Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

John 1:29-34:

The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, “A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.” I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptising with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.’

Then John gave this testimony: ‘I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptise with water told me, “The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptise with the Holy Spirit.” I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.’

To me the implication is that John did not know that his own cousin / relation was the Messiah until His baptism!

Is this the correct understanding of "I myself did not know him"?

share|improve this question
    
My understanding is that John is basically saying that he didn't know that Jesus was the one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit, because this is the appositive statement to "I myself did not know Him." But I don't have time now to do the research required for a full answer; I'm sure someone else does. –  Niobius Dec 18 '13 at 14:40

4 Answers 4

John was not saying that he did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah in the way that we do not perceive or recognize a person's identity, like an old acquaintance or relative, but instead that Jesus had received recognition not from him (John), but from heaven that he (Jesus) was the Christ. The Greek word εἴδω is used the same way that we use the word "recognize" in English, such as when you are "recognized" in a police line-up as the suspect that committed the crime (identity), or when you are "recognized" for exceptional academic achievement by the Dean of the College (distinction). John is saying that it is not he who has made the formal recognition of Jesus as Christ, but God. It is not that he is unaware that Jesus is unique (identity), but that the formal recognition of being the Messiah is not from John, but from God (distinction).

So it is interesting that John uses these two meanings of this Greek verb in this passage. We see the former in John 1:26, when John accuses the Pharisees of not recognizing the person within their midst who is the anointed (like not recognizing an old acquaintance); and again in this passage, when John denies that it is he who is making the formal recognition of Jesus as the Christ (instead that distinct recognition is coming direct from heaven). So these two facets of the meaning of εἴδω occur in this chapter.

The sign from heaven, which John was to watch for, was that the Spirit would descend from heaven like a dove, at which time the voice from heaven had declared, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." It was this heavenly "recognition" that made Jesus to be the Christ, not John. John was the prophet by whom heaven made this recognition; thus it was not John who "recognized" Jesus as the Christ, but God in heaven. When John says that Jesus is the Son of God, he is making the connection that Jesus is the anointed "son" as described in the David Covenant (2 Sam 7:14) and in Psalm 2:7, where in both passages the "son" nexus appears in the Hebrew Bible in connection with the Anointed Christ. That is, the voice from heaven (God) is saying that Jesus is his son.

So here is the passage in question with my amplification [bracketed in bold] based on the previous paragraphs -

John 1:29-34 (NASB)
29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ 31 I did not [formally] recognize him [as the Christ], but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.” 32 John testified saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. 33 I did not [therefore formally] recognize Him [as the Christ], but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I myself have seen [the descending Spirit as a dove], and have testified [based on the explicit voice heard from heaven] that this is [the Christ,] the Son of God.”

To reinforce this interpretation, Jesus was very explicit that John was not the source of his authority, although John had testified to his authority as the Christ.

John 5:32-37 (NASB)
32 There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true. 33 You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. 34 But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. 35 He was the lamp that was burning and was shining and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. 36 But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.

The form was the dove, which they had not seen, and the voice from heaven was the declaration of his anointing, which they had not heard either, but it was still John who had testified this truth to them. So Jesus was saying that his authority did not come from man (John), but from heaven (God). Jesus also mentions his works (miracles), which were superior to the miracles of Moses - for example, Jesus healed the blind, which was never recorded in the Hebrew Bible, and of course Jesus walked on water whereas Moses had to split the waters. The multiplication of bread came not from heaven (manna), but from his own hand, etc. So Jesus declares himself the be "Christ" based on his works and the truth evident from heaven, which John had seen and heard, and who therefore had testified to the truth.

Finally, and not unrelated, Jesus once asked the Scribes whether the baptism of John was from men or from heaven (Mark 11:29-33). While the Scribes refused to answer Jesus, based on the preceding paragraphs, Jesus could have answered the following: (a) If they believed that the baptism of John was from man, then John denied that he ever "recognized" Jesus as the Messiah, but instead testified that he saw the Spirit in the form of a dove and heard the voice, which was what "recognized" Jesus as the Anointed One; or (b) If they believed that the baptism of John was from heaven, then the authority of Jesus to teach stemmed from John's baptism, when the Spirit in the form of a dove descended and the voice declared him the "Son," which was the formal "recognition" that Jesus was the Anointed One.

In summary, the "recognition" of Jesus as Messiah (Christos = Anointed One) did not come from man on earth (such as John the Baptist), but from God in heaven.

share|improve this answer
    
Would you say that when John “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth’s womb he was recognizing the presence of the spirit, but he could not yet have recognized specifically Jesus (who hadn’t been born or even named at that point)? –  John Martin May 15 at 13:49
    
Interesting. But when I look up the link on eido that you provide (Blue Letter Bible), i do not see 'recognize' as you suggest as a translation. The NASB and WEB translate it as recognize, but, even there, the sense seems to be more akin to know someone than to recognize as you suggest. Further, if the word does mean that, to translate it to the English word 'know', as at least 9 other translations do would be wrong. This description appears to be at odds with the translators understanding. –  user6152 Nov 27 at 0:34
    
