If the statement, 'You know both me and know from where I am,' and the assertion, 'You know neither me nor my Father,' were addressed to the same people, the two sayings would seem outright to be contradictory. But as it stands, 'You know me' is reported as being addressed to some of the men of Jerusalem, who had said: 'Can it be that the rulers have truly come to know that this is the Christ? But we know this man, from where he is; and when the Christ comes, no one knows from where he is.' Whereas 'You know neither me' and what follows is addressed to the Pharisees, who had said to him: 'You bear witness about yourself; your testimony is not true.'
However, he says both to the men of Jerusalem, by means of the earlier verses, and to the Pharisees, by means of the ones now under examination, that 'you do not know the Father': to the men of Jerusalem through these words -- 'I have not come of myself, but he who sent me is true, whom you do not know; I know him, because I am from him, and he sent me' -- and to the Pharisees through: 'You know neither me nor my Father; if you knew me, you would know my Father also.'
And one might reasonably inquire how it is that, if it is true that 'if you knew me, you would know my Father also,' the men of Jerusalem -- to whom he says, 'you know me also' -- do not know the Father. And John, too, in his catholic epistle, intensifies the difficulty at this point, saying: 'He who denies the Father and the Son; everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either.'
For if 'he who denies the Father [denies] the Son also,' and 'he who confesses the Son has the Father also,' it is clear that the men of Jerusalem, as far as the wording goes, by not knowing the Father -- that is, by denying the Father -- also deny the Son.
But if they deny the Son, how is 'you know me also' true? Again, if these same people know the Son -- because of 'you know me also' -- then (since 'he who confesses the Son has the Father also') they confess the Father. But if they confess the Father, how is it true that 'he who sent me is true, whom you do not know'?
One must say, in response to these things, that the Savior speaks about himself at one time as about a man, and at another time as about a more divine nature, united to the unbegotten nature of the Father. For when he says, 'But now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you,' he says this knowing that the one sought to be destroyed is not God but a man; but when he says, 'I and the Father are one,' and 'I am the truth and the life,' and 'I am the resurrection,' and things similar to these, he is not teaching about the man who is sought to be destroyed.
So likewise, in regard to the questions now before us, one must understand from the context: 'You know me also, and you know from where I am' speaks about himself as man, while 'you know neither me nor my Father' speaks about the divinity. For before 'you know me also, and you know from where I am,' the following is placed: 'Some of the men of Jerusalem therefore said: Is this not he whom they seek to kill? And behold, he speaks openly, and they say nothing to him. Can it be that the rulers have truly come to know that this is the Christ? But we know this man, from where he is; and when the Christ comes, no one knows from where he is.'
But before 'you know neither me nor my Father' come these words: 'The Pharisees therefore said to him: You bear witness about yourself; your testimony is not true. Jesus answered and said to them: Even if I bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, because I know from where I came and where I am going.'
...... 'You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. And even if I do judge, my judgment is true, because I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent me.'
It is clear, then, from these things, that it was said by the men of Jerusalem, 'We know this man, from where he is,' referring to the fact that he had been born in Bethlehem, and knowing that this was the one whose mother was called Mary, and whose brothers were James and John and Simon and Judas. For this reason he also bears witness to those who had said, 'We know from where he is,' through the words 'you know me also, and you know from where I am.' But to the Pharisees, he said, 'Even if I bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, because I know from where I came and where I am going' -- speaking of the more divine nature, and, as one might say, insofar as he was the firstborn of all creation.
Therefore, to those who had further inquired of him and said, 'Where is your Father?' he answers (as one might say, being other than the one who had said, 'you know me also') and says, 'And you know neither me nor my Father' (this response befitted the low estate of the Pharisees, who either did not understand that he was speaking of the God of all when he said, 'The Father who sent me bears witness about me,' or, if they did understand that these things were being said about God, thought that God exists in a place, and for this reason answered, 'Where is your Father?').
One must know, however, that the heterodox think that it is clearly established from this passage that the God whom the Jews worshiped is not the Father of the Christ. For, they say, if the Savior said to the Pharisees, who worship the Demiurge, 'You know neither me nor my Father,' it is clear that the Pharisees did not know the Father of Jesus, he being other than the Demiurge -- nor indeed did the men of Jerusalem, to whom he had earlier said, 'But he who sent me is true, whom you do not know.' But they say these things because they have not read the divine Scriptures, nor observed the customary usage of language found in them.
