John 15:26Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

So that they would not be troubled while thinking about this, see what consolation He offers. “When the Comforter comes, whom I shall send, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning.” He will be worthy of faith, because He is the Spirit of truth. For this reason He called Him not the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit of truth. The words, “who proceeds from the Father,” show that He knows all things exactly. Christ also says this about Himself: “I know where I came from and where I am going” (Jn 8:14), speaking here too about truth. “Whom I shall send.” Do you see that not only the Father sends, but also the Son? This refers to the sending down of the Holy Spirit into the world, not to His eternal procession.

The Lord said to the disciples: you will be persecuted, and your word will not be kept. They could have said, “Lord, why then do You send us at all? How will they believe us? Who will heed us? Who will listen to us?” So that they would not say this, the Lord adds, “When the Comforter comes, He will bear witness of Me.” He is a trustworthy witness. Therefore those convicted by the Spirit that they sin without excuse will receive your preaching. You also, who have been with Me from the beginning, will bear witness that I have made them answerless by both words and deeds. Therefore do not be troubled. The preaching will not be without witness. The Spirit will bear witness through signs and wonders, and His witness will be trustworthy. For He is the Spirit of truth.

After saying that He and the Father are hated by the foolish Jews, and that freely and without any cause, He most profitably brings in the Spirit as well. At the same time He presents in His discourse the completion of the Holy Trinity.

He also shows the Holy Spirit as dishonored together with the Father and the Son. Thus the spectators of the miracles, who raged so fiercely against the Son, are exposed as insulters of the Supreme Essence’s power, so far beyond nature.

They are exposed not only because they judged that Christ should not be received, though He worked wondrous miracles to give them certainty. They are also exposed because they were already acting impiously against Him in a way fearful even to think.

Now the word is yours. Let your slings cast their stones. Let your syllogisms be woven together. “The Spirit is undoubtedly either unbegotten or begotten. If He is unbegotten, there are two without beginning. If He is begotten, then,” you divide again, “He is begotten either from the Father or from the Son. If from the Father, there are two Sons and Brothers. Invent, if you wish, that they are either twins, or that one is older and the other younger, for you are exceedingly flesh-loving. If from the Son, then,” you will say, “a God-grandson has appeared among us. But what could be stranger than this?” So reason those who are “wise for evil” (Jer 4:22), but do not wish to write what is good. But I, finding the division necessary, would accept the named realities without fearing the names.

“Behold, I send you the Comforter,” for He says, “I send you another Paraclete, the Comforter” (cf. Jn 14:16). As He Himself is God, so also is the One who is sent God.

If He were greater than the Spirit because He sends Him, then the Spirit would likewise be greater than Him, because He led Him into the wilderness to be tempted (Mt 4:1).

And how did He say: “It is good for you that I go away, because if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you and will not reveal all truth to you” (cf. Jn 16:7, 13)?

How did it prove to be a good thing that the Lord went away and, because He could not show all truth, the servant, the Holy Spirit, whom the heretics call a creature, came to give what the Lord did not give?

[...] The Lord said in the Gospel: “But when the Comforter comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me” (Jn 15:26). Therefore the Spirit proceeds from the Father and bears witness to the Son. This faithful and true Witness also bears witness to the Father. Therefore no other witness can be fuller in setting forth the majesty of the Godhead or clearer in revealing the unity of divine power. For the Spirit, like the Son, is an inseparable witness and participant in the Father’s mysteries.

“He will bear witness of Me,” of My Godhead. If the Father bore witness of Me in various ways, then certainly the Holy Spirit also will bear witness of Me in various ways. He will bear witness by enlightening your souls for more perfect knowledge and by working miracles in My name. Notice that the Son also sends the Holy Spirit, as equal in honor to God the Father. But He sends Him from the Father, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. He proceeds from the Father because He comes from His essence. Therefore the Holy Spirit, like the Son, knows all that the Father knows. If someone asks why the Holy Spirit is not also called Son, since He comes from the same Father, we shall say: because He is not begotten as the Son is, but proceeds from Him in another manner.

The Lord Himself says in the Gospel: "The Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father" (Jn 15:26), that is, He is the offspring of the Father's essence. For it seems that Sacred Scripture nowhere uses this verb with reference to creatures.

