Did John the Baptist know Jesus?

[NoelFitz]

In preparing for next Sunday’s Mass (2nd Sunday in Ordinary Time) I note in John 1:29 and 1:33

I (John the Baptist) did not know him (Jesus).

Yet when Mary visited her cousin/kinswoman Elizabeth her unborn infant (John ??) leaped for joy.

So was Jesus John’s relative and did they know each other? Was Jesus, when he was baptized, really a complete stranger to John?

Please help.

 

[PaulinVA]

From the footnote on the USCCB website:

I did not know him: this gospel shows no knowledge of the tradition (Luke 1) about the kinship of Jesus and John the Baptist. The reason why I came baptizing with water: in this gospel, John’s baptism is not connected with forgiveness of sins; its purpose is revelatory, that Jesus may be made known to Israel.

 

[NoelFitz]

PaulinVA,

Many thanks.

So am I to understand that Jesus and John the Baptist were not related and Jesus, before he was baptized, did not know John the Baptist?

 

[Fidelis]

A similar question came up recently when the Gospel reading was about John sending his disciples to ask Jesus if he were the Messiah. Here was my answer then:

I don’t think the passage has to be taken to mean that John was unsure or doubtful. There’s nothing in the text itself that says he was and, as you mentioned, all the information we have about John in the rest of the Gospels-- from the time he was pre-announced to his parents, to when he leapt in the womb upon meeting the unborn Lord, to his pointing out Jesus as “the Lamb of God,” to his hearing the voice from heaven when he baptized Jesus-- indicates that John knew exactly who Jesus was.

**

And this is the view of most of the Fathers of the Church on this, as well as the predominant view of saints and biblical commentators until fairly recently (an attempt, I suspect, to make John more touchy-feely and vulnerable). From the 1859 Haydock Commentary:
:

Mt XI, Ver. 3. Art thou he that is to come? (Greek, who cometh?) i.e. the Messias. John the Baptist had already, on several occasions, declared that Jesus was the Messias. (John i). He could not then doubt of it himself, but sent his disciples to take away their doubt. (Witham) — St. John the Baptist sent his disciples not to satisfy his own doubts, but for the sake of his disciples, who, blinded by the love they bore their Master, and by some emulation, would not acknowledge Christ to be the Messias. (St. Chrysostom in Baradius) — This expression of St. John is much taken notice of, as conveying with it a very particular question. “Tell me, says St. John, now that I am departing out of this world, whether thou art coming to redeem the patriarchs and holy fathers; or wilt thou send another?” (St. Thomas Aquinas) — And St. Chrysostom also explains it thus, Art thou he that art to come to limbo? but the Baptist omitting this last word, sufficiently indicated to our Saviour what was the purport of this question. St. Jerome and St. Gregory say, that by his death, he was going to preach to the holy fathers that Christ, the Messias, was come. John does not here propose this question as ignorant of the real case, but in the same manner as Christ asked where Lazarus was laid. So John sends his disciples to Jesus, that seeing the signs and miracles he performed, they might believe in him. As long, therefore, as John remained with his disciples, he constantly exhorted them to follow Jesus; but now that he is going to leave them, he is more earnest for their belief in him. (St. Thomas Aquinas)

So then, the reason he instructed his disciples as he did, then, was so that THEY would know that Jesus was the Messiah. John knew his time was coming to an end and that his disciples needed to make the transition from following him to only following Jesus. By their seeing for themselves and coming back to report what they found to him, he could know that they knew.
In the present reading, I think the situation is similar. Given all the biblical evidence we have, it seems very unlikely John was totally ignorant of Jesus’ identity. Prior to this encounter at the Jordan, John could not say he had verifiable evidence that Jesus was in actuality the awaited Messiah until he received the sign he was promised by God (i.e. Holy Spirit settling like a dove on Jesus). Up to that point it would have been like two ambassadors who know one another in a more or less casual sense, but it is not official until credentials are exchanged,

 

[TimothyH]

So am I to understand that Jesus and John the Baptist were not related and Jesus, before he was baptized, did not know John the Baptist?

Jesus’ mother Mary and John the Baptist’s mother Elizabeth were cousins. At the annunciation, the angel Gabriel said to Mary,

*And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived…(Luke 1:36 NAB)*Some translations render “Cousin” instead of “Relative.” As cousins, I don’t think we know how many degrees or how far removed they were from each other but they shared a common anscestor.

