ยอห์น 14:9 วิจารณ์

This chapter is a continuation of Christ's discourse with his disciples after supper. When he had convicted and discarded Judas, he set himself to comfort the rest, who were full of sorrow upon what he had said of leaving them, and a great many good words and comfortable words he here speaks to them. The discourse in interlocutory; as Peter in the foregoing chapter, so Thomas, and Philip, and Jude, in this interposed their thoughts upon what he said, according to the liberty he was pleased to allow them. Free conferences are as instructive as solemn speeches, and more so. The general scope of this chapter is in the first verse; it is designed to keep trouble from their hearts; now in order to this they must believe: and let them consider, I. Heaven as their everlasting rest (Joh 14:2, Joh 14:3). II. Christ himself as their way (Joh 14:4-11). III. The great power they shall be clothed with by the prevalency of their prayers (Joh 14:12-14). IV. The coming of another comforter (Joh 14:15-17). V. The fellowship and communion that should be between him and them after his departure (Joh 14:18-24). VI. The instructions which the Holy Ghost should give them (Joh 14:25, Joh 14:26). VII. The peace Christ bequeathed to them (Joh 14:27). VII. Christ's own cheerfulness in his departure (Joh 14:28-31). And this which he said to them is designed for the comfort of all his faithful followers.

Let not your heart be troubled,.... In some copies this verse begins thus, and he said to his disciples; and certain it is, that these words are addressed to them in general, Peter being only the person our Lord was discoursing with in the latter part of the preceding chapter; but turning, as it were, from him, he directs his speech to them all. There were many things which must needs lie heavy upon, and greatly depress the minds of the disciples; most of all the loss of Christ's bodily presence, his speedy departure from them, of which he had given them notice in the preceding chapter; also the manner in which he should be removed from them, and the circumstances that should attend the same, as that he should be betrayed by one of them, and denied by another; likewise the poor and uncomfortable situation they were likely to be left in, without any sight or hope of that temporal kingdom being erected, which they had been in expectation of; and also the issue and consequence of all this, that they would be exposed to the hatred and persecutions of men. Now in the multitude of these thoughts within them, Christ comforts them, bids them be of good heart, and exhorts them to all exercise of faith on God, and on himself, as the best way to be rid of heart troubles, and to have peace: ye believe in God, believe also in me; which words may be read and interpreted different ways: either thus, "ye believe in God, and ye believe in me"; and so are both propositions alike, and express God and Christ to be equally the object of their faith; and since therefore they had so good a foundation for their faith and confidence, they had no reason to be uneasy: or thus, "believe in God, and believe in me"; and so both are exhortations to exercise faith alike on them both, as being the best antidote they could make use of against heart troubles: or thus, "believe in God, and ye believe in me"; and so the former is an exhortation, the latter a proposition: and the sense is, put your trust in God, and you will also trust in me, for I am of the same nature and essence with him; I and my Father are one; so that if you believe in one, you must believe in the other: or thus, and so our translators render them, "ye believe in God, believe also in me"; and so the former is a proposition, or an assertion, and the latter is an exhortation grounded upon it: you have believed in God as faithful and true in all his promises, though yon have not seen him; believe in me also, though I am going from you, and shall be absent for a while; this you may be assured of, that whatever I have said shall be accomplished. The words considered either way are a full proof of the true deity of Christ, since he is represented as equally the object of faith with God the Father, and lay a foundation for solid peace and comfort in a view of afflictions and persecutions in the world.

Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you,.... Conversing familiarly with you, instructing you by my ministry, and performing so many miraculous works among you, for so long a time; see Heb 5:11; and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? Surely you cannot be so ignorant as this comes to; as you have seen me with your bodily eyes, as a man, you must, know that I am God by the doctrines I have taught you, and the miracles I have wrought among you: and he that hath seen me; not with the eyes of his body, but with the eyes of his understanding; he that has beheld the perfections of the Godhead in me: hath seen the Father; the perfections which are in him also; for the same that are in me are in him, and the same that are in him are in me: I am the very image of him, and am possessed of the same nature, attributes, and glory, that he is; so that he that sees the one, sees the other: and how sayest thou then show us the Father? such a request is a needless one, and betrays great weakness and ignorance.

For God the Father none ever saw, and lived. And accordingly it is agreed that the Son of God Himself spake to Moses, and said to the people, "Behold, I send mine angel before thy"-that is, the people's-"face, to guard thee on the march, and to introduce thee into the land which I have prepared thee: attend to him, and be not disobedient to him; for he hath not escaped thy notice, since my name is upon him.

For as in the Old Testament Scriptures they lay hold of nothing else than, "I am God, and beside me there is no God ; " so in the Gospel they simply keep in view the Lord's answer to Philip, "I and my Father are one; " and, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me." They would have the entire revelation of both Testaments yield to these three passages, whereas the only proper course is to understand the few statements in the light of the many.

This, then, being the case, it was not the Father whom, after His lengthened intercourse with them, they were ignorant of, but it was the Son; and accordingly the Lord, while upbraiding Philip for not knowing Himself who was the object of their ignorance, wished Himself to be acknowledged indeed as that Being whom He had reproached them for being ignorant of after so long a time-in a word, as the Son. And now it may be seen in what sense it was said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," -even in the same in which it was said in a previous passage, "I and my Father are one.