[...] a sharp and inescapable weapon, and the most important of all: the saying of the Lord, which stuns and destroys every wild beast and every fox. What is this saying? It declares that the Spirit 'proceeds from the Father' (Jn 15:26). The Son teaches that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Yet you seek another guide through whom to introduce, or rather confirm, impiety. You invent the fable that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. If you did not fear to contend in your madness against the teaching of the common Savior, Creator, and Lawgiver, what else can anyone find to overthrow your impious effort completely? If you despise the Lord's commandments, what pious man will not turn away from your opinion? What else will restore you after your fall? What medical art will heal the wound that has infected the whole body? I do not mean the wound made by the Savior's word. I mean the wound deeply implanted by a voluntary sickness. Through unbelief, it tries to turn the medicine of the Lord's teaching into an incurable infection. This is especially true of a man who treacherously bends the victorious sword, given against enemies, to their defense. Therefore, though you have already been struck by the two-edged sword of the Spirit, we too are moved by love and zeal for the common Master. We shall try to ensure that you do not escape the wounds dealt by the arguments of our sacred army, which arms us for battle. 3. From one Cause, the Father, come both the Son and the Spirit. The one comes by generation, the other by procession. If the Son is also the producer of the Spirit, as blasphemy says, should one not also invent the fable that the Spirit is producer of the Son? They both proceed with equal honor from the Cause. If one of Them supplies the other with need of a cause, does not preservation of an unchanging order require that the other also be His cause, rendering Him the same grace? 4. Again, if the Son is not alien from the Father's ineffable simplicity, apolotes, while the Spirit is related to two causes and proceeds by a double procession, does complexity, to synpheton, not follow? Will it not also be blasphemously asserted that the Spirit, equal in honor to the Son, has less than He? Will the simplicity of the Trinity suffer distortion of its own dignity, O tongue bold in impiety? 5. Which of our holy and glorious fathers said that the Spirit proceeds from the Son? Which council, founded upon and adorned with ecumenical confessions, said this? Or rather, which divinely chosen council of priests and hierarchs did not condemn this thought by the inspiration of the All-Holy Spirit before it appeared? Guided by the teaching of the Lord, they clearly and loudly proclaimed that the Spirit of the Father proceeds from the Father. They subjected those who reason otherwise to anathema as adversaries of the catholic and apostolic Church. Seeing the innovative impiety from ancient times with prophetic eyes, they condemned it beforehand. They refuted it in many ways, by writing, word, and thought. Thus, of the seven ecumenical and holy councils, the second decreed the dogma that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The third received this after it. The fourth confirmed it. The fifth expressed agreement. The sixth likewise proclaimed it. The seventh sealed it with brilliant struggles. At each of them one can clearly see piety openly at work. One can also see the theological teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and not from the Son. What impious darkness retrained you? Who among those legislating against the Lord disposed you to fall into perverse opinions? 6. Their impiety and warfare against God can also be exposed in this way. Whatever is common to the three Persons of the Godhead through Their undifferentiated, indivisible, simple, and single communion belongs to the Spirit and the Father, and also belongs to the Son. Likewise, whatever is ascribed to the Spirit and the Son must be understood to belong to the Father. Of all that belongs to the Son and the Father, nothing can be alien to the Spirit. Such things include kingdom, goodness, superiority of nature, incomprehensible power, eternity, bodilessness, and countless similar expressions. From ancient times the pious have used these in theology to portray the Most High Godhead. Therefore, if this is acknowledged, and no Christian is carried into the opposite judgment, consider the result. If, as the heretical opinion dares to teach, the procession of the Spirit is common to the Father and the Son, then the Spirit Himself participates in the procession of the Spirit. What impiety could be bolder than this? Thus He is both the one who produces and the one produced. He is both cause and the one who proceeds from cause. Many other attempts at warfare against God follow from this. 7. They say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. What, then, does He receive from this that He did not have by proceeding from the Father? If He received anything, and if one can say what He received, was He not an imperfect being before receiving it? Or is He not such even after receiving it? But if He received nothing, then something else follows from this. Duality and complexity arise, contrary to the simple and uncompounded nature. What need is there, then, for a procession that can provide nothing? 8. Consider also the following. If the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Son, must one not invent another relation? By this relation the Spirit too would have in Himself the property of producing another from Himself, so that the dignity of His consubstantiality with Them might not be lowered. 9. Attend also to this. If the Spirit, in proceeding from the Father, also proceeds from the Son, how shall we avoid the necessary destruction of the distinction of Their personal properties? O mind drunk with the wine of impiety! Will the Father, may He have mercy on us, and may this blasphemy fall on the heads of its authors, remain only an empty name? For His distinctive property would have been communicated to another. Two thearchic hypostases would have merged into one person. Sabellius will appear again among us, or rather some new monster, a half-Sabellius. 