The ambiguous eschatology of Ambrosiaster

 The ambiguous eschatology of Ambrosiaster

Ilaria Ramelli, in her book 'A Larger Hope, vol. 1', writes this short passage on Ambrosiaster, a Christian writer of the 4th century whose works were often attributed to St. Ambrose of Milan: 

"Commenting on Philippians 2:10, Ambrosiaster, an anonymous imitator of Ambrose, interprets Paul’s words in the sense that “the Father has granted to the Son that, after the crucifixion, all beings should be saved in the Son’s name.” And commenting on Ephesians 1:9–10, he foretells that “every being, in heaven and on earth, will attain the knowledge of Christ and be restored to the state in which it was created.”" (I. Ramelli, A Larger Hope, vol. 1; p. 152)

Here are the quotes that Ilaria Ramelli refers to:

"(Verses 10, 11, 12) For this reason also God exalted him and gave him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. It shows what and how much humility deserves; so that we may seek it more, trampling down pride. Therefore, Solomon says: God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble (Prov. III, 34). Therefore, the Lord said: 'Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted' (Luke 14:11). This, therefore, is humility, if someone does not defend for themselves what they do not know is owed to them. In the end, that Pharisee (Luke 18:11 et seq.), speaking the truth about himself, was said to have exalted himself; and thus, he was humbled: but Christ did more, who, although He is God, became flesh and humbled Himself to men. Now let us see how the name given to Christ, which is above every name, as if the Son of God lacked or was imperfect; for he who lacks is imperfect. If, therefore, He was born perfect, how did He lack anything? The Son of God, born of God the Father, who denies this is an Arian; for before His passion, He showed Himself equal to God the Father, as I have mentioned above. Hence, it is evident that He was born perfect; for in His birth, He seems to have attained all things. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities[a] and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. Moreover, in this letter, he reveals all these things, saying that there are celestial, terrestrial, and infernal things: for there are no others. However, it seems to some that the name "man" has been given to him, which is above every name, and which does not agree with any kind or reason. For if Christ, the Son of God, is the same both God and man, then God could not have become man, but remaining God, he would have needed these things which he possessed. Or if, according to his humanity, he needed these things which are God's, the Son of God himself would have given to himself, which were lacking to him according to his humanity. Indeed, this is said because of ignorance. And why is the Father said to have given, when he himself, who had become a man, had nothing? Or could not the divinity of the Son provide for his own body and soul, which were lacking? But perhaps because all things are from God the Father, therefore he is said to have given. If, therefore, all things are from the Father, why is it not said that he gave all things to his Son through generation? And although he has begotten a Son equal to himself, the order still requires that all things be done in the name of the Father. This the Father granted to the Son after the cross, so that all things may be saved in the name of the Son. Finally, the Lord says concerning the disciples to the Father: Father, those whom you have given me, I have kept; they were yours, and you have given them to me (John 17:12). And to the disciples he says: Until now you have asked nothing in my name; ask, and you will receive (John 16:24). Therefore, the Son received this in order to manifest after the cross what he received from the Father when he was begotten. For He then received a name from the Father, when He began to be known as a creature; for what He did beforehand, and what He received, is known, for the things which He did, before He did them. In short, before the cross He said: All things are delivered unto Me by My Father (Matt. 11:27). How then can this be referred to His body, that the name of God should be given to the body, when it is manifest that Christ is both man and God; for neither is it fitting that God should be changed into flesh, nor is it possible that flesh should be made God? But perhaps, in order that by adoption God may be Christ, and this is the color; for Christ will begin to be truly God from part, and from part adoptive, or two gods. But Scripture signifies something else: for it signifies that those who emptied themselves, who received the form of a servant, who became man in the likeness of man, who obeyed the Father, have been given. If man obeyed God the Father, what great thing is it that the Apostle said? But this is great, because although he was equal, he obeyed. And what praise is there, if he was made in the likeness of man; that he be called man made in the likeness of man? But it cannot happen; for no one becomes like someone else, unless he is different, before he is made like the one he wants to be like; for he was made like someone by cause, not by substance. And who is it that emptied himself? Man. Therefore, he had. And how did he receive? But what could a weak thing, like man, empty himself? And in the form of God, was man indeed? But perhaps man was in the form of the Son of God. Now, let us consider, in whose form was the Son of God? And if indeed man was in the form of God, that is, the Son of God, then he was perfect before the passion. Therefore, he did not receive anything after the passion. But let us see what is written about him: For this reason, God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Let us now consider these words and reflect on the power of language. Certainly, the name that is above every name is the name of God. But if by nature this name is not certain, then it is not above every name; for a proper name is only in the word itself, not in the nobility of nature. And for a creature to not bow down to God, it must not be created but rather begotten, not adopted. And how can it be that man is in the glory of God the Father? Even if God is adopted as man, he cannot be in the glory of God the Father; for this belongs to him who is born of God. For to be in the glory of God the Father is nothing else than to be equal to God; so that the glory may be one of the Father and of the Son, through their common substance and power; for this is the unity of nature. What, I ask, is contrary to this if the Son is said to have received the gift from the Father, since all things of the Son are from the Father, from whom they are believed to exist? But we call the substance of God nature, because Christ is born of it." (Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Philippians 2:10-2; translated via ChatGPT; source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Ambrosiaster%2FCommentary%2520on%2520Philippians.html ; bolded mine)

