ACC ~ John 14 v7 - 14

OVERVIEW:

Christ reveals knowledge of the Father, who is invisible, through his own manifestations in the flesh (IRENAEUS, HILARY). But it is not Christ’s human nature that makes the Father known; rather, the Father is known through the evidence of the divine powers and authority Christ has (HILARY). And while it is true that the disciples did know something of God, they did not yet know him as Father (CHRYSOSTOM). Philip then asks to be shown the Father, not quite yet understanding how the Father is to be seen in the Son (HILARY) because he did not yet have the eyes of faith (AUGUSTINE).

The Son is like a portrait of his Father (AMBROSE). The Old Testament says no one can see God’s face and live, but Christ is the perfect divine vision, showing in himself the image of the one who begot him (CHRYSOSTOM), an image spoken of in Genesis (AMBROSE). Such an image has nothing to do with bodily likeness (HILARY) but rather of the will that is the same in both (BASIL). In this, there is a perfect likeness between Father and Son (THEODORE). If the disciples had known this about Jesus, especially with all the time they had spent with him, they surely would have recognized the Godhead in him that belongs to his Father’s nature (HILARY).

The mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son remains incomprehensible (HILARY) as they are, in the entirety of their persons, in one another without any variation in glory or essence of either (GREGORY OF NYSSA). The Father is in the Son because their substance is one (AMBROSIASTER). There is no subterfuge going on here so that one might think he at one time poses as the Son and then at another time poses as the Father; nor can Father and Son be separate and divided when one speaks through the voice of the other (HILARY). It is self-evident that the Father would not have used any different words than the Son has, had he chosen to speak himself (CYRIL).

The Father works together with the Son (AUGUSTINE), and all three persons of the Trinity are inseparable so that the actions of any one person in the Trinity do not occur without the other two (AUGUSTINE). The Son as the image of the Father shares the attributes of the Father (ATHANASIUS). Here again Christ reveals the perfect likeness of his nature, ideas, virtue and even of his very words with that of the Father (THEODORE). Christ’s actions also show that there is a unity of nature (HILARY) since he could never have performed the miracles unique to the divine nature that he did unless he himself was essentially of the same divine nature (CYRIL).

We can do similar works when empowered by Christ, but we do not have the same unity of nature with Christ as Christ has with the Father (AMBROSE, AUGUSTINE). Christ has equal dignity and consubstantiality with the Father as his words and works demonstrate his unity with the Father—works that he shall also do through us (THEODORE). Even our very believing, which is one of the great works to which Christ refers, is the work of Christ (AUGUSTINE). But he is also referring to the miracles the apostles would accomplish by his power (THEODORE OF HERACLEA). Because Father and Son share in the divine nature, we can also go to the Son with our requests (AMBROSE). But believers do not always receive what they ask for, not because the Son is not able to grant their request, but because, like a physician, God knows when what we ask for is beneficial and when it is not (AUGUSTINE).

14:7 | Knowing Christ, You Know the Father

CHRIST’S APPEARANCE PROVIDES KNOWLEDGE OF THE FATHER

IRENAEUS: The Son reveals the knowledge of the Father through his own manifestation. For the manifestation of the Son is the knowledge of the Father, since all things are manifested through the Word. AGAINST HERESIES 4.6.3. [1]

[1] ANF 1:468*; SC 100:442.

THE TIME OF SEEING AND THE TIME OF KNOWING

HILARY OF POITIERS: How can knowledge of him be knowledge of the Father? For the apostles see him wearing the aspect of that human nature that belongs to him. But God is not encumbered with body and flesh and is unrecognizable by those who dwell in our weak and fleshly body. The answer is given by the Lord, who asserts that under the flesh that, in a mystery, he had taken, his Father’s nature dwells within him. … He makes a distinction between the time of seeing and the time of knowing. He says that from this time onward they shall know him whom they had already seen and so shall possess, from the time of this revelation onward, the knowledge of that nature on which, in him, they had gazed for so long. ON THE TRINITY 7.34. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 9:132-33*; CCL 62:301.

DIVINE SONSHIP PRODUCES RECOGNITION OF DIVINE FATHER

HILARY OF POITIERS: It was not the carnal body that he had received by birth from the Virgin that could manifest to them the image and likeness of God. The human aspect that he wore could be no aid toward the mental vision of the incorporeal God. But God was recognized in Christ by those who recognized Christ as the Son on the evidence of the powers of his divine nature. And a recognition of God the Son produces a recognition of God the Father. For the Son is in such a sense the image as to be one in kind with the Father and yet in a way that indicates that the Father is his origin. ON THE TRINITY 7.37. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 9:133-34*; CCL 62:304.