I ask whether he is the visible likeness of the invisible God and whether the infinite God can also be presented to view under the likeness of a finite form. For a likeness must necessarily repeat the form of that of which it is the likeness. Let those, however, who want there to be a nature of a different sort in the Son determine what sort of likeness of the invisible God they wish the Son to be. Is it a bodily likeness exposed to the gaze and moving from place to place with human gait and motion? No, rather let them remember that according to the Gospels and the prophets both Christ is a Spirit and God is a Spirit. If they confine this Christ the spirit within the bounds of shape and body, such a corporeal Christ will not be the likeness of the invisible God, nor will a finite limitation represent that which is infinite.

He rebukes the apostle for defective knowledge of himself. For previously he had said that when he was known the Father was known also. But what did they mean when he complained that for so long they had not known him? It means this: that if they had known him, they must have recognized in him the Godhead that belongs to his Father's nature. For his works were the peculiar works of God.

(vii. de Trin) He reproves the ignorance of Philip in this respect. For whereas his actions had been strictly divine, such as walking on the water, commanding the winds, remitting sins, raising the dead, He complained that in His assumed humanity, the Divine nature was not discerned. Accordingly to Philip's request, to be shown the Father, Our Lord answers, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father. (vii. de Trin) He does not mean the sight of the bodily eye: for His fleshly part, born of the Virgin, doth not avail towards contemplating the form and image of God in Him; but the Son of God being known with the understanding, it follows that the Father is known also, forasmuch as He is the image of God, not differing from but expressing His Author. For our Lord's expressions do not speak of one person solitary and without relationship, but teach us His birth. The Father also excludes the supposition of a single solitary person, and leaves us no other doctrine but that the Father is seen in the Son, by the incommunicable likeness of birth.

Or how is He unlike to the substance of the Father, who is the perfect image and brightness of the Father, and who says, "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father?" And how, if the Son is the Word or Wisdom and Reason of God, was there a time when He was not? It is all one as if they said, that there was a time when God was without reason and wisdom.

“He who has seen me has seen the Father”; this does not mean that he has seen the image and the form of the divine nature, since the divine nature is simple, not composed of various parts. Goodness of will is a current in the stream of the divine essence, and thus is perceived to be the same in the Father and the Son.

By means of this image the Lord showed Philip the Father. Yes, he who looks on the Son sees, in portrait, the Father. Notice what kind of portrait is spoken of. It is truth, righteousness, the power of God. It is not silent, for it is the Word. It is not insensible, for it is Wisdom. It is not vain and foolish, for it is power. It is not soulless, for it is the life. It is not dead, for it is the resurrection.

In the church, I know of only one image, that is, the image of the unseen God. God has said about this image, “Let us make man [humankind] in our image.” Of this image it is written that Christ is the “effulgence of the glory and impress of his hypostasis.” In that image, I perceive the Father as the Lord Jesus himself has said, “The one who has seen me has seen the Father.” For this image is not separated from the Father, which indeed has taught me the unity of the Trinity, saying, “I and the Father are one,” and again, “All things whatever the Father has are mine.” [In this image, also perceive] the Holy Spirit, seeing that the Spirit is Christ’s and has received of Christ, as it is written, “He shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you.”

When Philip said to Christ, "Show us the Father," He replied, "Have I been so long time with you, and hast thou not known Me, Philip?" And yet there are some who even after these words separate the Father from the Son. What proximity dost thou require closer than this? Indeed from this very saying some have fallen into the malady of Sabellius. But let us, leaving both these and those as involved in directly opposite error, consider the exact meaning of the words. "Have I been so long time with you, and hast thou not known Me, Philip?" He saith. What then? replieth Philip, "Art thou the Father after whom I enquire?" "No," He saith. On this account He said not, "hast thou not known Him," but, "hast thou not known Me," declaring nothing else but this, that the Son is no other than what the Father is, yet continuing to be a Son.

What saith Christ? Very reprovingly He saith, "Have I been so long time with you, and hast thou not known Me, Philip?" He said not, "hast thou not seen," but, "hast thou not known Me." "Why," Philip might say, "do I wish to learn concerning Thee? At present I seek to see Thy Father, and Thou sayest unto me, hast thou not known Me?" What connection then hath this with the question? Surely a very close one; for if He is that which the Father is, yet continuing a Son, with reason He showeth in Himself Him who begat Him. Then to distinguish the Persons He saith, "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father," lest any one should assert that the same is Father, the same Son. For had He been the Father, He would not have said, "He that hath seen Me hath seen Him." Why then did He not reply, "thou askest things impossible, and not allowed to man; to Me alone is this possible"? Because Philip had said, "it sufficeth us," as though knowing Christ, He showeth that he had not even seen Him. For assuredly he would have known the Father, had he been able to know the Son. Wherefore He saith, "He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father." "If any one hath seen Me, he shall also behold Him." What He saith is of this kind: "It is not possible to see either Me or Him." For Philip sought the knowledge which is by sight, and since he thought that he had so seen Christ, he desired in like manner to see the Father; but Jesus showeth him that he had not even seen Himself.

