Homilies on the Gospel of John

“Philip says unto Him, Lord, show us the Father, and it suffices us. Jesus says unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me, has seen the Father.”

1. The Prophet said to the Jews, “You had the countenance of a harlot, thou were shameless towards all men.” Now it seems fitting to use this expression not only against that city, but against all who shamelessly set their faces against the truth. For when Philip said to Christ, “Show us the Father,” He replied, “Have I been so long time with you, and have you not known Me, Philip?” And yet there are some Who even after these words separate the Father from the Son. What proximity do you 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 have you not known Me, Philip?” He says. What then? Replies Philip, “Are you the Father after whom I enquire?” “No,” He says. On this account He said not, “have you not known Him,” but, “have you 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. But how came Philip to ask this question? Christ had said, “If you had known Me, you should have known My Father also”, and He had often said the same to the Jews. Since then Peter and the Jews had often asked Him, “Who is the Father?” since Thomas had asked Him, and no one had learned anything clear, but His words were still not understood; Philip, in order that He might not seem to be importunate and to trouble Him by asking in his turn after the Jews, “Show us the Father,” added, “and it suffices us,” “we seek no more.” Yet Christ had said, “If you had known Me, you should have known My Father also,” and by Himself He declared the Father. But Philip reversed the order, and said, “Show us the Father,” as though knowing Christ exactly. But Christ endures him not, but puts him in the right way, persuading him to gain the knowledge of the Father through Himself, while Philip desired to see Him with these bodily eyes, having perhaps heard concerning the Prophets, that they “saw God.” But those cases, Philip, were acts of condescension. Wherefore Christ said, “No man has seen God at any time”; and again, “Every man that has heard and has learned from God comes unto Me.” “You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape.” And in the Old Testament, “No man shall see My face, and live.” What says Christ? Very reprovingly He says, “Have I been so long time with you, and have you not known Me, Philip?” He said not, “have you not seen,” but, “have you not known Me.” “Why,” Philip might say, “do I wish to learn concerning You? At present I seek to see Your Father, and You say unto me, have you not known Me?” What connection then has 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 shows in Himself Him who begot Him. Then to distinguish the Persons He says, “He that has seen Me has 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 has seen Me has seen Him.” Why then did He not reply, “you ask things impossible, and not allowed to man; to Me alone is this possible”? Because Philip had said, “it suffices us,” as though knowing Christ, He shows 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 says, “He that has seen Me, has seen the Father.” “If any one has seen Me, he shall also behold Him.” What He says 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 shows him that he had not even seen Himself. And if any one here call knowledge, sight, I do not contradict him, for, “he that has known Me,” says Christ, “has known the Father.” Yet He did not say this, but desiring to establish the Consubstantiality, declared, “he that knows My Essence, knows that of the Father also.” “And what is this?” says some one; “for he who is acquainted with creation knows 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 answers, “He that has seen Me.” Now he that has seen the creation, has not also seen the Essence of God. “If any one has seen Me, he has seen the Father,” He says. 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?” Have you enjoyed such teaching, have you seen miracles wrought with authority, and all belonging to the Godhead, which the Father alone works, sins forgiven, secrets published, death retreating, a creation wrought from earth, and have you not known Me? Because He was clothed with flesh, therefore He said, “Have you not known Me?”

2. You have seen the Father; seek not to see more; for in Him you have seen Me. If you have seen Me, be not over-curious; for you have also in Me known Him.