[1.] The Prophet said to the Jews, “Thou hadst the countenance of a harlot, thou wert shameless towards all men.” ( Jer. iii. 3 , LXX.) 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 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. But how came Philip to ask this question? Christ had said, “If ye had known Me, ye should have known My Father also” ( c. xiv. 7 ), 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 learnt 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 sufficeth us,” “we seek no more.” Yet Christ had said, “If ye had known Me, ye 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 endureth him not, but putteth 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 hath seen God at any time” ( c. i. 18 ); and again, “Every man that hath heard and hath learned from God cometh unto Me.” ( c. vi. 45.) “Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape.” ( c. v. 37.) And in the Old Testament, “No man shall see My face, and live.” ( Ex. xxxiii. 20.) 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?”
Complete source paragraph · Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 74, source paragraph 4 · Original source