And if any one here call knowledge, sight, I do not contradict him, for, "he that hath known Me," saith Christ, "hath known the Father." Yet He did not say this, but desiring to establish the Consubstantiality, declared, "he that knoweth My Essence, knoweth that of the Father also." "And what is this?" saith some one; "for he who is acquainted with creation knoweth also God." Yet all are acquainted with creation, and have seen it, but all do not know God. Besides, let us consider what Philip seeks to see. Is it the wisdom of the Father? Is it His goodness? Not so, but the very whatever God is, the very Essence. To this therefore Christ answereth, "He that hath seen Me." Now he that hath seen the creation, hath not also seen the Essence of God. "If any one hath seen Me, he hath seen the Father," He saith. Now had He been of a different Essence, He would not have spoken thus. But to make use of a grosser argument, no man that knows not what gold is, can discern the substance of gold in silver. For one nature is not shown by another.

Wherefore He rightly rebuked him, saying, "Am I so long with you?" Hast thou enjoyed such teaching, hast thou seen miracles wrought with authority, and all belonging to the Godhead, which the Father alone worketh, sins forgiven, secrets published, death retreating, a creation wrought from earth, and hast thou not known Me? Because He was clothed with flesh, therefore He said, "Hast thou not known Me?" Thou hast seen the Father; seek not to see more; for in Him thou hast seen Me. If thou hast seen Me, be not over-curious; for thou hast also in Me known Him.

(i. de Trin. c. viii) For to that joy of beholding His face, nothing can be added. Philip understood this, and said, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. But he did not yet understand that he could in the same way have said, Lord, show us Thyself, and it sufficeth us. But our Lord's answer enlightens him, Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? (Tr. lxx. 1) But how is this, when our Lord said that they knew whither He was going, and the way, because they knew Him? The question is easily settled by supposing that some of them knew, and others not; among the latter, Philip. (Tr. lxx) When two persons are very like each, we say, If you have seen the one, you have seen the other. So here, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father; not that He is both the Father, and the Son, but that the Son is an absolute likeness of the Father. (Tr. lxx. 3) But is he to be reproved, who, when he has seen the likeness, wishes to see the man of whom he is the likeness? No: our Lord rebuked the question, only with reference to the mind of the asker. Philip asked, as if the Father were better than the Son; and so showed that He did not know the Son. Which opinion our Lord corrects: Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? as if He said, If it is a great wish with thee to see the Father, at any rate believe what thou dost not see. (i. de. Trin. 8) He wished him to live by faith, before he had sight, and therefore says, Believest thou not? Spiritual vision is the reward of faith, vouchsafed to minds purified by faith. (Tr. lxx. 3. and lxxi. 1) He then addresses all of them, not Philip only: The word that I speak unto you, I speak not of Myself. What is, I speak not of Myself, but, I that speak am not of Myself? He attributes what He does to Him, from whom He Himself, the doer, is. (Tr. lxx. 1, 2) For he that edifieth his neighbour by speaking, doth a good work. These two sentences are brought against us by different sects of heretics; the Arians saying that the Son is unequal to the Father, because He does not speak of Himself; the Sabellians, that the same who is the Father is the Son. For what is meant, they ask, by, The Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works, but, I that dwell in Myself, do these works. (Tr. lxxi. 2) Philip alone was reproved before. (Tr. lxxi. 2) Believe then for My works' sake, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; for, were we separated, we could not be working together.

But the disciples, still thinking that the Father is something greater than the Son, seeing only the flesh, and not understanding His divinity, said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father and it sufficeth us." As much as to say, "We know Thee already, and bless Thee that we know Thee: for we thank Thee that Thou hast shown Thyself to us. But as yet we know not the Father: therefore our heart is inflamed, and occupied with a certain holy longing of seeing Thy Father who sent Thee. Show us Him, and we shall desire nothing more of Thee: for it sufficeth us when He has been shown, than whom none can be greater." A good longing, a good desire; but small intelligence. Now the Lord Jesus Himself, regarding them as small men seeking great things, and Himself great among the small, and yet small among the small, says to Philip, one of the disciples, who had said this: "Am I so long time with you, and ye have not known me, Philip?" Here Philip might have answered, Thee we have known, but did we say to Thee, Show us Thyself? We have known Thee, but it is the Father we seek to know. He immediately adds, "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father also." If, then, One equal with the Father has been sent, let us not estimate Him from the weakness of the flesh, but think of the majesty clothed in flesh, but not weighed down by the flesh. For, remaining God with the Father, He was made man among men, that, through Him who was made man, thou mightest become such as to receive God. For man could not receive God. Man could see man; God he could not apprehend. Why could he not apprehend God? Because he had not the eye of the heart, by which to apprehend Him. There was something within disordered, something without sound: man had the eyes of the body sound, but the eyes of the heart sick. He was made man to the eye of the body; so that, believing on Him who could be seen in bodily form, thou mightst be healed for seeing Him whom thou wast not able to see spiritually. "Am I so long time with you, and ye know me not, Philip? He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father also." Why did they not see Him? Lo, they did see Him, and yet saw not the Father: they saw the flesh, but the majesty was concealed. What the disciples who loved Him saw, saw also the Jews who crucified Him. Inwardly, then, was He all; and in such manner inwardly in the flesh, that He remained with the Father when He came to the flesh.