"(Ver. 9, 10.) To make known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Himself, for the administration of the fullness of times, to restore all things in Christ, which are in heaven and on earth. It pleased God, whose counsel cannot be revoked, to show forth in Christ the mystery of His will, in the time when He willed to reveal it to the acknowledgment of all creatures. And His will was this, that at that time all those who were in error, whether in heaven or on earth, might be reconciled to Him by Christ, when He made known that this is the gift of belief in Christ, so that their sins might not be imputed to them who receive the faith of Christ. Therefore, every creature in heaven and on earth, while learning of the knowledge of Christ, is restored to what it was created for. For when it is imbued with faith in the one God, having known the mystery of the Savior, it is restored from the error it had fallen into, knowing for certain that its Creator is the one God and Lord. Hence, it is from this that John says in the Apocalypse: 'I saw Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon and his army in heaven' (Rev. 12:7). This contradiction is partly due to error, partly due to the presumption of usurped tyranny." (Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Ephesians 1:9-10; translated via ChatGPT; source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Ambrosiaster%2FCommentary%2520on%2520Ephesians.html)

The quotes above sound definitely universalist. However, in another Commentary (on 1 Timothy 2:1-4) attributed to Ambrosiaster, the author seems to reject an universalist view:

"(Vers. 1-4.) Therefore, I exhort first of all to make supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings for all men, for kings, and for all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of our Savior God, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. This is the ecclesiastical rule, handed down by the master of the Gentiles, which our priests use to supplicate for all, praying for the kings of this world, so that they may have subject nations, so that we may be able to serve our God in peace, with a calm mind and quiet spirit. Also praying for those to whom lofty power is entrusted, that they may govern the republic in justice and truth, with an abundance of resources, so that joy may succeed the removal of disturbance and strife; for bread strengthens the heart, and wine gladdens the mind (Psalm 104:15). Also requesting for those who are in various needs, that they may be rescued and freed, and praise God, the author of their well-being. Also offering thanks for the daily providence of God that is granted to us for life, so that in all these things, God the Father may be praised, from whom all things come (1 Corinthians 8:6); and His Son, through whom all things exist, so that with all opposition and enmity subdued, we may be able to serve God with affectionate piety and chastity; for disturbance and captivity do not preserve piety or chastity. For where is the pious man, who is naked? And where is the chaste man, where his authority is not? So that these things can be preserved, rest is necessary; so that pleasing obedience to God may be rendered, who desires all men to be saved and to know the truth. This is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent (John 17:3). If indeed God, who is called omnipotent, desires all men to be saved, is his will not fulfilled? But in every expression the meaning and condition is hidden; hence Peter the apostle says: All Scripture needs interpretation (II Peter II, 20). For indeed God desires all men to be saved, but if they come to Him; for He does not will it so, that they be saved against their will: but He desires that they be saved, if they themselves also desire it. For certainly He who gave the law to all, has made no exception for salvation. Does a physician not therefore propose in public, that he desires to save all; if he is indeed asked by the sick? For there is no true salvation if it is bestowed upon someone unwillingly: nor can one rejoice in the received salvation if they have accepted the medicine against their will, if it is indeed possible; not to mention that medicine cannot have an effect unless the sick mind has accommodated itself to it; for this medicine is not physical but spiritual, which is neither beneficial to the doubtful nor to the unwilling. For faith is what gives salvation, and unless the entire mind has embraced it willingly, it will not only be of no benefit but also harm. For indeed faith has this power, that it may bestow divine healing upon the devout, and inflict disease upon the unbelievers, by which the whole man may perish." (Ambrosiaster, Commentary on 1 Timothy 2:1-4; translated via ChatGPT; source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Ambrosiaster%2FCommentary%2520on%25201%2520Timothy.html ; bolded mine; St. Ambrose of Milan says something similar. See the section on him in this post: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/05/possible-traces-of-universalism-in.html)

