Church Fathers Commentary Luke 1:59-64

"And it came to pass on the eighth day, that they came to circumcise the child; and they would have called him Zacharias, after the name of the father. And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John. And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name. And they made signs to his father, what he would have him called. And he asked for a writing tablet, and wrote, saying, His name is John. And they marvelled all. And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue [loosed], and he spake, blessing God." — Luke 1:59-64 (ASV)

St. John Chrysostom: The rite of circumcision was first given to Abraham as a sign of distinction, so that the lineage of the Patriarch might be preserved in unmixed purity and thus be able to obtain the promises. But now that the promise of the covenant is fulfilled, the sign attached to it is removed. Therefore, through Christ, circumcision ceased, and baptism came in its place. But first, it was right that John should be circumcised, as it is said, And it came to pass, that on the eighth day... For the Lord had said, Let the child of eight days be circumcised among you.

I believe this measurement of time was ordered by divine mercy for two reasons. First, because in its most tender years, the child more easily bears the cutting of the flesh. Second, so that from the operation itself we might be reminded that it was done for a sign, for the young child scarcely distinguishes any of the things around him. But after the circumcision, the name was given, as it follows: And they called him. This was done because we must first receive the seal of the Lord, and then the name of a man. Or, it is because no one is worthy to have their name written in the book of life unless they first cast aside their fleshly lusts, which circumcision signifies.

St. Ambrose of Milan: The holy Evangelist has especially remarked that many thought the child should be called after his father, Zacharias. This was so that we might understand it was not because any name of his kinsfolk was displeasing to his mother, but because the same word which had been foretold by the angel to Zacharias had been communicated to her by the Holy Spirit. And in truth, being mute, Zacharias was unable to tell his wife their son’s name. But Elisabeth obtained by prophecy what she had not learned from her husband.

Hence it follows, And she answered... Do not marvel that the woman pronounced the name which she had never heard, for the Holy Spirit who imparted it to the angel also revealed it to her. Nor could she be ignorant of the forerunner of the Lord, as she had prophesied of Christ. And it well follows, And they said to her..., so that you might consider that the name belongs not to the family, but to the Prophet. Zacharias is also questioned, and signs are made to him, as it follows: And they made signs to the father... But since unbelief had so deprived him of both utterance and hearing that he could not use his voice, he spoke by his handwriting, as it follows: And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, His name is John. This means, "We do not give a name to him who has already received his name from God."

Origen of Alexandria: Zacharias is interpreted as "remembering God," but John signifies "pointing to." Now, "memory" relates to something absent, while "pointing to" relates to something present. John was not about to present the memory of God as absent, but with his finger to point Him out as present, saying, Behold the Lamb of God.

St. John Chrysostom: But the name John is also interpreted as "the grace of God." Therefore, because Elisabeth conceived this son by the favor of divine grace and not by nature, they engraved the memory of this benefit on the name of the child.

Theophylact of Ohrid: And because the mute father agreed with the mother about the name of the child, it follows, And they all marveled. For there was no one of this name among their kinsfolk, so no one could say that they had both previously decided on it.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus: The birth of John, then, broke the silence of Zacharias, as it follows: And his mouth was opened. For it would be unreasonable for his father to remain speechless when the voice of the Word had come forth.

St. Ambrose of Milan: Rightly, also, from that moment his tongue was loosed, for what unbelief had bound, faith set free. Let us, then, also believe, so that our tongue, which has been bound by the chains of unbelief, may be loosed by the voice of reason. Let us write mysteries by the Spirit if we wish to speak.

Let us write the forerunner of Christ, not on tables of stone, but on the fleshly tablets of the heart. For he who names John prophesies Christ. For he who names John prophesies Christ. For it follows, And he spoke, giving thanks.

The Venerable Bede: Now, in an allegory, the celebration of John’s birth was the beginning of the grace of the New Covenant. His neighbors and kinsfolk would rather give him the name of his father than that of John. For the Jews, who by the observance of the Law were united to him as if by ties of kinship, chose rather to follow the righteousness which is the Law than to receive the grace of faith.

But the name of John (that is, "the grace of God") is sufficiently announced by his mother in word and his father in writing. For the Law itself, as well as the Psalms and the Prophecies, foretell the grace of Christ in the plainest language. And that ancient priesthood, by the foreshadowing of its ceremonies and sacrifices, also bears testimony to the same. And Zacharias speaks fittingly on the eighth day of his child’s birth, for by the resurrection of the Lord—which took place on the eighth day (that is, the day after the Sabbath)—the hidden secrets of the legal priesthood were revealed.