The words of the holy Gospel, brethren, are rightly understood only if they are found to be in harmony with those that precede; for the premises ought to agree with the conclusion, when it is the Truth that speaks. The Lord had said before, "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also:" and then had added, "And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know;" and showed that all He said was that they knew himself. What, therefore, the meaning was of His going to Himself by Himself,-for He also lets the disciples see that it is by Him that they are to come to Him,-we have already told you, as we could, in our last discourse. When He says, therefore, "That where I am, there ye may be also," where else were they to be but in Himself? In this way is He also in Himself, and they, therefore, are just where He is, that is, in Himself. Accordingly, He Himself is that eternal life which is yet to be ours, when He has received us unto Himself; and as He is that life eternal, so is it in Him, that where He is there shall we be also, that is to say, in Himself. "For as the Father hath life in Himself," and certainly that life which He has is in no wise different from what He is Himself as its possessor, "so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself," inasmuch as He is the very life which He hath in Himself. But shall we then actually be what He is, (namely), the life, when we shall have begun our existence in that life, that is, in Himself? Certainly not, for He, by His very existence as the life, hath life, and is Himself what He hath; and as the life, is in Him, so is He in Himself: but we are not that life, but partakers of His life, and shall be there in such wise as to be wholly incapable of being in ourselves what He is, but so as, while ourselves not the life, to have Him as our life, who has Himself the life on this very account that He Himself is the life. In short, He both exists unchangeably in Himself and inseparably in the Father. But we, when wishing to exist in ourselves, were thrown into inward trouble regarding ourselves, as is expressed in the words, "My soul is cast down within me:" and changing from bad to worse, cannot even remain as we were. But when by Him we come unto the Father, according to His own words, "No man cometh unto the Father but by me," and abide in Him, no one shall be able to separate us either from the Father or from Him. Connecting, therefore, His previous words with those that follow, He proceeded to say, "If ye had known me, ye should certainly have known my Father also." This conforms to His previous words, "No man cometh unto the Father but by me." And then He adds: "And from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him." But Philip, one of the apostles, not understanding what he had just heard, said, "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us." And the Lord replied to him, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet have ye not known me, Philip? he that seeth me, seeth also the Father." Here you see He complains that He had been so long time with them, and yet He was not known. But had He not Himself said, "And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know;" and on their saying that they knew it not, had convinced them that they did know, by adding the words: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life"? How, then, says He now, "Have I been so long time with you, and have ye not known me?" when, in fact, they knew both whither He went and the way, on no other grounds save that they really knew Himself? But this difficulty is easily solved by saying that some of them knew Him, and others did not, and that Philip was one of those who did not know Him; so that, when He said, "And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know," He is understood as having spoken to those that knew, and not to Philip, who has it said to him, "Have I been so long time with you, and have ye not known me, Philip?" To such, then, as already knew the Son, was it now also said of the Father, "And from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him:" for such words were used because of the all-sided likeness subsisting between the Father and the Son; so that, because they knew the Son, they might henceforth be said to know the Father. Already, therefore, they knew the Son, if not all of them, those at least to whom it is said, "And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know;" for He is Himself the way. But they knew not the Father, and so have also to hear, "If ye have known me, ye have known my Father also;" that is, through me ye have known Him also. For I am one, and He another. But that they might not think Him unlike, He adds, "And from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him." For they saw His perfectly resembling Son, but needed to have the truth impressed on them, that exactly such as was the Son whom they saw, was the Father also whom they did not see. And to this points what is afterwards said to Philip, "He that seeth me, seeth also the Father." Not that He Himself was Father and Son, which is a notion of the Sabellians, who are also called Patripassians, condemned by the Catholic faith; but that Father and Son are so alike, that he who knoweth one knoweth both. For we are accustomed to speak in this way of two who closely resemble each other, to those who are in the habit of seeing one of them, and wish to know what like the other is, so that we say, In seeing the one, you have seen the other. In this way, then, is it said "He that seeth me, seeth also the Father." Not, certainly, that He who is the Son is also the Father, but that the Son in no respect disagrees with the likeness of the Father. For had not the Father and Son been two persons, it would not have been said, "If ye have known me, ye have known my Father also." Why, then, Philip, dost thou say, "Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us? Have I been so long time with you, and yet have ye not known me, Philip? He that seeth me, seeth the Father also." If it interests thee much to see this, believe at least what thou seest not. For "how," He says, "sayest thou, Show us the Father?" If thou hast seen me, who am His perfect likeness, thou hast seen Him to whom I am like. And if thou canst not directly see this, "believest thou not," at least, "that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" But Philip might say here, "I see Thee indeed, and believe Thy full likeness to the Father; but is one to be reproved and rebuked because, when he sees one who bears a likeness to another, he wishes to see that other to whom he is like? I know, indeed, the image, but as yet I know only the one without the other; it is not enough for me, unless I know that other whose likeness he bears. Show us, therefore, the Father, and it sufficeth us." But the Master really reproved the disciple because He saw into the heart of his questioner. For it was with the idea, as if the Father were somehow better than the Son, that Philip had the desire to know the Father: and so he did not even know the Son, because believing that He was inferior to another. It was to correct such a notion that it was said, "He that seeth me, seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, Show us the Father?" I see the meaning of thy words: it is not the original likeness thou seekest to see, but it is that other thou thinkest the superior. "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" Why desirest thou to discover some distance between those who are thus alike? why cravest thou the separate knowledge of those who cannot be separated?

