John the Baptist

  • Thread starter Thread starter jeff417
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jeff417

Guest
I am confused by the Gospel of Luke. Specifically, in relation to John the Baptist, there seems to be an inconsistency that I don’t understand. Even before birth, John recognized his Lord at the Visitation (Lk 1:40-44). Then, in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ baptism, John recognizes the Lord as well. Also, in the account given in Jn 1:29-34, Jesus divinity is made known to John the Baptist at His baptism. How is it, then, that in Luke 7:18-23, John the Baptist appears to no longer recognize Jesus as the Lord? :confused:
 
jeff417 said:
I am confused by the Gospel of Luke. Specifically, in relation to John the Baptist, there seems to be an inconsistency that I don’t understand. Even before birth, John recognized his Lord at the Visitation (Lk 1:40-44). Then, in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ baptism, John recognizes the Lord as well. Also, in the account given in Jn 1:29-34, Jesus divinity is made known to John the Baptist at His baptism. How is it, then, that in Luke 7:18-23, John the Baptist appears to no longer recognize Jesus as the Lord? :confused:
Click to expand...
I think the query in Luke 7 reflects the depth of John’s misery in prison - he was beginning to doubt himself and his faith - had he really heard that voice, or had he imagined it, etc. An experience many of us have had under much less duress, I think.
 
jeff417 said:
I am confused by the Gospel of Luke. Specifically, in relation to John the Baptist, there seems to be an inconsistency that I don’t understand. Even before birth, John recognized his Lord at the Visitation (Lk 1:40-44). Then, in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ baptism, John recognizes the Lord as well. Also, in the account given in Jn 1:29-34, Jesus divinity is made known to John the Baptist at His baptism. How is it, then, that in Luke 7:18-23, John the Baptist appears to no longer recognize Jesus as the Lord? :confused:
Click to expand...
The way I have always heard this explained is that it is not that John the Baptist doesn’t know who Jesus is, but that the disciples are in need of discovery on their own.

It is a setup for his disciples to transition from him to Jesus. He must increase. He sends them on a mission to discern if Jesus is the Messiah, not for his own benefit but for the benefit of his disciples.

Just my 2 cents.

For a better understanding, read some of the Father’s commentary in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Cantena Aurea.

God Bless.
 
It might also reflect the lack of knowledge of the Jews of that day (and our day too) that the Messiah would be rejected by His people and then renew the covenant (New Covenant) and extend it to the Gentiles, and then allow time for that renewed covenant to spread and become known to the nations before returning once again to fulfill it.

I think they expected the Messiah to come once and the Kingdom then to arrive in all its glory…but John, not knowing the Messiah was to be rejected and suffer, did not see that happen (since he was suffering in prison - some glorious Kingdom!!) so then he wondered about it, so sent somebody to ask Jesus. He did not doubt the Messiah would come (…or are we to expect another) but he did not understand, nor did the disciples nor the Jews of Jesus’ day. It took a little while to figure that out, aided by the Holy Spirit’s coming at Pentecost.

Just a thought. God bless you.
 
John the Baptist, like anyone else, had his own expectations of what the Messiah would do when He came, and what He would be like.

At the time in Luke 7, John is in prison, and heard of the mighty things being done by Jesus. John wanted to confirm that Jesus was the Messiah that he expected Him to be. So He sent his two disciples to confirm it, asking “are you the one who is to come?”, which is a reference to Mal 3:23, a prophecy of the return of the fiery prophet of reform, Elijah “before the day of the Lord comes, the great and terrible day”. Jesus responds that his role is rather to bring the blessings spoken of in Is 61:1 to the oppressed and neglected of society. He then says “Blessed is the one who takes no offense at me” (Luke 7:24), which is a beatitude pronounced on the person who recognizes Jesus’ true identity in spite of their previous exceptions of what “the one who is to come” would be like. In Luke 7:33-35, Jesus explains that the Pharisees take offense to both John and him because neither lived up to their expectations.

