Annotation CLXXXII

”No man hath seen God at any time.” — John 1:18

Whether the essence of God can be beheld by any creature.

Chrysostom, in the fourteenth homily on John, seems to gather two [things] from these words. The first, that the nature, substance, and essence of God cannot be beheld by any creature by an intuitive vision of the mind, but is known only by an abstraction of thought and imagination. And this he sets forth in these words: “That which God is, not only did the prophets not see, but neither the angels nor the archangels. For if thou shalt question them, thou wilt hear nothing from them about the substance of God, but only,¹ ‘Glory to God in the highest.’” And a little after he adds: “But if all nature is created, by what reasoning will it be able to see the uncreated? For if we cannot manifestly behold an incorporeal power, however begotten [created] — and this has often been shown in the angels — much less [can we behold] the incorporeal and unbegotten substance. Wherefore Paul says, ‘Whom no one has ever seen, nor can see.’” And below, meeting the objection which seems to stand against these [things], he says: “What, then, is that saying,² ‘Their angels see the face of my Father who is in heaven’; and ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God’? For [that] thought and imagination which, according to our strength, we conceive of God — that he calls ‘vision.’ Nor is it to be understood otherwise of the angels, on account of their pure nature, subject to no sleep, since they ever ponder in [their] mind nothing else than God.”

³ The second [point] deduced from this evangelical clause is, that the Son of God, before he put on a body, was invisible to the angels; but then, after he put on flesh, [was] seen by the angels. And he expresses this opinion in this manner: “Paul says of the Son,⁴ ‘Who was manifested in the flesh’ — but the manifestation through the flesh is not according to [his] substance. For [to show] that he is invisible not only to men, but also to the supernal Powers, when Paul had said [he was] ‘manifested in the flesh,’ he added, ‘seen by angels.’ Therefore, from [the time] when he put on flesh, then was he seen by the angels: but before, he was not so seen, since to them too his substance was invisible.” Thus far Chrysostom.

Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, seems to explain the former proposition of Chrysostom more openly, teaching that God is seen by the angels not in [his] substance and essence, but through certain likenesses, in the manner in which of old he was seen by the prophets. But it is better to bring here his words from the dialogue, which is entitled The Unchangeable: in which the Orthodox and Eranistes are brought in speaking in this manner. ERANISTES: How shall we understand that “their angels always see the face of the Father”? ORTHODOX: As we are wont to understand those [things] which are said of the men who are reckoned to have seen God. ER.: Speak more plainly; for I did not understand. ORTH.: Can God be seen by men? ER.: By no means. ORTH.: And yet we hear the divine Scripture saying,⁵ “God was seen by Abraham at the oak of Mambre”; and Isaiah saying,⁶ “I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lofty.” And of Moses the history says,⁷ “The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.” Nay, more-

Nay, moreover, the God of all [things] himself also says,⁸ “Mouth to mouth will I speak to him in [open] sight, and not through riddles.” What, then, shall we say — that they saw the divine nature? ER.: By no means. For God himself said, “No one shall see my face, and live.” ORTH.: Do they lie, then, who said they had seen God? ER.: By no means: for they saw those [things] which could be seen by them. ORTH.: God, then, measures [his] revelations by the powers of those who see. ER.: Most certainly. ORTH.: And this he made manifest through the prophet, saying,⁹ “I have filled visions, and in the hands of the prophets I have been likened” — he did not say, “I was seen,” but “I was likened.” But a likening does not signify the same nature of him who is seen. For neither does the image of a king show the very nature of the king, even if it reproduces the express and evident features of the king. ER.: This is obscure, and not sufficiently plain. ORTH.: Therefore neither did those who contemplated those revelations see the substance of God. ER.: But who would be so mad as to dare to say this? ORTH.: Yet it was said that they saw [him]. ER.: It was said. ORTH.: But we, both using pious reasonings, and believing the divine sentences, which openly cry out, “No man hath ever seen God,” say that they did not see the divine nature, but certain visions which suited their faculty, and did not exceed its measure. ER.: So we say. ORTH.: So, then, let us understand of the angels, hearing that “they see the face of the Father.” For they do not see the divine substance, which can neither be circumscribed, nor comprehended, nor perceived by the mind, and which comprehends all [things], but a certain glory which answers to their powers, and is measured out to them. ER.: That these [things] are so, is confessed. These [things] Theodoret [says].

Theophylact seems to follow the same opinion; in whose commentaries, at the exposition of this passage, it is read thus: “But here perhaps someone will say: How do we learn in this place that no one has seen God, when the prophet says,¹⁰ ‘I saw the Lord’? The prophet did indeed see God — but not the substance itself, but a certain likeness and appearance, as he was able to grasp [it]. And another again saw [him] in another figure, and another in another. Whence, namely, they did not see the very Truth: for they would not have seen in diverse figures that [Truth] which is simple and unfigurable. Nay, neither do the angels see the substance of God, although they are said to see his face. For this indicates that God always appears to them. The Son, therefore, alone of all men always sees the Father.” Thus far Theophylact.

Euthymius, agreeing with these, says in the commentaries: “No creature sees God — not only [no] material [one], but also [no] immaterial [one]. For even to the immaterial Powers themselves God is invisible in his own nature — although, as [far as] is granted to them, they [do] see God.”

St. Thomas, in the first volume of the Theological Summa, and in the fourth [book] of the Sentences, question 1, article 2, weighing the adduced opinion of Chrysostom, sets forth a rule from Augustine’s book On Seeing God, most apt for explaining sentences of this kind. For he says they are to be interpreted in a threefold way. The first, that we understand [it to mean that] no one has ever seen, or will see, the divine essence with bodily eyes;

secondly, that no one, while he lives in this mortal flesh, will see the nature of the divine substance with the spiritual eye of the mind; thirdly, that no one has ever seen, or will ever see, the substance of God by the vision of comprehension — by which, namely, God knows himself, and he alone comprehends his own substance, of what quality and how great it is. And in this way [Aquinas] holds that Chrysostom is to be understood: and he says that [Chrysostom] manifestly signifies this in the following words, when he says: “Many of us know God: yet the substance itself, of what quality it is, his only-begotten alone knows — [he] who has a certain notion, and sight, and comprehension [of it], such as it is fitting the Son should have of the Father.” These [things] Thomas [says]; to whose interpretation thou canst recall the sayings of Theodoret, Theophylact, and Euthymius. And let these [things] concerning the first proposition of Chrysostom suffice.

Concerning the second proposition we have touched on some [things] above, in Annotations 142 and 165, and below, Annotation 299.