10. To remove this absurdity, the merging of hypostases, they present the generation of the Son from the Father. Yet this cannot in the least lessen the abasement of the Father's personal property. That property consists in His being the cause of procession. When this procession, according to the fables of the impious, is also referred to the Son and merged with His personal property, a cutting, division, and separation of the indivisible again takes place. If the Father communicates one of His properties to the Son, namely the production of the Holy Spirit, He loses His distinctive property in this respect. If He preserves another property, namely the generation of the Son, untouched, how will they remove the incoherence? Under the Latin innovation, one part of the property must be acknowledged in the Father indivisibly. Another part of the property must be divided between Him and the Son. Yet one must tremble that we have carried their blasphemy to such conclusions. 11. Moreover, if two principles, aitia, are conceived in the thearchic and most high Trinity, where will the much-glorified and God-befitting dominion of monarchy be? Will the godlessness of polytheism not appear even now? Will the superstition of pagan error not advance under the guise of Christianity, together with those who dare say this? 12. Again, if we admit two principles in the monarchic Trinity, must we not therefore admit a third principle? Once the beginningless and most high Principle is impiously cast down from His throne and divided in two, the division of the principle will easily reach threefold division. For threeness, more than twoness, appears proper to the most high, indivisible, and single nature of the Godhead. It also appears fitting to Their personal properties. 13. Can this be borne by Christian ears? Do those who dare such impiety not stir up both wrath and tears against themselves at once? These passions are utterly incompatible. There is wrath because they have shown such arrogance. There are tears because they hasten toward inescapable destruction. For piety, even when angry, does not abandon compassion toward those of the same kind. 14. The greatness of this impiety is not hard to see from the following. If, together with the beginningless and paternal principle and cause of the Consubstantial, there is another principle and cause, the Son, how can we avoid admitting different principles in the Trinity? One would be beginningless and established in itself. The other would be subject to a principle, yet also serve as a principle, wavering according to such a difference of relations. 15. The Father is cause of those who come from Him, not according to nature, which is one in the three Persons, but according to His hypostasis. Until now no one has impiously assigned the property of the Father's hypostasis to the property of the Son's hypostasis. Even Sabellius, who invented son-fatherhood, did not utter such blasphemy. Therefore the Son can in no way be cause of any Person of the Trinity. 16. Nor should one pass over the fact that this impiety tears apart the very hypostasis of the Father. It clearly asserts that the person of the Son has been received as a part into the composition of the Father's hypostasis. As has been said, the Father is cause of those who come from Him not by nature, but by hypostasis. If the Son is also cause of the Spirit, as the God-fighting teaching says, then one of two things follows. Either the Son enters into the composition of the Father's hypostasis, from which He received the ability to be cause. Or the Son completes the person of the Father, which is thereby audaciously acknowledged as deficient before this completion. Thus the Son receives a part of the Father, and the fearful mystery of the Trinity is divided into a dyad. 17. Many other tares can grow from the evil seed sown at the beginning. It seems the enemy of the human race came and sowed it in their wretched souls, not when the foolish were sleeping, but when they were awake in the death of the soul. They were striving to damage the seed from above, noble and saving. Thus, when something proper to one is truly referred from him to two others, but to one truly and to the other not truly, this proves that the persons named are of different nature. For example, the capacity for laughter properly belongs to man. It belongs to Jesus, the leader of Israel. It does not belong at all to the Commander of the host of the Lord who stood before him (Josh 5:14). Therefore it is evident that the leader cannot be regarded as of one nature or consubstantial with the Archangel. So too in all other cases. Whoever walks the same path will clearly and certainly meet the same conclusion. If this holds everywhere and preserves the same meaning, then consider the procession of the Spirit from the Father. It expresses what belongs properly to the Father. The empty talk of heresy refers it to the Son, but not to the Spirit, for no one has yet invented such blasphemy. Let the inventors of such absurdities take the consequence upon their own heads. If they say that procession is not proper to the Father, and therefore not proper to the Son or the Spirit either, then let those who dare say everything explain this. How can what is neither proper to any of the three, nor common to Them, be contemplated at all in any one of the thearchic hypostases? 18. Close to what has been said is the following. If what is proper to the Father is converted into what belongs to the Son, then what is proper to the Son can be converted into what belongs to the Father. Once impious vain speech has made a path for itself and seeks to alter and mix the distinctive properties of the hypostases, then among them the Father, O depth of impiety, will receive generation because the Son is begotten. Those who dare everything, it seems, should not leave this form of warfare against God untried. 19.