SEEING THE FATHER IN THE SON

CHRYSOSTOM: He does not contradict himself. They knew him indeed, but not as they should have. God they knew, but they did not yet know the Father. For afterward, when the Spirit came upon them, he formed in them all knowledge. It is as if he had said, “If you had known my essence and my dignity, you would have known that of the Father also. And from this time onward you shall know him, and you have seen him.” The [knowing] belongs to the future; the [seeing] belongs to the present. Both are brought about “by me.” By “sight,” he means knowledge by intellectual perception. For those who are seen we may see but not know. Those, however, who are known we cannot both know and not know. … These words are used so that you may learn that the one who has seen him knows him who begat him. [1] But they beheld him not in his unveiled essence but clothed with flesh. HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 73.2. [2]

[1] The Son.

[2] NPNF 1 14:269**.

14:8 | Lord, Show Us the Father

PHILIP WAS NOT TAMPERING WITH THE FAITH

HILARY OF POITIERS: The novel sound of these words of Jesus disturbed the apostle Philip. A man is before their eyes. This man asserts that he is the Son of God and declares that when they have known him they will know the Father. He tells them that they have seen the Father and that, because they have seen him, they shall know him hereafter. … And so Philip spoke out with the loyalty and confidence of an apostle, requesting, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will suffice.” He was not tampering with the faith. It was only a mistake made in ignorance. … Philip did not deny that the Father could be seen but only asked that he might see him. He did not ask that the Father should be unveiled so that he could see him with his bodily eyes, but that he might have some further indication that would enlighten him concerning how the Father could be seen. For he had seen the Son under the aspect of humanity but cannot understand how he could thereby have seen the Father. ON THE TRINITY 7.35. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 9:133**; CCL 62:301-3.

SHOW US THE FATHER?

AUGUSTINE: When Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that is enough for us,” he understood well enough that being shown the Father could satisfy him. But if the one who is equal to the Father was not enough for him, how would the Father be enough? And why wasn’t he enough for him? Because he was not seen. Why wasn’t he seen? Because the eye he could be seen with was not yet whole. As for the Lord’s body, which could be seen with these eyes, it was not only the ones who revered him who saw him but also the Jews who crucified him. So if he wanted to be seen in another way, it means he was requiring other eyes. And that is why he gave this reply to the one who said, “Show us the Father, and that is enough for us: Have I been with you all this time, and you do not know me? Philip, whoever sees me also sees the Father.” And to heal the eyes of faith in the meantime, he is first admonished in terms of faith, so that he may be enabled to attain to sight. And in case Philip should assume that God is to be thought of in the same way as he saw the Lord Jesus Christ in the flesh, he immediately added, “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me?” SERMON 88.4. [1]

[1] WSA 3 3:421; RB 94:77. See also Augustine On the Trinity 1.8.16-17.

14:9 | Seeing the Father in and Through the Son

THE FATHER’S PORTRAIT IN THE SON

AMBROSE: 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. ON THE CHRISTIAN FAITH 1.7.50. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 10:208*. See also Basil On the Holy Spirit 8.21, 45.

SEEING THE FATHER IN THE SON

CHRYSOSTOM: In the Old Testament it says, “No one shall see my face and live.” [1] What does Christ say? Very reprovingly he says, “Have I been with you for so long, and have you not known me, Philip?” He did not say “have you not seen” but “have you not known me.” “Why,” Philip might say, “would I want to learn anything concerning you? At present I want to see your Father, and you say to me, ‘Have you not known me?’” What connection then does this have with the question? Surely a very close one. For if he is that which the Father is, yet continues to be a Son, there is a definite reason for showing in himself the one who begat him. Then to distinguish the persons he says, “He who has seen me has seen the Father,” in case anyone should assert that the same person is Father and Son. For had he been the Father, he would not have said, “He who has seen me has seen him.” HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 74.1. [2]

[1] Ex 33:20.

[2] NPNF 1 14:271*.

ONLY ONE IMAGE OF GOD SPOKEN OF IN SCRIPTURE

AMBROSE: 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.” [1] Of this image it is written that Christ is the “effulgence of the glory and impress of his hypostasis.” [2] 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,” [3] and again, “All things whatever the Father has are mine.” [4] [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.” [5] SERMON AGAINST AUXENTIUS 32. [6]

[1] Gen 1:26.