For even if someone is able to expound thoroughly the things concerning God, having learned from the fathers that he alone must be worshiped, yet does not live rightly, they say that this person does not have the knowledge of God. If, then, anyone else knew the things concerning the Demiurge and his priestly service, clearly the sons of Eli the priest did too, having been raised up in that very worship service; but nevertheless, since they sinned, this is written concerning them in the first book of Kingdoms: 'And the sons of Eli were sons of pestilence; they did not know the Lord.'
For we shall ask the heterodox whether 'they did not know the Lord' is not written concerning the Demiurge; and when they answer that this is indeed said concerning the Demiurge, we shall then ask why it is said concerning the sons of Eli, 'they did not know the Lord' -- whether on account of doctrines about the Demiurge, or on account of their wickedness. But it is clear that they are said not to have known the Lord on account of their wickedness.
And this is to be found not only concerning the sons of Eli, but also concerning other sinful men who reigned in Israel and Judah. Thus, then, the Pharisees too did not know the Father; for neither did they live according to the will of the Demiurge.
There is, moreover, another meaning of 'knowing God,' since knowing God is one thing, distinct from merely believing in God -- as is clear from the saying: 'Whatever the law says, it says to those who are in the law' -- from which it is clear that this also includes the prophets, whose words, as we have shown elsewhere, are also called 'law.' It is said, then, in the Psalms: 'Be still, and know that I am God.'
Who would not confess that these words were written for a people who [merely] believe in the Demiurge? For it is not possible to know him without being still and having purified one's mind; those who understand and see God with more divine eyes are deemed worthy of this grace because they have made their heart pure, as the Savior bears witness, saying: 'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.' At the same time, in response to 'No one has known the Father except the Son,' we shall say that knowing the Father and believing in him are not the same thing.
'No one has known the Father except the Son' does not, then, conflict with 'And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.' But if anyone thinks that we are forcing the point when we say that believing and knowing are not the same thing, and that it is possible to believe while not having knowledge of the one believed in, let him hear Jesus saying to the Jews who had believed in him: 'If you abide in my word, you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.'
For observe that before 'If you abide in my word, you shall know the truth,' it is written: 'Jesus therefore said to the Jews who believed in him' -- and what he said was: 'If you abide in my word, you shall know the truth.'
But to have known, in addition to believing, differs greatly from merely believing; for to one, through the Spirit, is given the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith in the same Spirit.
These things, then, [have been said] to establish that being known by God is different from being believed in [i.e., that knowing God differs from believing in God]. But, for the sake of precision, we shall add this further point to what has been said: that concerning those to whom he says, 'You know neither me nor my Father' -- the Pharisees -- one might reasonably also say, 'but you do not even believe in my Father'; for they did not believe in him who was sent from the Father, and he who denies the Son has the Father in no way at all; and I say 'in no way at all' meaning neither according to faith nor according to knowledge.
But observe whether Scripture does not also, in another sense, say that those who have been mingled with something and united to it 'know' that with which they have been mingled and in which they have come to share; whereas prior to such union and communion, even if they grasp the accounts concerning something, they do not know that thing.
For example, Adam, speaking about Eve -- 'This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh' -- did not yet know the woman; for it was when he had been joined to her that it is said: 'And Adam knew Eve his wife.' And if anyone should stumble at our having taken 'And Adam knew Eve his wife' as a paradigm for the knowledge of God, let him first pay attention to the saying, 'This mystery is great'; and second, let him set alongside it what is said by the Apostle concerning male and female: he uses the same word concerning man and the Lord -- 'He who is joined to a prostitute is one body [with her], and he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit [with him].'
Let him, then, who is joined to a prostitute have known the prostitute, and let him who is joined to a wife have known the wife; and still more than this, in a holy manner, let him who is joined to the Lord have known the Lord. But if this is so, the Pharisees did not know the Father, nor the Son either, and true was the one who said, 'You know neither me nor my Father.' But if we should not understand it in this way (I mean, according to this latter interpretation) -- as referring to being mingled together and united -- let someone expound the verse, 'Now that you have known God, or rather, having been known by God,' and 'The Lord knew those who are his.'