The One Who proceeds from the Father. Thus the Fathers theologize, as God the Word declared. They allow themselves no audacity, self-will, or arrogance of thought. They invent nothing of themselves, but speak only what they first learned from the Teacher. The Word of the Father says: 'The Spirit does not proceed from Me, but from the Father' (Jn 15:26). Yet you, innovator, dare to ascribe to Him what He does not say of Himself. Who could know the beginningless procession of the Divine Spirit better, you or He? If your mind were whole, you too would know what the Word, co-beginningless with the Spirit and born of the beginningless Father, knew concerning the Spirit. He teaches more clearly and more truly than you. But you do not follow the Savior. You show yourself His adversary.

Consideration of the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit on the basis of Holy Scripture.

I. Is there in Holy Scripture a direct and clear testimony that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father? There is, and it is direct and clear in the highest degree. It is found in the following words of the Savior to the Apostles: "But when the Comforter comes, Whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, Who proceeds from the Father," τό πνεύμα τής άληθείας, ό παρά τού πατρός έκπορεύεται, "He will bear witness to Me" (Jn 15:26).

But does the expression "Who proceeds from the Father" truly mean the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, and not His temporal mission into the world? Precisely so. This is shown first by the purpose for which the quoted words were spoken. The whole discourse in which they occur (Jn 14-16) was chiefly directed by the Savior to comforting His disciples in the approaching separation from Him. For this He gives the disciples the promise that He will send them the Holy Spirit in His place. First He calls the promised One another Comforter, Who will abide with them forever (Jn 14:16). Then He calls Him the Spirit of truth, Who will teach them all things and bring to remembrance everything they had heard from their divine Teacher (Jn 14:26). Then He adds that this future Comforter, this Spirit of truth, is not some creature, but proceeds from the Father. That is, He has eternal being from God, and therefore is a divine Person (Jn 15:26).

This addition was wholly necessary for the purpose. Without it, the Apostles' consolation could not be complete. Only now could they be convinced that their future Instructor, as a divine Person, was truly able to replace for them the One from Whom they were about to be separated, and Whom they acknowledged as the true Son of God, come forth from God (Mt 16:16; Jn 16:30). This was all the more necessary because, although the Savior had often spoken to the Apostles of the Holy Spirit, He had not yet explained to them Who the Holy Spirit is and what His personal dignity is.

Second, it is evident from the very combination and arrangement of the quoted words. If we agree that the expression "Who proceeds from the Father" means not the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, but only His temporal mission into the world, then first we must admit a strange tautology in the Savior's speech. The text would have to be read thus: "When the Comforter comes, Whom I shall send from the Father, the Spirit of truth, Who is sent from the Father, He will bear witness to Me."

Second, it becomes incomprehensible why the verb "proceeds" is placed in the present tense when the speech concerns the future mission of the Holy Spirit. This same mission the Savior had already more than once designated in the future tense. He testified concerning the Father, "He will give you another Comforter" (Jn 14:16), or, "Whom the Father will send in My name" (Jn 14:26). Concerning Himself He said, "Whom I shall send to you from the Father" (Jn 15:26).

But if we take as certain that the passage under consideration speaks of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, we find no tautology in the Savior's speech, and nothing incomprehensible in the verb "proceeds." On the contrary. This verb had to stand in the present tense, in order to designate, at least approximately, the eternal, that is, unpassing and unchanging, procession of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, to designate His own eternity, the Savior used a verb in the present tense when He said, "Before Abraham was, I am" (Jn 8:58).

Third, this is finally confirmed beyond dispute by the voice of all Christian antiquity, which constantly saw in the Savior's words, "Who proceeds from the Father," the thought of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. It is enough here to recall that these words were understood in exactly this meaning not only by the most famous teachers of the Church, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, and others, but also by a whole Ecumenical Council, the Second, which inserted these words into the Creed.