[2] Heb 1:3.

[3] Jn 10:30.

[4] Jn 16:15.

[5] Jn 16:14.

[6] NPNF 2 10:435**. See also The Sacrament of the Incarnation of the Lord 10.112.

NOT SPEAKING OF A BODILY LIKENESS HERE

HILARY OF POITIERS: 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. ON THE TRINITY 8.48. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 9:151*; CCL 62A:360-61.

THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DIVINE WILL

BASIL THE GREAT: “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. [1] ON THE HOLY SPIRIT 8.21. [2]

[1] Christ is the “express image,” or imprint, or form, of the Father (Heb 1:3; Phil 2:6), but not in the sense that his physical appearance is what the Father looks like.

[2] OHS 41.

A PERFECT LIKENESS BETWEEN FATHER AND SON

THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: 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. COMMENTARY ON JOHN 6.14.8-9. [1]

[1] CSCO 4 3:268.

NOT RECOGNIZING THE FATHER’S NATURE

HILARY OF POITIERS: 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. ON THE TRINITY 7.36. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 9:133*; CCL 62:303.

14:10a | Mutual Indwelling

THE MUTUAL INDWELLING IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE

HILARY OF POITIERS: The words of the Lord, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me,” confuse many minds, and this is only natural since the powers of human reason cannot provide them with any intelligible meaning. It seems impossible that one object should be both within and without another, or that—since it is laid down that the beings of whom we are treating, although they do not dwell apart, retain their separate existence and condition—these beings can reciprocally contain one another so that one should permanently envelope and be permanently enveloped by the other whom yet he envelopes. This is a problem that human wisdom will never solve, nor will human research ever find an analogy for this condition of divine existence. But God can be what human beings cannot understand. ON THE TRINITY 3.1. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 9:62**.

FATHER AND SON ARE IN EACH OTHER

GREGORY OF NYSSA: The Lord speaks the truth who says, “I am in the Father and the Father in me”—plainly, the one in his entirety is in the other in his entirety. The Father does not have an overwhelming presence in the Son. The Son is not deficient in the Father. And the Lord also says that the Son should be honored. [1] And, “The one who has seen me has seen the Father,” and, “No one fully knows the Father except the Son.” [2] In all of this, there is no hint … of any variation in glory or of essence or anything else between the Father and the Son. AGAINST EUNOMIUS 2.4. [3]

[1] Jn 5:23.

[2] Mt 11:27.

[3] NPNF 2 5:105*.

THE SON IS GOD’S ENVOY ACCORDING TO NATURE

AMBROSIASTER: For the Son is the envoy of God the Father in accordance with nature. And so he says … “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” For the Father is understood through this to be in the Son, because their substance is one. For where there is unity, there is no differentiation. And they are interchangeable, because both their appearance and likeness are the same, with the consequence that he who sees the Son is said to have seen the Father too. As the Lord himself says, “He who has seen me has seen the Father too.” Therefore it is correct to say, God was in Christ. COMMENTARY ON 2 CORINTHIANS 5.19-21.2. [1]

[1] CSEL 81 2:237.

THE SON IS NOT FALSELY CONCEALING THAT HE IS THE FATHER

HILARY OF POITIERS: In no other words than these that the Son has used can the fact be stated that Father and Son, being alike in nature, are inseparable. The Son, who is the way and the truth and the life, [1] is not deceiving us by some theatrical transformation of names and aspects when he, while wearing manhood, styles himself the Son of God. He is not falsely concealing the fact that he is God the Father. [2] He is not a single person who hides his features under a mask so that we might imagine that two are present. He is not a solitary being, now posing as his own Son, and then again calling himself the Father, adorning the one unchanging nature with varying names. … It is the height of impiety to believe that Father and Son are two gods. It is sacrilege to assert that Father and Son are singularly God. [3] It is blasphemy to deny the unity, consisting in sameness of kind, of God from God. ON THE TRINITY 7.39. [4]

[1] Jn 14:6.

[2] Sabellianism.

[3] Lat singularem Deum. Hilary is still asserting the oneness of God. Here, however, he is also guarding against those who denigrate the distinction of person within the monarchy of God. For example, the Sabellians spoke of Father, Son and Spirit as different modes or manifestations of the one God.