So, yes, John knew that Jesus was the Messiah, but John had expectations of what He thought the Messiah should be like just like anyone else. So while John recognized Him as the messiah, he was confused by what he was hearing, and so sent disciples to ask and confirm what he (John) was expecting of Jesus. Jesus sent John’s disciples back to him with the message: Yes, He is the Messiah, but He is not what you or anyone expected.
 
jeff417 said:
I am confused by the Gospel of Luke. Specifically, in relation to John the Baptist, there seems to be an inconsistency that I don’t understand. Even before birth, John recognized his Lord at the Visitation (Lk 1:40-44). Then, in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ baptism, John recognizes the Lord as well. Also, in the account given in Jn 1:29-34, Jesus divinity is made known to John the Baptist at His baptism. How is it, then, that in Luke 7:18-23, John the Baptist appears to no longer recognize Jesus as the Lord? :confused:
Click to expand...
I think you are right on that John absolutely knows who Jesus is.

18 John’s disciples told him about all these things. Calling two of them, 19 he sent them to the Lord to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”

20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’”

It’s quite simple. John sent them with the question to ask Jesus so that THEY would know who Jesus was. John was on fire with the Holy Spirit and saw the Trinity revealed at Jesus’ baptism, he was not having some kind of doubt. “I must decrease, and He must increase”. John was handing his disciples over to Christ as John’s death and completion of his task quickly approached. Just like Jesus handed his mother over to John the apostle when Jesus’ death was near. Tying up the lose ends. Taking care of his sheep, giving them to the Shepherd.
 
PennyinCanada said:
I think you are right on that John absolutely knows who Jesus is.

18 John’s disciples told him about all these things. Calling two of them, 19 he sent them to the Lord to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”

20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’”

It’s quite simple. John sent them with the question to ask Jesus so that THEY would know who Jesus was. John was on fire with the Holy Spirit and saw the Trinity revealed at Jesus’ baptism, he was not having some kind of doubt. “I must decrease, and He must increase”. John was handing his disciples over to Christ as John’s death and completion of his task quickly approached. Just like Jesus handed his mother over to John the apostle when Jesus’ death was near. Tying up the lose ends. Taking care of his sheep, giving them to the Shepherd.
Click to expand...
The entire passage isn’t about whether or not Jesus is the Messiah, it’s about what people expected the Messiah to be like. John expected something different, and so did others. That’s why John asked the question, not because he or the disciples didn’t know he was the Messiah, but because he wanted to confirm there was no one else coming, since Jesus wasn’t what he expected.
 
I think I would side with the “handing his disciples over to Jesus” theory at this point. Thanks for all of the (name removed by moderator)ut.👍
 
beehumble said:
It might also reflect the lack of knowledge of the Jews of that day (and our day too) that the Messiah would be rejected by His people and then renew the covenant (New Covenant) and extend it to the Gentiles, and then allow time for that renewed covenant to spread and become known to the nations before returning once again to fulfill it.

I think they expected the Messiah to come once and the Kingdom then to arrive in all its glory…but John, not knowing the Messiah was to be rejected and suffer, did not see that happen (since he was suffering in prison - some glorious Kingdom!!) so then he wondered about it, so sent somebody to ask Jesus. He did not doubt the Messiah would come (…or are we to expect another) but he did not understand, nor did the disciples nor the Jews of Jesus’ day. It took a little while to figure that out, aided by the Holy Spirit’s coming at Pentecost.

Just a thought. God bless you.
Click to expand...
To add:

To speak of THE ‘Messianic expectation’ in a 1st century context is highly misleading, as there is probably much diversity in this area, as in others. People apparently never agreed on issues such as the exact nature of the Messiah (Would he be a warrior? A king? A prophet? A priest? A sympathetic foreign ruler? A heavenly figure? Or some combination?), or even on how many Messiahs there are supposed to be (One? Two? Or perhaps more?), or even whether there would be an actual Messianic figure at all (as opposed to, say, a more general ‘sign’ of deliverance, whatever form that may take).

And yes, the theme of ‘kingdom’ features heavily in the life and teachings of Jesus. The New Testament makes much of the title ‘son of David’ and stresses Jesus’ links with the famous ancient king whenever it could, which leads people to think that ALL Jews at the time were hoping for a revival of the Davidic kingdom. In reality however the picture is more complicated. As the Old Testament shows, the Jews have had bad experiences with human monarchs, who tended to become tyrannical and dictatorial. Thus for the minds of a mumber of people, it was better to be governed by a theocratic aristocracy, where God acts as the ruler and with the priesthood as His mediators. God, they say, has appointed the priests to serve as the rulers of the nation. Josephus, himself of priestly heritage, favored this view (cf. Against Apion 2.165).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top