For, in our view, 'the Lord knew those who are his' by being mingled with them and imparting to them his own divinity, and taking them up, as the wording of the gospel says, into his own hand -- those who have believed in the Savior being in the hand of the Father as well. Therefore, unless they should fall from it by distancing themselves from the hand of God, they shall not be snatched away; for no one snatches out of the Father's hand.
After this, you will inquire further into the same passage -- I mean, 'you know neither me nor my Father' -- whether it is possible for someone who knows God not to know the Father. For if 'that by which he is Father' is one conception (epinoia) of him, and 'that by which he is God' is another, then perhaps it is possible for someone to know God, yet not know the Father, beyond merely knowing him as God while not knowing him as Father.
The Savior, then, says to Mary after the resurrection: 'But go to my brothers and say to them: I am going to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.' And it is possible to say, granting this concession to the heterodox, that Moses and the prophets did not know the Father -- though this is perhaps not true; for the one who has not known the Father has certainly not known the Son either. For the Son knew the Father, and the servant [knew] the Lord/Master; and just as we would not be committing any impiety in saying that the Son did not know the Lord/Master (for being a son, he has not experienced the Father as a master), so likewise, while maintaining that it is the same God, we shall admit nothing absurd in saying that it was fitting for the Son to know the Father, and for the servant to know the Lord/Master, and that neither did the servant know the Father, nor the Son the Lord/Master.
Indeed, though there are countless prayers recorded in the Psalms and the Prophets, and also in the Law, we do not really find anyone praying and saying to God, 'Father.' Perhaps, then, since they did not know the Father, they pray to him as God and Lord, awaiting the one who would pour out the Spirit of adoption upon them no less than upon those who, after his coming, believe in God through him -- unless, indeed, there had come to be for them an intelligible coming (epidemia) of Christ, and, having at some point been made perfect, they had received the Spirit of adoption; and in a hidden manner, not known to all, they spoke of, or wrote of, God as Father -- with this one purpose: that they might, in advance, lay hold of the grace which was to be poured out through Jesus upon the whole world, he calling all to adoption, so that he might declare the name of God to his brothers and might sing praise to the Father in the midst of the church, according to what is written: 'I will declare your name to my brothers; in the midst of the church I will sing praise to you.'
That the God of the prophets is indeed the same as the creator (Demiurge) of the world can be observed from many passages; but for the present it suffices to consider Stephen's public address to the people from Acts, where he speaks thus: 'Men, brothers, and fathers, listen.'
'The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, and said to him: Go out from your land and from your kindred,' and so on. For throughout the whole discourse it may be learned, without contradiction, that the God of the prophets is the Father of Christ Jesus.
And from the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans, in these words: 'Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience of faith among all the nations, for the sake of his name, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ -- to all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called saints: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.'
For from these passages we have clearly learned that the Demiurge, who is the God of the prophets and the Father of the Christ, is also our God and Father.
The Pharisees, then, not only did not have knowledge -- neither insofar as he is Father, nor insofar as he is God -- of the Father of Christ who gave the Law; but they did not even believe in him, admittedly not insofar as he was the Father of Jesus and his God, and perhaps not even insofar as he was the God who created all things.
But neither did they know the Christ, and the Savior rightly reproves them, saying: 'You know neither me, nor do you know my Father.' I ask this: whether 'if you knew me, you would know my Father also' has the same force as 'if you knew my Father, you would know me also' -- or not.
And I hold that these two are not of equal force, since one who knows the Father ascends from the knowledge of the Son to the knowledge of the Father, and the Father is not seen otherwise than by the Son being seen; for he says, 'He who has seen me has seen him who sent me.' But he would not have said, 'He who has seen the Father has seen me,' since he who has contemplated the Word (Logos) of God contemplates God, ascending from the Word to God; and it is impossible to contemplate God apart from the Word.
And he who contemplates the Wisdom which God created before the ages for his works ascends, from having known Wisdom, to her Father; but it is impossible to conceive the God of Wisdom apart from Wisdom's own advance/procession.
You will say the same also concerning the Truth; for no one first conceives or contemplates God and afterward the Truth, but first the Truth, so that in this way he may come to look into the essence -- or into that power and nature of God which is beyond the essence.