How sayest thou then, show us the Father? "Thou mightest, Philip," He would say, "have beheld the glory of the Father in Me, and from what I am have perceived the nature of My Parent: for I have appeared in My true character as a Very and Exact Image and as a Perfect Likeness of His essence, bearing engraved on Myself the entire nature of God the Father. What additional manner of Divine vision other than this couldst thou ask for, at least if thou wouldst display thy ability to estimate things in true proportion; or tell Me what kind of contemplation thou dost require? Dost thou really suppose that a better and fuller manifestation was granted to the men of former times, when I came down on Mount Sinai in a vision of fire?" For this above all else was the greatest and most usual boast of the Jews. This we may in all probability suppose to have been the meaning of Christ's answer. We must now, I conceive, feel it our duty to state in all boldness that the manifestation of the miracles of our Saviour Christ was a better guide to the knowledge of God the Father than the vision that appeared on Mount Sinai. For thus thou wilt see that Philip, when the true Image was before his eyes, was in no way constrained to ask for that other sight of God the Father which on Mount Sinai was granted to those of former time. For there the Lord descended, as it is written, in a form of fire, while the Israelites were looking on. But no one could, I think, thereby be made to advance to a right conception concerning God, or to ascend with one bound to a fitting comprehension of the Godhead. For how by means of fire as an image could we be led to realise the existence of God the Father as the Archetype [thereby shadowed forth]? For God is naturally good, and moreover is a Creator, calling previously non-existent things into being, bringing together the universe into consistence, and quickening all things: He is also Wisdom and Power, kind, compassionate, and merciful. And none of these attributes belong to fire. For no one would suppose, at least if he were gifted with sense, that fire was kind and compassionate to men; nor would any one soberly maintain that it was a creative influence, endowed with wisdom and the power of bestowing life. If this be so, tell me how any one could possibly from a vision of fire gather any ideas concerning the true nature of the Godhead. Or how could one behold in a mirror darkly any of those attributes that are inherent in it? What then, one may say, was the ground or reason that induced God to declare Himself in the form of fire on Mount Sinai? We shall answer that as the children of Israel were, at that moment above all others in their career, beginning their education in the way of godliness, and were about to draw up the law which was to be observed as a strict rule to govern their own lives; it was most especially needful that God should appear as a Chastiser and a Terrible One to them, so that transgressors might be able to realise that they had to do with a Fire. Therefore surely it was that the great Moses also in speaking to the children of Israel said: Our God is a consuming Fire. And we should not at all be inclined to say that it was in order to exhibit to us the nature of God that the very wise writer thus compared Him to fire, but that he bestowed this title on God from the fact that, owing to His excessive hatred of wickedness, God shrinks not from wasting and consuming, like an all-devouring fire, those who despise Him. Therefore it is not in consequence of what He is in His nature that God makes Himself known in a vision of fire: but it was found to conduce to the profit of those who listened, that He should be thus named, and that He should have then appeared as fire. Let us pass now to that true and most exact vision of the Father granted to us in the Son. For we shall see Him to be an Image of the One Who begat Him, if we gaze intently with the eye of our minds on the extraordinary powers that are displayed in Him. Goodness belongs naturally to God the Father, and the same we shall find in the Son. For surely He is good, Who endured so great humiliation for our sakes, coming into the world to save sinners, and laying down His life for them. Similarly the Father is powerful, and so it is with the Son. For what power could be greater than that which commanded even the elements themselves, rebuking the sea and the winds, and transforming the nature of substances at His will; bidding the leper be cleansed, and giving sight to the blind: and all with God-befitting authority? The Father is in His nature Life: the Son also is equally Life, quickening those who have been turned to corruption, overthrowing the power of death, and thereby raising the dead to life. Rightly then does he say to Philip: He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. "For whereas," He would say, "thou mightest in Me and through Me behold very clearly My Father, what other manner of Divine vision dost thou ask for, when thou hast received a far better one than that vouchsafed to the men of former time, and hast met with a most true Likeness of the Father, namely Mine own Self?"

