Church Fathers Commentary John 1:6-8

"There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but [came] that he might bear witness of the light." — John 1:6-8 (ASV)

St. Augustine of Hippo: What was said above refers to the Divinity of Christ. He came to us in the form of a man, but a man in such a way that the Godhead was concealed within Him. Therefore, a great man was sent ahead of Him to declare by his testimony that He was more than a man. And who was this? He was a man.

Theophylact of Ohrid: Not an angel, as many have held. The Evangelist here refutes such a notion.

St. Augustine of Hippo: And how could he declare the truth about God unless he was sent from God?

St. John Chrysostom: After this, consider nothing John says as merely human, for he does not speak his own words, but the words of Him who sent him. Therefore, the Prophet calls him a messenger, saying, I send My messenger, for the excellence of a messenger is to say nothing on his own authority.

The expression “was sent” does not refer to his entrance into life, but to his commissioning for office. Just as Isaiah was sent on his commission—not from some place outside the world, but from the very place where he saw the Lord sitting on His high and lofty throne—in the same way, John was sent from the desert to baptize. For he says, He who sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, “Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizes with the Holy Ghost.”

St. Augustine of Hippo: What was he called? His name was John.

Alcuin of York: The name means “the grace of God,” or “one in whom there is grace,” who by his testimony first made known to the world the grace of the New Testament—that is, Christ. Or John can be taken to mean “to whom it is given,” because through the grace of God, it was given to him not only to proclaim but also to baptize the King of kings.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Why did he come? He came as a witness, to bear witness to the Light.

Origen of Alexandria: Some try to discredit the testimonies of the prophets concerning Christ by saying that the Son of God had no need of such witnesses. They argue that the wholesome words He spoke and His miraculous acts were sufficient to produce belief, just as Moses deserved belief for his speech and goodness and needed no previous witnesses.

To this we may reply that when multiple reasons to believe are available, different people are often impressed by different kinds of proof. God, who became a man for the sake of all people, can therefore provide many reasons for them to believe in Him. For instance, regarding the doctrine of the Incarnation, it is certain that some have been compelled to admire Christ by the prophetic writings—specifically by the fact that so many prophets, before His coming, identified the place of His birth and offered other proofs of that kind.

It must also be remembered that while the display of miraculous powers might inspire faith in those who lived at the same time as Christ, these accounts might lose their impact over time, as some might come to be regarded as myths. Prophecy and miracles together are more convincing than past miracles by themselves.

Finally, we must remember that people receive honor themselves from the testimony they bear to God. Whoever denies that it was the office of the prophetic choir to bear witness to Christ deprives them of immeasurable honor. When John comes to bear witness to the Light, he follows in the succession of those who went before him.

St. John Chrysostom: This was not because the Light needed the testimony, but for the reason John himself gives, namely, that all might believe in Him. For just as He took on flesh to save all people from death, so He sent a human preacher ahead of Him, so that the sound of a voice like their own might more readily draw them to Him.

The Venerable Bede: It does not say that all people should believe in him, for, cursed be the man that trusts in man, but that all people through him might believe—that is, by his testimony, believe in the Light.

Theophylact of Ohrid: However, if some did not believe, John is not accountable for them. When a man shuts himself in a dark room so that he receives no light from the sun’s rays, he himself is the cause of this darkness, not the sun. In the same way, John was sent so that all people might believe; if this result did not follow, he is not the cause of the failure.

St. John Chrysostom: However, since among us the one who gives testimony is commonly considered more important and trustworthy than the one to whom he bears witness, the Evangelist adds the following to do away with any such notion: He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. If this were not his intention in repeating the phrase “to bear witness of that Light,” the addition would be superfluous—a mere verbal repetition rather than the clarification of a truth.

Theophylact of Ohrid: But, it might be said, we do not consider John or any of the saints to be, or ever to have been, light. The difference is this: If we call any of the saints “light,” we say it without the definite article. So if you are asked whether John is “light” (without the article), you may agree without hesitation. But if asked if he is “the Light” (with the article), you must not agree. For he is not the true, original Light, but is only called so because he partakes of the light that comes from the true Light.