[4] NPNF 2 9:134-35*; CCL 62:306-7.

NO SEPARATION OR DIVISION

HILARY OF POITIERS: That the Father dwells in the Son proves that the Father is not isolated and alone. That the Father works through the Son proves that the Son is not an alien or a stranger. There cannot be one person only, for he speaks not of himself. And, conversely, they cannot be separate and divided when the one speaks through the voice of the other. These words are the revelation of the mystery of their unity. ON THE TRINITY 7.40. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 9:135*; CCL 62:308-9.

14:10b | Mutual Words and Works

THE FATHER WOULD NOT HAVE USED DIFFERENT WORDS

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: If, he would say, my Father had spoken anything to you, he would not have used any other words than these that I am now speaking. For so great is the equality in essence between myself and him that my words are his words, and whatever I do may be believed to be his actions. For, because he “abides in me,” by reason of the exact equivalence in essence, he himself does the works. For since the Godhead is one in the Father, in the Son and in the Spirit, every word that comes from the Father comes always through the Son by the Spirit. Every work or miracle is through the Son by the Spirit, and yet it is considered as coming from the Father. For the Son is not apart from the essence of the Father, nor indeed is the Holy Spirit. But the Son, being in the Father and having the Father again in himself, claims that the Father is the doer of the works. For the nature of the Father is mighty in operation and shines out clearly in the Son.

And one might add to this another meaning that is involved, suggested clearly by the principles that underlie the incarnation. He says, “I speak not of myself,” meaning, not in separation from or in lack of agreement with God the Father. For since he appeared to those who saw him in human form, he refers his words to the divine nature, as speaking in the person of the Father. It is the same with his actions. He almost seems to say, Do not let this human form deprive me of that reverent estimation that is due and befitting to me, and do not suppose that my words are those of a mere human or of one like yourselves. Rather, believe them to be in very truth divine words that would be just as fitting for the Father as they are for me. And he is the one who works, “abiding in me.” For I am in him, and he is in me. Do not think therefore that a mighty and extraordinary privilege was granted to the people of former days because they saw God in a vision of fire and heard his voice speaking to them. For you have in reality seen the Father through me and in me, since I have appeared among you, being in my nature God, and “have come visibly,” according to the words of the psalmist. [1] And be well assured that in hearing my words, you heard the words of the Father. And you have been spectators of his works and of the might that is in him. For by me he speaks as by his own Word. And in me he carries out and achieves his wondrous works, as though by his own power. COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 9. [2]

[1] Ps 50:3 (49:3 LXX).

[2] LF 48:262-63.

THE FATHER WORKS TOGETHER WITH THE SON

AUGUSTINE: The Father was not born of the Virgin, and yet this birth of the Son from the Virgin was the work of both Father and Son. The Father did not suffer on the cross, and yet the passion of the Son was the work of both Father and Son. The Father did not rise again from the dead, and yet the resurrection of the Son was the work of both Father and Son. You have the persons quite distinct, and their working inseparable. So let us never say that the Father worked anything without the Son, the Son anything without the Father. Or perhaps you are worried about the miracles Jesus did, in case perhaps he did some that the Father did not do? Then what about “But the Father abiding in me does his works”? SERMON 52.14. [1]

[1] WSA 3 3:56; RB 74:25.

THE DIVINE THREE ARE INSEPARABLE

AUGUSTINE: So then, with all these ways of speaking we still have to understand that the activities of the divine three are inseparable, so that when an activity is attributed to the Father he is not taken to engage in it without the Son and the Holy Spirit. And when it is an activity of the Son, it is not without the Son and the Holy Spirit. And when it is an activity of the Son, it is not without the Father and the Son. That being the case, those who have the right faith, or better still the right understanding as far as they can, know well enough that the reason it is said about the Father, “He does the works,” is that the works have their origin in the one from whom the co-working persons have their very existence. The Son, you see, is born of him, and the Holy Spirit proceeds primarily from him of whom the Son is born, being the Spirit common to them both. SERMON 71.26. [1]

[1] WSA 3 3:262; RB 75:93-94.

THE IMAGE SHARES ATTRIBUTES OF THE FATHER

ATHANASIUS: Let us proceed then to consider the attributes of the Father, and we shall come to know whether this Image is really his. The Father is eternal, immortal, powerful, light, King, Sovereign, God, Lord, Creator and Maker. These attributes must be in the Image to make it true that whoever “has seen” the Son “has seen the Father.” If the Son is not all this, but, as the Arians consider, he is originate and not eternal, this is not a true image of the Father, unless indeed they give up shame and go on to say that the title of image, given to the Son, is not a token of a similar essence, but his name only. DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS 1.21. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 4:318*.