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. In an unexpected way He convicts the disciple of ignorance. For the less easily discernible portions of the meanings implied, in the apprehension of which our mental faculties are necessarily put to a more subtle test, will certainly, although possibly not in any short period yet still in a longer extension of time, be grasped by those who are desirous to learn, and will explain themselves most clearly; and those whose minds are not hardened and whose knowledge is unobstructed, may at once be expected to perceive such meanings and accept them with perfect ease. "What is it therefore," He seems to say," that hinders you, O Philip, from arriving at perfection of knowledge of Myself? Tell Me. For although so long a time has elapsed since I have been with you as to suffice for a perfect knowledge of all that it was needful for thee to learn, nevertheless thou art still in doubt, or rather art convicted of absolute ignorance, as to Who I am by nature, and whence I come; and yet thou findest Me to be the Creator of all that is more especially admired in thy sight. How was it that thou didst not know that he who hath seen Me hath seen the Father? Thou supposest that the Jews of old saw the Divine Nature on Mount Sinai, and heard it speaking in delivering the laws that govern men's conduct; but not yet hast thou realised that through Me and in Me thou hast seen the Father. For he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father." And to show my hearers that it is no corporeal contemplation that Christ here indicates, needs I think not many words. For no thoughtful person would ever maintain that the Divine Nature can be made an object of corporeal vision; nay, no one could endure to behold with the eyes of the body that which is now apprehended dimly as in a mirror: for we see darkly, and I believe that even the man who boasts of the very highest knowledge has but a faint idea concerning God. But this also we must say to the enemies of the truth, who are profuse in their railings against us, or rather against the very essence of the Only-begotten. For if it is untrue that the Son is of the very essence of God the Father, so as to be by generation That which He is, namely in His nature and in very truth God; and if He is made illustrious by the mere addition to Himself of features that were not originally His own, so that He shines as it were by reflected light from glories bestowed upon Him, and not by His own natural lustre, while appearing all the while as a true Likeness of the Father and an unchanging Image of God; then surely in the first place He could not be in His nature a Son, or even in any true sense an Offspring, but He must be either a created object like unto ourselves, or some other being standing in a similar relation: and this much being admitted and accepted as true, we shall then, it seems, have established this consequence also, that the Father could never be really and naturally a Father, but only so in will and in semblance, just as He is reckoned a Father of us also. And what will be the natural sequence of this? We shall still necessarily have to acknowledge a Trinity: only no longer do we express any belief whatever in the Holy Trinity, but rather in three utterly distinct Persons, each having nothing essentially in common with any other, each one of those named receding as it were into the special peculiarity of His own nature, each totally separate from the other. For the weightiness of the subject forces us to speak even more firmly still on the point. And if we allow that this is true, and confess that it follows as we have said, and admit that the Son is utterly different from the essence of God the Father, surely then Christ will be speaking falsely in the words: He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. For since the Father is from the beginning in His nature God, how could the Son, although not being (according to the view of these heretics) in His nature God, show forth the Father in Himself? For how shall we behold the Uncreated in the created? And in one who once was not (according to their theory), how could any man possibly behold Him Who was from all eternity? For let not any of these blasphemers tell me, in his sophistical declamations against the power of truth, that because Christ is endued with the glory of God and His power and wisdom and good and omnipotence, so that He can bring into being things that never before existed, therefore He is also an Image of Him: but first let such an one prove whether Christ does not display Himself as in His nature God, and that so irrefutably that there is nothing which impairs the universal and absolute resemblance of the Image to the Archetype. And if he hesitates in perplexity and is unwilling to prove this, we will in the next place ask him to tell us what explanation will allow of one who (according to their accursed notions) is not in His nature God, being enabled to fulfil the works that belong to the Godhead: for this is what they mean by saying that He bears the Image of the Father. For if the Son, without possessing as His own a power sufficient for the purpose, borrows the power from the Father, and is by Him supplied with wisdom and might, so as to be able to perform actions which we shall allow to be beyond the power of any nature save that of the Father alone; then in so doing He will be falsely representing the Image and the Likeness. And if we refuse to admit that He (being of the nature we have just been describing) is guilty of falsehood, and accept the truth of His words, we shall then find ourselves convicted of wronging the glory of God the Father in a manner that I will now explain. We are constrained to admit one of two things: either He falsely represents the Image of God the Father, in that He possesses not in Himself the might sufficing for His acts, but is supplied therewith from another, whereas it is not so with the Archetype; or else, if it is true as He says that in Him the Father is seen by us, and that there is really nothing whatever that disfigures or obscures or perverts His perfect similarity, it is absolutely necessary, willingly or unwillingly, to admit that the Father Himself holds His power as something received from another. For in this way He willed to display to us Himself in the Image of His own nature and of His glory. "Is it possible then," one might go on to say to these heretics, "that you do not perceive whither your theory, when once it quits the safe path, will lead you on, and into what an abyss of error it will plunge those who have held such views?" "But," say they, "surely it is possible that the Son, although a created being, may yet fulfil the works whereof by His nature He is capable, and so advance the glory of God the Father?" Now what suggestion can appear more impious than this? If this be as they say, there can no longer be any superiority or any higher dignity by which God excels His creatures, if even one of them is to be invested with the glory and power of the Godhead. For let no one be so excessively deranged in mind as to suppose that he is imagining and uttering a marvellous and magnificent compliment concerning the Son in thinking or saying that "He is a creature, but not as one of the creatures." Let him be well assured that he is thus in no small degree disparaging His glory. For the question is not whether His nature is specially superior beyond all other creatures, but whether He is at all a created being. For how could He avoid the consequences of being a creature, even though He were the noblest of all creatures? And if the glory of the Son is disparaged by saying that He was brought into existence, why do they vainly advance (to heal as it were His offended dignity) the statement that He was created in the highest of all possible ranks? It follows therefore that we shall offer insult to the essence of God the Father if we bestow such power on the Son, supposing the Son (according to their ignorant and unskilful reasoning) is Himself a created being. And we shall not tolerate them when they tell us that the Son performs the acts of the Godhead, though Himself in His nature a creature, so as to glorify God the Father. If they can prove as much from the Divine Scripture, let them bring forward their citations, and let them observe the sayings of the holy writers in all sincerity: but if these are inventions of their own brains, and if they have themselves manufactured their arguments in this matter, we shall salute them with the words: Woe to those who prophesy after their own heart! For we shall allow that the Father ever is desirous of whatsoever He knows will maintain in integrity His Divine glory and preserve the absolute truth of the declarations made concerning Himself. And so we shall now bid farewell to the ignorant suggestions of those heretics and pass on to the real truth concerning Christ, believing that He is in truth begotten as Son of the essence of God the Father, and that He is in His nature God of God. For thus He speaks in perfect truth, in that He is both the Very Image and the Likeness of God the Father, when He says: He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.