II. Is there in Holy Scripture a direct and clear testimony that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son? There is not one. Only by inferences and interpretations do some try to derive this teaching from various passages of the Word of God.

For this purpose, first, they say that the words "Who proceeds from the Father" do not at all exclude the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son also. On the contrary, they say, these words even contain this thought, because the Father and the Son are one in essence, and everything the Father has, the Son also has.

Can such reasoning be accepted? Absolutely not. The Father and the Son, and likewise the Holy Spirit, are indeed one in essence. Yet they are distinguished from one another as Persons. Everything the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has, with the exception of personal properties, which are incommunicable. Otherwise we shall fall into Sabellianism and confuse the divine Hypostases. When it is said that the Father begets the Son and causes the Holy Spirit to proceed, the Father is understood precisely as a Person with His personal property, distinct both from the Son and from the Holy Spirit. Consequently, when it is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, the name of the Father can in no way imply the Son, Who is one with the Father in essence, but not in person.

If we allow that the words "Who proceeds from the Father" do not exclude, but rather presuppose, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son also, because the Son is one in essence with the Father. Then we must also allow that the words "is begotten from the Father" do not exclude, but rather presuppose, the begetting of the Son from the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit too is one in essence with the Father. More than this, we must allow that the Son, being begotten from the Father, is begotten also from Himself, and that the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father, proceeds also from Himself. For they are one in essence with the Father and all are co-eternal.

Finally, if we look into the very structure of the speech in which the words "Who proceeds from the Father" are found, we shall be still more convinced of the groundlessness of this reasoning. Comforting His disciples before His ascension into heaven, the Savior gives them the promise that He will send them the Holy Spirit in His place. He attributes this sending both to the Father and to Himself: "Whom I shall send" (Jn 15:26; cf. Jn 14:26). But as soon as He begins to speak directly afterward about the procession of the Holy Spirit, He points only to the Father, and gives not even a hint of Himself.

Why, then, we ask with Mark of Ephesus, after mentioning Himself so near at hand, and after ascribing the sending of the Holy Spirit to Himself and to the Father, did the Lord not say of the procession, "Who proceeds from Us"? Is it not clear that in this way He establishes a distinction between what belongs to Them both in relation to the Holy Spirit, and what belongs to the Father alone? It is completely arbitrary to assert, as they do assert, that when Christ said, "Who proceeds from the Father," He understood Himself, as Son, in the name of the Father. For why, in the same discourse, when speaking of the sending of the Holy Spirit, did Christ not limit Himself to such a turn of phrase? On the contrary, He spoke distinctly both of the Father, "Whom the Father will send," and of Himself, "Whom I shall send."

Second, they stop at this last saying of the Savior, "Whom I shall send," and infer: if the Spirit is sent by the Son, then He also proceeds from Him, for otherwise the Son could not send the Spirit. But again this is reasoning that absolutely cannot be accepted. The thought that, in the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, the mission of one Person by another necessarily presupposes the origin of the one sent from the sender has not the slightest foundation in Holy Scripture. On the contrary, it is even contrary to it. Scripture says that the Son also is sent by the Holy Spirit, and not by the Father alone (Isa 48:16; 61:1; Lk 4:18), while it assigns the pre-eternal begetting of the Son exclusively to the Father, and nowhere to the Holy Spirit.

It is also contrary to the theology of the ancient and famous teachers of the Church. They explain this mission quite otherwise when they say that the Son sends the Holy Spirit, and is Himself sent by Him, precisely because of the unity of Their essence and the mutual communion or participation in one another's actions. This explanation is the most natural. For the three Persons of the Godhead, except for personal properties, have everything else in common. Above all, because of unity of essence, they have identity of will and inseparable action.

Therefore, when one Person acts preeminently, the other two necessarily participate in His action. When the Son of God comes into the world for the redemption of men, it is said at the same time that He is sent by the Father and by the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit then comes for the sanctification of men, the participation of the Father and the Son is expressed by both being presented as sending Him. Since no particular action in the world is assigned to the Father in Scripture, it is no wonder if He is not called sent by the Son and the Holy Spirit.