PERFECT LIKENESS

THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: Among all the words said so far, especially here, he clearly shows that he talks about their likeness. Indeed, in the same way, by turning the speech to the Father and him, he reveals the perfect likeness of their nature, so that, as the Father lives in him, and he in the Father, a perfect likeness can be shown in each of them. Then he proves and confirms his words by saying, “The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own.” If you do not believe, he says, in these words, know that so perfect is the conformity of nature, ideas, and virtue that there is no difference in the words either. Whatever I say is in common, and do not only speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me does his works. It would have been opportune to add, “My Father speaks through the words: I do not speak.” But he had said above, “The words that I say,” and here, “The Father does his works,” in order to show that the nature is common, the words are common and the works are common as well. From this it is evident that through the words, “I do not speak on my own,” he does not signify an inferior state, but a perfect communion and an inseparable union. And this appears especially from the context. COMMENTARY ON JOHN 6.14.10. [1]

[1] CSCO 4 3:269.

14:11 | Believe There Is Mutual Indwelling and Works

UNITY WITH THE FATHER IS RECOGNIZED

HILARY OF POITIERS: His power belonged to his nature, and his working was the exercise of that power. In the exercise of that power, then, they might recognize in him the unity with the Father’s nature. To the extent that anyone recognized him to be God in the power of his nature, that person would come to know God the Father who was present in that mighty nature. The Son, who is equal with the Father, showed by his works that the Father could be seen in him so that when we perceived in the Son a nature like the Father’s in its power, we might know that in Father and Son there is no distinction of nature. ON THE TRINITY 9.52. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 9:173*; CCL 62A:430.

AGAINST THOSE WHO DENY THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: In these words Christ distinctly says that he could never have worked and accomplished those miracles that are unique to the divine nature if he, himself, had not been essentially of the same divine nature. … [Only heretics] whose hearts are devoid of the Holy Spirit make separations between the Father and the Son and assert that the Son is essentially and completely severed from the Father in the way that created things and divine works are separate from God the Father. COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 9. [1]

[1] LF 48:265, 286**.

14:12 | Believers Also Do Even Greater Works

WE CAN DO SIMILAR WORKS

AMBROSE: Skillfully inserting here the word also, he has allowed us similarity and yet has not ascribed natural unity. The work of the Father and the work of the Son, therefore, are one. ON THE CHRISTIAN FAITH 3.11.91. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 10:255; CSEL 78:141.

WORKING IN CHRIST

AUGUSTINE: And so he promised that he himself would also do those greater works. Do not let the servant exalt himself above his Lord or the disciple above his Master. [1] He says that they will do greater works than he does himself, but it is all by his doing such works in or by them, and not as if they did them of themselves. And so we have the song that is addressed to him, “I will love you, O Lord, my strength.” [2] But what, then, are those greater works? Was it that their very shadow, as they themselves passed by, that healed the sick? [3] For it is a mightier thing for a shadow, than for the hem of a garment, to possess the power of healing. [4] The one work was done by Christ himself, the other by them. And yet it was he that did both. TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 71.3. [5]

[1] See Jn 13:16.

[2] Ps 18:1 (17:1 LXX, 17:2 Vg).

[3] See Acts 5:15.

[4] See Mt 14:36.

[5] NPNF 1 7:329*; CCL 36:506.

OUR BELIEVING IS THE WORK OF CHRIST

AUGUSTINE: But there is still something to excite thought in his doing such greater works by the apostles. For he did not say, as if merely with reference to them, “the works that I do shall you do also. And greater works than these shall you do,” but wishing to be understood as speaking of all that belonged to his family, he said, “He who believes in me, the works that I do shall he do also. And greater works than these shall he do.” If, then, he who believes shall do such works, he who shall not do them is certainly no believer, just as “He who loves me, keeps my commandments” [1] implies, of course, that whoever does not keep them does not love. … In a similar way, also, it is said here, “He who believes in me shall do such works.” The one who does not do good works, therefore, is no believer. What have we here, then, brothers? Is it that one is not to be counted among believers in Christ who will not do greater works than Christ? It would be hard, unreasonable, intolerable to suppose so, that is, unless it is rightly understood. Let us listen, then, to the apostle when he says, “To him who believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” [2] This is the work in which we may be doing the works of Christ, for even our very believing in Christ is the work of Christ. TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 72.2. [3]

[1] Jn 14:21.