So, he says, was not such a long time sufficient to teach you about my Father and me? And yet you still are looking to see him. If you had known me, you would have known the Father through me and would have not thought that he can be seen with bodily eyes. Since the expression “you still do not know me” seemed not to fit in with the words “show us the Father,” he clearly explains this by saying, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ ” There is no difference, he says, so that whoever sees me sees the Father himself. There is a perfect similarity between us two that shows the Father himself in me. Very aptly he adds, “How can you say?” as he confirms through his open amazement the words said above. How can you ask me, he says, to show you the Father, if not for the fact that you ignore me completely? Therefore what I said is true, “You neither know my Father nor me. If you had known me, you would have known him too,” because the perfect likeness would have shown him.

So, teaching Philip that God cannot be seen bodily, Christ says: "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip?" Look. He did not say "you have not seen," but "you have not known," in order to lead Philip away from an earthly way of thinking, from the desire to see the Father bodily. For concerning God, one speaks of knowing, not of seeing bodily. Then He adds: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." The words have this meaning: "Philip! You desire to see the Father with the bodily eye and think that you have already seen Me. But I say to you that if you had seen Me, you would have seen Him also. But since you have not yet seen Him, neither have you seen Me as one ought to look upon Me: you have seen Me bodily, since I also have a body, but the Divine essence you have not seen; therefore you cannot see bodily the essence of the Father either. Neither Me nor the Father is it possible to see bodily. For he who has seen Me has seen the Father also. However, many think that they see Me, yet do not see the Father. Therefore they see Me not according to the Divine nature, but according to the human." You may also understand it more clearly thus: "I am consubstantial with the Father." Therefore, whoever has seen Me, that is, known Me, has known the Father. For when the essence and nature are one, the knowledge is also one. Let Arius be put to shame, hearing that he who has seen the Son, that is, he who has known the Divinity of the Son, has known the Father, that is, the Divinity of the Father. Let Sabellius also be put to shame, who says: "There is one essence and one person of the Father and the Son." For behold, the Lord distinguishes the Hypostases, and shows one Person in the Father and another in the Son. For in the words "he who has seen Me" He indicates His own Person, then in the words "has seen the Father" – another Person. But if He and the Father were one Person, He would have said nothing of the sort, but to Philip's request – "show us the Father" – He would have answered that I have no Father, but I am both the Father and the Son. And it would be utterly unreasonable to hear the Son saying "I go to My Father" and "I am in the Father," and many other things of this kind, and not to understand that the Person of the Son is one and the Person of the Father is another, and not to confuse them. Therefore the Lord reproaches this disciple that he has followed Him for so long, has seen the signs and works of the Divinity, yet still has not recognized Him as God, so as to know the Father through Him as well. "But now," He says, "from the fact that you desire to see the Father bodily, it is revealed that you believe neither that I am God, nor that He is God."