In general, one must remember that the mission into the world of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, being temporal, belongs to God's external activity. All external activity is common to the consubstantial and undivided Trinity. For this reason some of the ancient teachers of the Church said that the Son, sent into the world by the Father and the Holy Spirit, was sent together also by Himself. Likewise the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father and the Son, is sent also by Himself.

One may also point to a particular reason why the Son sends the Holy Spirit into the world. It lies in this: the Son, as Redeemer of the world, acquired by His merits before the face of God's eternal righteousness the priceless right to send down to men the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit for the rebirth and sanctification of sinners. For this reason the mission of the Holy Spirit to earth is placed in dependence on the glorification of Jesus Christ, which followed the completion of His great work: "The Holy Spirit was not yet upon them, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (Jn 7:39).

Third, they point to the following words in the same discourse of the Savior to the Apostles: "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He hears He will speak, and He will declare to you the things to come. He will glorify Me, because He will take of Mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you" (Jn 16:12-15).

Here they stop, first, at the expression "He will take of Mine," and say: "of Mine," that is, from Me; "will take," that is, He proceeds. Second, they stop at the words, "All that the Father has is Mine," and reason: if everything the Father has the Son also has, and the Father, among other things, has the property that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him, then the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son.

“But when He comes,” and so forth: encouraging the disciples in this struggle with the unbelieving world that hates them, the Lord points them to an all-powerful witness. In rebuke of this hatred and enmity, He will bear witness to Him as the Messiah. “The Comforter”: see Jn 14:16. “When He comes”: this refers to the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles (Acts 2:1 and following). “Whom I shall send to you from the Father,” or, what is the same, “whom the Father will send in My name” (Jn 14:26). This refers to the temporal sending of the Holy Spirit into the world, following the redemptive merits of the God-man (Jn 7:39). Since the abundant outpouring of the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon mankind could follow only after Christ redeemed mankind, in this sense the Lord says that He will send the Holy Spirit, “showing His own dignity” (Gregory the Theologian). “The Spirit of truth”: see Jn 14:17. “Who proceeds from the Father”: this speaks of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, not of the temporal one. Otherwise there would be an inexplicable repetition in Christ’s speech. “When you hear that He proceeds, do not understand procession as a mission, as ministering spirits are sent. Procession is the natural being of the Spirit” (Theophylact). “Since He proceeds from the Father, He is not a creature. Since He is not begotten, He is not the Son. Since He is between the Unbegotten and the Begotten, He is God” (Gregory the Theologian). “He will bear witness of Me,” that is, as the true Messiah, despite the unbelief and hatred of the world toward Him. This witness of the Holy Spirit concerning Christ is discussed in more detail later (Jn 16:7-15). “His witness will be trustworthy, for He is the Spirit of truth. As the Spirit of truth, He will bear witness concerning the truth. As proceeding from the Father, He knows all things exactly, for He is from Him from whom all knowledge comes. The words ‘whom I shall send’ show His equality with the Father.

The Lord Jesus showed His disciples that the hatred with which the world would meet them was glory for them, as His faithful followers. This was truly lofty consolation. But in the condition in which the disciples then found themselves, this consolation did not seem sufficient to them.

They could say, and certainly said in their hearts: If the Jews did not listen to our Lord, what can our preaching accomplish? In answer to this, the Lord indicates, first, who will act so that His teaching may bear its fruit (Jn 15:26-27). Second, so that they might not be shaken by the very unexpectedness of near temptations, He described precisely how far the world’s hatred against them would extend (Jn 16:1-4).

“When the Comforter comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me.”

These words are of the highest importance. Of whom does the Savior speak?

The One of whom the Savior spoke is the Comforter, the Spirit. Twice before this the Savior mentioned Him, and both times He shows in Him a divine person. Therefore His personhood is beyond doubt.

What personal features of Him are shown here? The Savior says: “whom I shall send to you from the Father.” In the sending of the Holy Spirit, He is undoubtedly indicated as a person. Yet the sending itself is not such as to refer to the eternal essence of the Spirit.

For the Godhead there is no future or past time. Yet the Savior says of the Spirit, “whom I shall send.” God the Son will send the Holy Spirit because He acquires the right to do so by His merits on the Cross.

"He will bear witness to Me." The Comforter whom the Lord Jesus promised to send to the Apostles from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, will be the highest and most trustworthy witness to the divine dignity of the Lord Jesus.