And perhaps, just as in the Temple there were certain steps by which one entered into the Holy of Holies, so also all our steps together are the Only-Begotten of God; and just as, of the steps, one is the lowest, first from below, and another is higher than this one, and so on in succession up to the highest, so likewise all the steps together are the Savior; and the first and lowest, as it were, is his humanity, upon which, treading, we make our way along the whole road that lies in succession among the steps that belong to him -- so that we may ascend by means of him, who is both an angel and the rest of the powers as well.
And according to his various conceptions (epinoiai) -- if indeed 'the Way' is one thing, and there must be 'doors' encountered before the Way, so that afterward one may in this manner arrive at the door, and then make use of him as 'ruler,' insofar as he is 'shepherd,' so that one may then be able to enjoy him also as 'king,' and first benefit from him as 'lamb,' so that he may first take away our sin, and afterward, having been cleansed, we may eat his flesh, the true food -- and if one examines more carefully the passages adjoining these and takes them up, he will hear: 'If you know me, you know my Father also,' and 'Since you know me, you know my Father also. These words he spoke in the treasury, teaching in the temple; and no one seized him, because his hour had not yet come.'
If it were not useful for something to be learned from the fact that the aforesaid words are reported as having been spoken by the Savior in the treasury, the evangelist would not have added, to what Jesus had said, the note, 'These words he spoke in the treasury, teaching in the temple.' And everywhere that the phrase 'These words which he spoke in such-and-such a place' is appended, if you pay close attention, you will find the reasonable ground for this addition.
In order, then, that it may be understood what these words spoken by Jesus 'in the treasury' signify, we shall set alongside them what we have learned from Luke and Mark, who name the treasury. From Luke, this: 'And looking up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury; and he saw a certain poor widow putting in two small copper coins, and he said: Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for all these out of their abundance put into the offerings of God, but she out of her lack put in all the livelihood that she had.' And from the Gospel according to Mark: 'And Jesus, sitting opposite the treasury, was observing...'
'...and the crowd was putting copper coins into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in much. And a certain poor widow came and put in two small coins, that is, a quadrans. And calling his disciples to him, he said to them: Truly I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those putting into the treasury; for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her lack put in everything she had, her whole livelihood.'
But now let us say what purpose this juxtaposition of texts, which noted that the treasury was in the temple, serves for me, so that we may understand the passage of John now before us. If we elevate the temple of God, and the matters concerning it, to a spiritual meaning, let us accordingly likewise understand 'the treasury in the temple' -- which is the place where coins are offered for the honor of God and for the administration of the relief of the poor.
What, then, would the coins be, but the discourses (logoi) bearing the stamped image of the great King, examined by approved money-changers who know how to distinguish, from among the approved coins, the disapproved ones that merely pretend to be approved, keeping the commandment of Jesus that says, 'Be approved money-changers,' and the teaching of Paul, who says, 'Test everything; hold fast to what is good; abstain from every form of evil'? Let each one, then, contribute toward the building up of the church, bringing to the intelligible treasury what he is able, for the honor of God and the benefit of the community.
Since it is possible for the community to be benefited in two ways -- both from words and from deeds, which the righteous person performs -- these too are rightly referred to the intelligible treasury. But since the capability of all is not equal or alike in this life, seeing that the master of the house gave to one five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his own capability, the living Word (Logos) of this [master] accepts, looking to the capability of those who cast into the treasury we have described, whom he accepts, not looking only to the quantity of what is contributed.
Therefore, if someone who is capable of more does less in relation to the capacity that exists within him, yet does more in comparison with others who are capable of less, ...... and he accepts those who, in proportion to their capacity, have done the lesser things, above those who have contributed more out of a capacity able to bring forth many times as much, as is written in what we have cited from both Luke and Mark.
At the same time, these sayings teach the one who has understood them spiritually that those who are thought to excel ought never to be puffed up against those inferior as judged by human judgment; for let no one who is supposed to do more and better things be persuaded, comparing himself with those who, as far as human judgment goes, do the least, that he has done all that he was capable of doing -- while that other person has not rendered all that he was able, when the account requires it of him.
Jesus, then, looked up at the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and seeing the poor widow putting in two small coins -- perhaps signifying one who, in the domain of gnosis, or more simply in the domain of practice, thinks concerning divine matters and lives in a manner corresponding to these -- said: 'Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all of them.'