-Tim-

 

[Vince1022]

So was Jesus John’s relative and did they know each other? Was Jesus, when he was baptized, really a complete stranger to John?

Please help.

Maybe. Maybe not. Sorry, we just don’t know.

 

[patrick457]

Jesus’ mother Mary and John the Baptist’s mother Elizabeth were cousins. At the annunciation, the angel Gabriel said to Mary,

And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived…(Luke 1:36 NAB)Some translations render “Cousin” instead of “Relative.” As cousins, I don’t think we know how many degrees or how far removed they were from each other but they shared a common anscestor.

-Tim-

Well, the Greek has the word syngenēs (syn- ‘with’ + genos ‘kindred’), a more broader term than “cousin”. It literally means “of the same kin,” so yes, we don’t really know how many degrees they are removed from each other.

 

[NoelFitz]

Thanks to all who replied.

The issue is simple.

Was John or Luke correct?

They say opposite things, so both cannot be correct, so one must be wrong.

It makes more sense to me if Luke was wrong. John the Baptist did NOT know Jesus, or Jesus him, prior to the baptism in the Jordan.

In John’s Gospel twice we read

I (John the Baptist) did not know him (Jesus).

This means, according to John the Evangelist, John the Baptist did not know Jesus, before the Baptism in the Jordan and the divine revelation that occurred then.

 

[bogeydogg]

Thanks to all who replied.

The issue is simple.

Was John or Luke correct?

They say opposite things, so both cannot be correct, so one must be wrong.
.

You cannot say this and hold true to the Church’s confession that Scripture is infallible (that is incapable of erring) which you are compelled to believe if you are in the faith. Also to say that one Scripture writer erred in ignorance of tradition is to say that Spirit which enabled them to write truly stuttered or spoke with a forked tongue.

Instead I think we need to look at what the text says.

1. John in the womb leaped at the approach of Christ in utero, but this is no proof at all of cogent recognition of the person he has never seen only the recognition of John (who was anointed by the Spirit in the womb) of the King.
2. There is no evidence that Jesus and John ever met in person before the baptism in the Jordan, and based on John’s declaration of “Behold the Lamb of God” this is not more less than John’s spirit leaping again at the approach of the Lord.

As far as John not knowing Jesus before he saw we must remember that John, who though he is not Elijah, is the one who came in the spirit and power of Elijah and therefore is fulfilling the office of the last and greatest prophet. However, like Jeremiah, Isaiah, Daniel, Malachi, Micah, etc, he received prophetic utterance concerning the coming King without receiving direct knowledge of who that King would be.

Furthermore, as far John and Jesus not knowing each other, it was not uncommon for relatives living apart to not see each other even up to the last 100 years. It was not uncommon for people living fifty miles apart to never see each other, and in the case of Jesus and John we must remember that Joseph was probably dead long before Jesus came of age (for example at the wedding feast Mary turns to Jesus to fix the lack of wine and not her husband whom she would normally consult) and so a fatherless household would have a more difficult time fending for itself and Jesus, being a good son, would have stayed near His mother and helped to care for her so long trips to visit family were not in order.

With this in mind there is no contradiction in Scripture at all, merely a confluence of events worked out by God in His providence. Please please please be careful of flippantly saying the Scripture erred because after all if it flubbed this then who is to say it also didn’t miss on atonement?

God Bless

 

[NoelFitz]

BD
Thank you for your long and carefully reasoned reply.

I am away for a few days and staying in a hotel, so I am not at my desk. I had to look up the Gideons’ Bible to check your post. Am I the first person ever to use this Bible?

You wrote:

You cannot say this and hold true to the Church’s confession that Scripture is infallible (that is incapable of erring) which you are compelled to believe if you are in the faith. Also to say that one Scripture writer erred in ignorance of tradition is to say that Spirit which enabled them to write truly stuttered or spoke with a forked tongue.

I believe the Church is infallible, as is the Pope. Scripture is inspired, not infallible. One needs to believe the Bible as a whole, not necessarily every little bit. Thus Catholics need not hold that the world was made in 6 days.

You wrote:

1. John in the womb leaped at the approach of Christ in utero, but this is no proof at all of cogent recognition of the person he has never seen only the recognition of John (who was anointed by the Spirit in the womb) of the King.

