is able to do so—by confirming their souls in the faith for the advancement of the gospel and the revelation of the secret hidden for ages (see Eph 3:9), but revealed through Christ or in Christ. The mystery that always was hidden in God was proclaimed in the time of Christ, since God is not solitary,⁴⁵ but both the Word and the Paraclete are with him from eternity. (2) God has decreed that in this truth all creation would be saved by way of knowledge. The truth of this mystery, known to the only wise God, had in fact been indicated by the prophets in certain manner of speaking; he wanted the gentiles to share in this grace, something that the human race was unaware of. He alone is wise because all wisdom comes from him, as Solomon says: All wisdom comes from the Lord God and with him has it always been (Sir 1:1). (3) This wisdom is Christ, because Christ is from him and was always with him; through Christ be glory to him forever and ever. Amen. Nothing, therefore, is complete without Christ, because through him are all things (1 Cor 8:6); because when he is acknowledged, praise is given to God the Father through him; because God the Father is known through Christ, in whom he caused believers to be saved, as though through his wisdom. Therefore, glory be to the Father through the Son—that is, glory be to both of them in the Holy Spirit, because each dwells in one single glory.

16:28 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.⁴⁶ The apostle puts Christ at the end, through whom we were made and by whose grace we have been remade once more, so that he may be firmly impressed on our minds. For if we remember his benefits, he will always watch over us, as he said: Behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the age. Amen (Matt 28:20). (Pp. 273-274)

Further Reading

Hilary: Trinity in the OT & Jesus as the Angel

Novatian, Trinity, Modalism, Hypostatic Union