Similarly, we find a rejection of the universalist interpretation of Romans 5:18-9 (he seems to reject the universality of both 'all' and 'the many' in both parts of the verses):

"(Ver. 18.) Therefore, as through one offense judgment came to all men to condemnation; even so through one righteousness the free gift came to all men to justification of life. For as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so also by the obedience of one many shall be made just. And if by one man's offense death reigned through one, much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift and of justice shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as by the offense of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. And as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so also by the obedience of one many shall be made just. Now the law entered in that sin might abound. And where sin abounded, grace did more abound. That as sin hath reigned to death so also grace might reign by justice unto life everlasting through Jesus Christ our Lord. But it is not true, because not everyone believes.

(Verse 19) For just as through the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one man, many will be made righteous. The word 'many' here signifies a greater number and multitude. For many followed Adam's sin by transgressing, but not all. And many will be made righteous through faith in Christ, but not all. Therefore, death did not reign over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression." (Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Romans 5:18-9; translated via ChatGPT; source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Ambrosiaster%2FCommentary%2520on%2520Romans.html  ; bolded mine)

Also, while commenting 1 Corinthians 3:15, the author says the following:

"(Verse 15.) If someone's work burns, they will suffer loss. The work that is said to burn is bad doctrine, which will perish. For all evil things will perish, like the path of the wicked; because they are not substances, but perverse assertions. However, to suffer loss is to endure punishment. For who, when placed in punishment, does not incur loss? But he himself will be saved, yet as if through fire. He said he will be saved, because the substance on which it is based will not be destroyed, just as bad teaching will be destroyed, because it is an accidental cause. Therefore, he said: yet as if through fire; so that this salvation is not without punishment, because he did not say: he will be saved through fire; so that, not being consumed by fire through his own merit, he may be saved, but when he says: yet as if through fire, he shows that he will indeed be saved, but will suffer the punishments of fire; so that, purified by fire, he may be saved, and not be tormented eternally like the unfaithful in the eternal fire: so that to some extent it is worth believing in Christ. For it is always necessary that one who sees himself defend the false as true should be ashamed; and in a similar way, one who has cast off falsehood and followed the truth will always have confidence in God; and one who has rejected impiety has submitted to piety. For whatever is outside the Catholic Church is contrary." (Ambrosiaster, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 3:15; translated via ChatGPT; source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Ambrosiaster%2FCommentary%2520on%25201%2520Corinthians.html; bolded mine)

This, again, excludes an universalist interpretation of the passage as he limits the 'salvation through fire' only to imperfect believers.

We find a similar ambiguity in St. Ambrose of Milan, see the section on him: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/05/possible-traces-of-universalism-in.html

How can we explain these seeming inconsistencies? In the case of Ambrosiaster, it might be the case that the 'seemingly universalist' and 'seemingly anti-universalist' commentaries might have been authored by different individuals. If, instead, we assume that the author is the same, it might be the case that the author changed his mind. Or, perhaps, there are other reasons. However, Ramelli doesn't seem to address the ambiguity in a proper way.