Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on John/Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John/Book VI/Chapter 8

8.&#160; John is a Prophet, But Not the Prophet.

&#8220;Art thou that prophet?&#160; And he answered No.&#8221; &#160; If the law and the prophets were until John, what can we say that John was but a prophet?&#160; His father Zacharias, indeed, says, filled with the Holy Ghost and prophesying, &#8220;And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest, for thou shalt go before the Lord to prepare His ways.&#8221;&#160; (One might indeed get past this passage by laying stress on the word called:&#160; he is to be called, he is not said to be, a prophet.)&#160; And still more weighty is it that the Saviour said to those who considered John to be a prophet, &#8220;But what went ye out to see?&#160; A prophet?&#160; Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.&#8221;&#160; The words, Yea, I say unto you, manifestly affirm that John is a prophet, and that is nowhere denied afterwards.&#160; If, then, he is said by the Saviour to be not only a prophet but &#8220;more than a prophet,&#8221; how is it that when the priests and levites come and ask him, &#8220;Art thou the Prophet?&#8221; he answers No!&#160; On this we must remark that it is not the same thing to say, &#8220;Art thou the Prophet?&#8221; and &#8220;Art thou a prophet?&#8221;&#160; The distinction between the two expressions has already been observed, when we asked what was the difference between the God and God, and between the Logos and Logos. &#160; Now it is written in Deuteronomy, &#8220;A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like me; Him shall ye hear, and it shall be that every soul that will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among His people.&#8221;&#160; There was, therefore, an expectation of one particular prophet having a resemblance to Moses in mediating between God and the people and receiving a new covenant from God to give to those who accepted his teaching; and in the case of each of the prophets, the people of Israel recognized that he was not the person of whom Moses spoke.&#160; As, then, they doubted about John, whether he were not the Christ, so they doubted whether he could not be the prophet.&#160; And there is no wonder that those who doubted about John whether he were the Christ, did not understand that the Christ and the prophet are the same person; their doubt as to John necessarily implied that they were not clear on this point.&#160; Now the difference between &#8220;the prophet&#8221; and &#8220;a prophet&#8221; has escaped the observation of most students; this is the case with Heracleon, who says, in these very words:&#160; &#8220;As, then, John confessed that he was not the Christ, and not even a prophet, nor Elijah.&#8221;&#160; If he interpreted the words before us in such a way, he ought to have examined the various passages to see whether in saying that he is not a prophet nor Elijah he is or is not saying what is true.&#160; He devotes no attention, however, to these passages, and in his remaining commentaries he passes over such points without any enquiry.&#160; In the sequel, too, his remarks, of which we shall have to speak directly, are very scanty, and do not testify to careful study.