1875 Note, with Chrysostom, that our Lord had said: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (6:44). [14] But here he says: no one comes to the Father, but by me. This indicates that the Son is equal to the Father.
It is now clear what the way is, it is Christ; what the destination is, it is the Father.
1876 Then when he says, If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also , he shows that the disciples knew both where he was going and the way. First, he shows this; secondly he resolves a coming difficulty. He does two things about the first: first, he shows that knowledge of the Son is also knowledge of the Father; secondly, he states the disciples' knowledge of the Father (v 7b).
1877 He had said: I have said that I am the way, and that you know the way, that is, me. Therefore, you also know where I am going, because you cannot know me without knowing the Father. This is what he says: If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also .
1878 Yet he had said to the Jews before: "If you knew me, you would perhaps know my Father also" [8:19]. Why does he say here, "without doubt," while before he said "perhaps"? It seems that before he had some doubts about what he says here.
We should answer that in the first instance he was speaking to the Jews, whom he was reprimanding. And so he added "perhaps" not because he had any doubts, but as a rebuke to them. But here he is speaking to his disciples, whom he is teaching. Thus, he simply states the truth to them: If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also . This is like saying: If you knew my grace and dignity, you would without doubt also know that of the Father. For there is no better way to know something than through its word or image, and the Son is the Word of the Father: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God" (1:1); "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (1:14). The Son is also the image of the Father: "He is the image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15); "He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature" (Heb 1:3). Therefore, the Father is known in the Son as in his Word and proper image.
1879 Note that to the extent that something approaches to a likeness of the Word of the Father, to that extent the Father is known in it, and to that extent it is in the image of the Father. Now since every created word is some likeness of that Word, and some likeness, though imperfect, of the divinity is found in every thing, either as an image or a trace, it follows that what God is cannot be known perfectly through any creature or by any thought or concept of a created intellect. It is the Word alone, the only‑begotten Word, which is a perfect word and the perfect image of the Father, that knows and comprehends the Father.
Therefore, according to Hilary, this statement can be put in another context. [15] Our Lord said: "no one comes to the Father, but by me." If you ask Arius how one goes to the Father through the Son, he answers that it is by recalling what the Son taught, because the Son taught us about the Father: "Father... I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me" (17:6). But our Lord rejected this by saying: If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also . This is like saying: Arius, or anyone else can indeed speak about the Father, but no human being is such that by knowing him the Father is known. This is true of the Son alone, who has the same nature as the Father.
1880 Next, our Lord shows the knowledge the disciples had of the Father. Our Lord had already told the disciples that they knew the Father when he said, "Where I am going you know." Yet Thomas denied this: "we do not know where you are going." Thus our Lord shows here that in a certain way they did know the Father, so that his statement was true; and in another sense they did not know the Father, so that what Thomas said was true. To do this, he mentions a twofold knowledge of the Father: one which will be in the future, and the other which was in the past.
He says, henceforth you shall know him . And he says, henceforth , because knowledge of the Father is of two kinds. One is perfect, and is by an immediate vision of him, and this will be in our homeland: "When he appears we shall be like him" (1 Jn 3:2). The other is imperfect, and is by reflections and is obscure; and we have this by faith: "For now we see in a mirror dimly" (1 Cor 3:2). Thus, this phrase can be understood of each kind of knowledge. Henceforth you shall know him , with perfect knowledge in your homeland: "I shall tell you plainly of the Father" (16:25). This is like saying: It is true that you do not know him with perfect knowledge, but from henceforth you shall know him , after the mystery of my passion has been accomplished. Or, in the other way, henceforth , after my resurrection and ascension and after I have sent the Holy Spirit, you shall know him , with the perfect knowledge of faith, for when the Spirit, the Paraclete, comes, "he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (14:26). So you are speaking the truth when you say that you do not know him with perfect knowledge.
And I am speaking the truth, because you have seen him: "Afterward he was seen on earth and conversed with men" [Bar 3:37]. They saw Christ in the flesh he had taken on, in which the Word existed, and in the Word they saw the Father. Thus they saw the Father in him: "He who sent me is with me" (8:29).
1881 Note that the Father was not in the flesh in such a way that it was joined to him to constitute one person, but he was in the incarnate Word because they had one and the same nature, and the Father was seen in the incarnate Christ: "We have be held his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (1:14).
LECTURE 3
8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied." 9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? [Philip], he who has seen me has seen the Father [also]; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority [of myself]; but the Father who dwells in me does his [the] works. 11 Believe me [Do you not believe] that I am in the Father and the Father in me [?]. Or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves. 12 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. 13 Whatever you ask [the Father] in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; 14 if you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." [16]
1882 Here our Lord clears up a confusion in one of the disciples: first, we see what the confusion was; secondly, it is resolved (v 9).
1883 In regard to the first, recall that above our Lord mentioned two things. He promised something for the future, namely, a perfect knowledge of God, when he said: "henceforth you shall know him"; and he mentioned something about the past, namely, that they had seen him (v 7). When Philip heard this he believed that he had seen the Father. But now he asks to know him, saying, Lord, show us the Father (not asking for a vision but for knowledge) and we shall be satisfied . This is not surprising since that vision of the Father [a knowledge] is the end of all our desires and actions, and nothing else is necessary: "You will fill me with joy by your face," that is, by the vision of your face [Ps 16:11]; "He satisfies your desire with good things" [Ps 103:5].
1884 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 .
1885 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)
1886 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. [17] 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].
1887 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." [18] 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. [19] 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. [20]
1888 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.