Now the confusion is cleared up. First, we see it resolved; secondly, this is explained further (v 10). As to the first, our Lord chides Philip for his slowness; secondly, he states the truth, Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father also; thirdly, Christ objects to the very request, how can you say, Show us the Father. He says, Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He is saying in effect: you should know me, considering how long I have been living with you and talking with you. And if you had known me, you would without doubt have known the Father also. Therefore, since you do not know the Father, you indicate that you do not know me. And you can be chided for your slowness: "Are you also still without understanding?" (Mt 15:16); "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again" (Heb 5:12). This gives rise to a question, for before, our Lord told the disciples that they knew him, when he said, "and the way you know" (v 4), while here he seems to say the opposite, "If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also" (v 7). Augustine answers this by saying that among the disciples there were some who knew Christ as the Word of God. One of these was Peter, when he said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16:16). There were others who did not truly know him, and Philip was one of these. It is to the first group that our Lord says, "Where I am going you know, and the way you know" (v 4); it is to the second group that he says, "If you had known me, you would without doubt have known the Father also." Here is another explanation. Christ could be known in a twofold way. He could be known in his human nature, and every one knew him this way. With this in mind he says, "Where I am going you know, and the way you know." He could also be known as being of a divine nature, but they did not yet perfectly know him in this way. In reference to this, he says, "If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also." This is clear from the fact that he adds, Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father also. He is saying in effect: If you knew me, you would know the Father; and then you would not be saying, show us the Father, because you would have already seen him by seeing me: "If you knew me, you would perhaps know my Father also" (8:19). Sabellius made this statement the basis of his error. He asked what could be the meaning of he who has seen me has seen the Father also, except that the Father and the Son are the same? Hilary answers this by saying if this were so, our Lord would have said, "he who has seen me has seen the Father," without adding the "also." But because he adds the "also," saying, has seen the Father also, he shows there is a distinction. Augustine says that we use the same way of speaking when we talk about two people who are alike. We say that if you saw one you saw the other. Now the most perfect likeness of the Father is in the Son. Therefore he says, he who has seen me has seen the Father also. In fact, there is a greater likeness in the Son than there is among mere human beings, because in them there can never be a likeness based on the very same numerical form or quality, but only a likeness in species. In the Son, however, there is the same numerical nature as in the Father. Thus, when seeing the Son, the Father is better seen than when seeing some mere human another mere human is seen, no matter how much alike they are. Note that this statement excludes the error of Arius on two points. First, it rejects his denial of consubstantiality. For it is impossible to see the uncreated substance by seeing some created substance, just as by knowing a substance of one genus, one cannot know a substance of another genus. It is evident, therefore, that the Son is not a created substance, but is consubstantial with the Father. Otherwise, one who sees the Son would not see the Father. The other error excluded is their interpretation of 1 Timothy (1:17), "To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God," as meaning that only the Father is invisible, but the Son was often seen in his nature. But if this were so, it would follow that the Father was also frequently seen, because one who sees the Son sees the Father also. So since the Father is invisible as to his nature, it is impossible that the Father was seen in his nature. Someone might question why our Lord chided Philip for asking to see the Father after he had seen the Son, since when one sees a picture he should not be rebuked for wanting to see the thing pictured. Chrysostom answers this by saying that after hearing about knowing and seeing the Father, Philip wanted to see the Father with his bodily eyes, just as he thought he had seen the Son. This is what our Lord reproved, pointing out to him that he did not even see the Son in his nature with his bodily eyes. Augustine says that our Lord did not disapprove of the request, but of the attitude behind it. Philip said, Show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied. This was like saying: We know you, but that is not enough. Thus he believed that there was complete sufficiency in knowing the Father, but not in knowing the Son. He seemed to think that the Son was inferior to the Father. This is what our Lord reproved, showing that there is the same sufficiency in knowing the Son as there is in knowing the Father, saying, he who has seen me has seen the Father also.

Christ comforts his disciples, on the event of his removal from them, by the consideration of his going to prepare a place for them in heaven, Joh 14:1-4. Thomas questions him concerning the way to the Father, and is answered, Joh 14:5-7. Philip proposes a difficulty, and Christ shows that he and the Father are one; that he is Mediator between God and man; and that whatsoever is asked in his name shall be obtained, Joh 14:8-14. He promises them the Holy Spirit as the Comforter and Spirit of truth, Joh 14:15-18. Shows them that he is shortly to leave them, and that those who love him should be loved of the Father, Joh 14:19-21. Jude asks a question, how Christ is to manifest himself to the disciples, and not to the Jews? Joh 14:22. Christ answers, and shows that the manifestation is to be made to those who love God, and to them the Holy Spirit is to be an infallible teacher, Joh 14:23-26. He bequeaths his peace to them, and fortifies them against discouragements, Joh 14:27-29. Foretells his approaching death, Joh 14:30, Joh 14:31.

He that hath seen me hath seen the Father - Could any creature say these words? Do they not evidently imply that Christ declared himself to his disciples to be the everlasting God?

DISCOURSE AT THE TABLE, AFTER SUPPER. (John 14:1-31) Let not your heart be troubled, &c.--What myriads of souls have not these opening words cheered, in deepest gloom, since first they were uttered! ye believe in God--absolutely. believe also in me--that is, Have the same trust in Me. What less, and what else, can these words mean? And if so, what a demand to make by one sitting familiarly with them at the supper table! Compare the saying in Joh 5:17, for which the Jews took up stones to stone Him, as "making himself equal with God" (Joh 14:18). But it is no transfer of our trust from its proper Object; it is but the concentration of our trust in the Unseen and Impalpable One upon His Own Incarnate Son, by which that trust, instead of the distant, unsteady, and too often cold and scarce real thing it otherwise is, acquires a conscious reality, warmth, and power, which makes all things new. This is Christianity in brief.