This does not make sense. Does it mean John recognised Jesus or not? I read the babe leaped in her womb. Are you claiming that Elizabeth believed that Mary was* the mother of her Lord*, as well as her cousin. yet they never met again.

When she was pregnant Mary went to Elizabeth, yet you imply that after this they lost all contact.

This seems strange to me.

 

[bogeydogg]

I am saying that John leaped because his spirit recognized the Lord in the same he prophetically recognized Christ later.

Concerning the Church’s confession of Scripture the confession is “an infallible collecting of infallible books.” As a protestant I hear this one a lot.

Also…

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth

Scripture in inerrant is the confession of the RCC argue if you want but you are holding an opinion of Scripture which the RCC holds to be heretical.

God Bless

 

[bogeydogg]

One more thing concerning the six day the word ‘yom’ does not mean a 24 hour day but a period of time of which a 24 hour day certainly is one. However given that Moses prupose was to teach the Israelites that God was not the gods of the Egyptians but the maker of Heaven and Earth. As such Genesis is not nor should it be taken as an exhaustive scientific historical narrative but rather an absolute affirmation that the LORD is God, Creator and Ruler over creation and there is no other. So there is no problem asserting inerrancy while saying the creation did not happen in 144 hours.

 

[adrift]

I looked up the Greek word used for to know

1492 eido {i’-do} or oida {oy’-da} a root word; TDNT - 5:116, 673; v 1) to see 1a) to perceive with the eyes 1b) to perceive by any of the senses 1c) to perceive, notice, discern, discover 1d) to see 1d1) i.e. to turn the eyes, the mind, the attention to anything 1d2) to pay attention, observe 1d3) to see about something 1d31) i.e. to ascertain what must be done about it 1d4) to inspect, examine 1d5) to look at, behold 1e) to experience any state or condition 1f) to see i.e. have an interview with, to visit 2) to know 2a) to know of anything 2b) to know, i.e. get knowledge of, understand, perceive 2b1) of any fact 2b2) the force and meaning of something which has definite meaning 2b3) to know how, to be skilled in 2c) to have regard for one, cherish, pay attention to (1Th. 5:12) For Synonyms see entry 5825

It means that John did not see Jesus before he baptized Him. Which makes the following scripture make more sense.

And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.

What John is saying is not contradictory from Luke. John did not see Jesus than only heard Him.

John’s purpose was to testify about Jesus. He did so in the womb and than latter when he meets Jesus.

 

[Vince1022]

Thanks to all who replied.

The issue is simple.

Was John or Luke correct?

They say opposite things, so both cannot be correct, so one must be wrong.

It makes more sense to me if Luke was wrong. John the Baptist did NOT know Jesus, or Jesus him, prior to the baptism in the Jordan.

In John’s Gospel twice we read

This means, according to John the Evangelist, John the Baptist did not know Jesus, before the Baptism in the Jordan and the divine revelation that occurred then.

As the Catholic Church teaches, both John and Luke are correct. See the Catechism para 107 (all of 105-119 would be helpful).

 

[Vince1022]

I believe the Church is infallible, as is the Pope.

Ok, but the Catholic Church does not teach this.

 

[NoelFitz]

VInce

I consider I am in agreement with the Church

You disagree with me when I say the Pope and the Church are infallible.

The CCC 891 has:

“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421What people

 

[bogeydogg]

VInce

I consider I am in agreement with the Church

You disagree with me when I say the Pope and the Church are infallible.

The CCC 891 has:

I think his point is that Scripture is infallible and given your seemingly light attitude toward Scripture and then your appeal to the Church’c infallibility seems strange seeing as how the authority of the Church is known by apostolic authority namely the authority of Scripture.

God Bless

 

[peary]

Of course they knew each other…they were cousins!

 

[steve53]

The Book of Luke is like a bad stepchild.

Luke himself admits he was not an eyewitness, but relied on many sources for his work.

John in his book, says that he was an eyewitness.

 

[Vince1022]

VInce

I consider I am in agreement with the Church

You disagree with me when I say the Pope and the Church are infallible.

The CCC 891 has:

Yes as the paragraph from the Catechism you cite notes, it does not teach the Pope and/or the Church are infallible.

Yes, the Church can teach infallibly.

Hope this helps.