[2] Rom 4:5.

[3] NPNF 1 7:330*; CCL 36:508.

EXCEEDING THE POWER OF THEIR TEACHER

THEODORE OF HERACLEA: This refers to the other miracles that the apostles did, such as healing a man through their shadow falling on him. But this incident did not reveal the fullness of this saying, but rather it was fulfilled in the fact that, when he used the power of the Godhead for an act of kindness, the disciples on the one hand worked through the power given to them for the service of those who believe and the punishment of the extremely wicked, and on the other hand they exceeded the power of their teacher, even though he was mightier in his ability to punish the godless, since he chose to restrain and control his power to punish in the meantime until the right moment of judgment. FRAGMENTS ON JOHN 259. [1]

[1] JKGK 133.

JESUS’ REUNION WITH THE FATHER

THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: We said above that the words “I am going to the Father” refer to [his union with the Father after his passion]. After … this union, he will have the power to give everything to those who ask him, because by asking they ask for the greatness dwelling in him. [1] He can give because of his [union with the Father], and the Father then is completely recognized in the Son to be excellent and admirable. COMMENTARY ON JOHN 6.14.13-14. [2]

[1] Here again we see Theodore’s emphasis on the distinction between Christ’s two natures.

[2] CSCO 4 3:270-71.

14:13-14 | Asking in Jesus’ Name

REQUESTS NEED TO BE MADE NOT ONLY TO THE FATHER

AMBROSE: But if we think it impious to believe that the Father has handed over all judgment to the Son in such a way that he does not have it himself—for he has it and cannot lose what the divine majesty has by its very nature—we ought to consider it equally impious to suppose that the Son cannot give what either men and women can merit or any creature can receive, especially as he himself has said, “I go to my Father, and whatever you shall ask of him in my name, that will I do.” For if the Son cannot give what the Father can give, the Truth has lied and cannot do what the Father has been asked for in his name. He therefore did not say, “For whom it has been prepared by my Father,” in order that requests should be made only of the Father. For all things that are asked of the Father, [the Son] has declared that he [himself] will give. And finally, he did not say, “Whatever you shall ask of me, that will I do” but “Whatever you shall ask of him in my name, that will I do.” ON THE CHRISTIAN FAITH 5.5.66. [1]

[1] NPNF 2 10:293*; CSEL 78:242 (On the Christian Faith 5.5.67).

WHY DON’T BELIEVERS ALWAYS RECEIVE?

AUGUSTINE: “Whatever you shall ask.” Then why do we often see believers asking and not receiving? Perhaps it is that they do not ask correctly. … When a person would make a bad use of what he asks for, God in his mercy does not grant him it. It is even more the case that if someone asks what would, if answered, only tend to his injury, there is surely greater cause to fear, in case what God could not withhold with kindness, he should give in his anger. … Still if God even in kindness often refuses the requests of believers, how are we to understand “Whatever you shall ask in my name, I will do”? Was this said to the apostles only? No. He says above, “He who believes in me, the works that I do he shall do also.” … And if we go to the lives of the apostles themselves, we shall find that he who labored more than them all prayed that the messenger of Satan might depart from him [1] but was not granted his request. … Wake up then, believer, and note what is stated here: “In my name.” That [name] is Christ Jesus. Christ signifies King, Jesus signifies Savior. … Therefore whatever we ask for that would hinder our salvation, we do not ask in our Savior’s name, and yet he is our Savior not only when he does what we ask but also when he does not. When he sees us ask anything to the disadvantage of our salvation, he shows himself our Savior by not doing it. The physician knows whether what the sick person asks for is to the advantage or disadvantage of his health. And [the physician] does not allow what would be harmful to him, though the sick person himself desires it. But the physician looks to his final cure. … And some things we may even ask in his name, and he will not grant them to us at the time, though he will some time. What we ask for is deferred, not denied. … He adds, “that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” The Son does not do anything without the Father, inasmuch as he does it in order that the Father may be glorified in the Son, … for the Father and Son are one. TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 73.1-4. [2]

[1] See 2 Cor 12:8.

[2] CCL 36:509-12; NPNF 1 7:331-33**.