And he said this, observing in what manner those who, in respect of their capacity, are rich, and able to bring many times more to the common good, put into the gifts of God, out of their abundance, only the smallest portion of what they were able to contribute.
But he takes note also of the widow's want, and of the fact that, constraining herself, she brought all the livelihood she had into the treasury in the temple, offering to God the whole of her capacity.
Always, then, Jesus -- according to Luke -- looking up at the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, also sees the poor widow putting in two small coins; but according to Mark, standing opposite the treasury, he observes in what manner all the people cast, each according to his capacity, the intelligible copper into the treasury, and, as the only one able to see the rich, he perceives whenever a poor and needy soul casts in with the whole of its capacity, and is on this account accounted righteous above the many rich.
And these things he says not to just anyone, but, as Mark says, to his disciples; for even now, calling his disciples to him, he says to them, teaching them to see not as man will see, but as God will see (Man will look on the face, but God will look on the heart) -- the words, 'Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those putting into the treasury,' and so forth.
What, then, does all this mean for me, given that I have set out to explain the words, 'These words he spoke in the treasury, teaching in the temple' -- except to establish that, while everyone contributes in the treasury of the temple, for the common good, the things that will nourish those in need, Jesus, more than all, was bound to bring the things that would be beneficial -- which were words of eternal life, and teaching concerning God, and...
And more precious than every coin was the saying, spoken in the treasury, 'I am the light of the world,' and 'If you knew me, you would know my Father also,' and all the other things at that place.
And indeed, all the gold that the rest bring, of what they had, into the treasury, was but a little sand in comparison with the words of Jesus; for all his speech was wisdom: 'And all gold, in the sight of wisdom, is a little sand, and silver shall be accounted as clay before her.'
And these things will be clearly understood by those who have learned to listen to the wisdom spoken among the perfect, hidden in a mystery, which God foreordained before the ages for the glory of his righteous ones, and who are able to perceive the superiority of the wisdom of God over the wisdom of this age, or of the rulers of this age, who are being brought to nothing -- as though they made use of their own prophets, championing whatever other doctrines stand opposed to the truth. For all the other wisdoms, though reputed to be gold, are but a little sand in the sight of the Wisdom which God created as the beginning of his ways for his works; and the brilliant and persuasive discourse of the many, like silver, shall be accounted as clay, set against the pure oracles of the Lord, refined and purified seven times over, and approved, inasmuch as they proceed forth from the Word who was in the beginning with God.
We have brought in these citations from the book entitled 'Wisdom,' for a different purpose -- namely, to help perceive the force of 'These words which he spoke in the treasury, teaching in the temple.' For let the account concerning the rich and the poor widow be maintained as it has been given; and if anyone is an imitator of Christ, let him come to the intelligible temple of God, which is not in [any physical] place, journeying by the mind and following the Spirit, who is able to lead him by the hand to it; and let him bring approved coins -- words of eternal life -- to the treasury, and works corresponding to such words.
But would that none of us be poor, nor a widow able to bring nothing more than two small coins, nor rich, bringing only out of abundance -- but rather dedicating all wealth to God.
But Jesus did not speak all the words he had while teaching in the treasury, but only as many as the treasury could contain; for I do not think that even the world itself could contain the whole Word of God.
Nevertheless, though speaking and teaching so many words in the treasury, in the temple, Jesus was not yet being seized by anyone; for his words happened to be stronger than those who wished to seize him. And so, as long as he speaks, none of those plotting against him will seize him; but if he falls silent, then he is seized.
Hence, since he willed to suffer on behalf of the world, when being examined by Pilate and scourged, he is silent; for if he had spoken, being crucified would no longer have come to be for him a matter of weakness -- since there is no weakness in that in which the Word speaks.
But while he was in the treasury, the hour for him to be seized had not yet arrived, nor even while he was in the temple; rather, the place where Jesus willed -- and was able -- to be seized had to be a certain wadi/torrent-bed.
But moreover, the time of his being seized also had to be, not during the day; for Judas, taking the cohort and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, comes there with lanterns and torches and weapons. Concerning 'his hour had not yet come,' we have discussed at greater length above, which you may make use of also for the present passage. He said, then, to them again: 'I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.'