@BenjaminHoogterp - Ben, have you ever seen those maps at the backs of Bibles that describe and depict the missionary journeys of the Apostle Paul? There is one verse in the New Testament (Rom 15:19) where Paul mentions his travels to (the Roman Province of) Illyricum, which is modern day Croatia (former Yugoslavia). I have never seen any Bible map anywhere reflect Paul ever having traveled to Illyricum. Is it fair to say, that Bible editors over the years missed this oversight? In other words, re-checking what the Bible texts say sometimes leads us to new discoveries. –  Joseph Nov 27 at 2:30
    
@Joseph Some have it on his 3rd Missionary Journey, between Thessaloniki and Berea. I do tend to doubt its a freshly noted detail, just not always included when constructed from Acts. Albeit, this is a little more than a stray detail. Issues concerning the direct translation of a text in Greek have always been the subject of intense scrutiny through the agency of many diverse and qualified panels. To recognize in a lineup is not to "formally recognize", but to merely identify by sight. I just think when one questions the actual translation, it demands a greater proof. I dont see that here. –  user6152 Nov 27 at 8:54
    
@BenjaminHoogterp - Berea is 45 miles from Thessaloniki. Anyway, I must approach this subject with much humility and be very concerned that I may be wrong, which is my greatest fear and upon which I pray often, so that I would not lead others astray. –  Joseph Nov 27 at 14:53

Lots of discussion on this subject. But if i may clarify on the key question.

Although previous scripture indicates that John knew Jesus as a great teacher, a prophet, and perhaps even as one defined as the Messiah by his mother and aunt, the statement in John, Chapter 1:29-34 declares that until the moment of confirmation wherein the prophesy from God was physically and spiritually fulfilled, John could not officially declare nor confirm that Jesus was and is the Lamb of God.

Thus we have: “The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptise with the Holy Spirit,” established as the defining moment. In my article, "Before Baptizing Jesus Did John Baptist Know Jesus Was God?" I cover the full text, including a discussion on how the scripture from Matt. 3:13-17 fits into this line of reasoning.

Let there be no confusion here. No matter how men desire to interpret the events of the baptism as described in Matthew chapter three, our full understanding must also take into consideration the account as given in John chapter one. By his own words, John the Baptist defines the sign that was necessary before he could know or confirm that Jesus was and is the Lamb of God. They were:

A baptism with water
The descending from heaven of the Holy Spirit
And the abiding presence of the Spirit as he remained upon Jesus.

Clearly a prophesy of this sign was given to John the Baptist by “he that sent me.” Therefore, before the conclusion of this prophesy, John could not earnestly and honestly define Jesus as the Son of God. He may have thought it. He may even have believed it. But so long as that word from God remained unfulfilled, John the Baptist lacked the solid ground necessary for full belief.

I do not say that John the Baptists did not leap in the belly of his mother when the expectant Mary came to visit. Neither do I claim that he did not, perhaps, have a conviction and an expectation. I say only that before baptizing Jesus, John had a word from God which declared how and when John would be able to identify the Son of God. And prior to the baptism, even John the Baptist must contain his judgment in the matter.

share|improve this answer

John the baptist knew when he was in his mother womb. It says in Luke 1:41-44:

and it came to pass, that when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the holy ghost. And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my lord should come to me. For, lo, as soon ass the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped with joy.

So soon as Mary was pregnant with Jesus she went to go see her cousin Elisabeth who was pregnant with John the Baptist, came and said hello, and John inside the womb jumped with joy. John knew before he was even born that Jesus was the son of God.

share|improve this answer
    
Yea it does elisabeth knew that mary was carrying our lord. So when mary walked in with jesus. The babe jumped with joy and elisabeth was filled with the holy ghost. –  davidx6 Dec 18 '13 at 23:43
    
Sorry for the late reply. Why then did John say, "I myself did not know him"? –  Wikis Apr 11 at 7:04
    
So, what exactly is the answer to the actual question. It doesnt ssem clear. –  user6152 Nov 27 at 0:17

There are two possibilities for this statement.

  1. Either John did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, but knew He was his cousin.
  2. Or John did not recognize Jesus as as Messiah, and also didn't recognize Him as his cousin.

Whether John recognized him as his cousin is not relevant, and not necessary to know. John lived in the wilderness, and so it is quite understandable that he would not have recognized Jesus by sight.

The primary sense of the phrase, however, is that He did not know Jesus was the Christ. From the text, John received instructions for his Baptizing from 'someone', presumably an angel. The angel told him that the person whom the Spirit would descend upon and remain was the Messiah (the one who would baptize with the Spirit). It is conceivable that the Spirit may have 'descended' upon some, but did not remain, although this is conjecture, even as He filled Elisabeth during pregnancy.

When John was in the womb, as a non-aware infant, his spirit responded to the presence of Messiah and his mother being filled with the Spirit by leaping for Joy. This does not necessarily equate with him having the same conscious knowledge of who Jesus was. Likewise, towards the end of his life, he sent disciples to ask if Christ truly was the Christ, or if they should look for another, because he had not seen the fulfillment of what he looked for (Christ would not actually baptize with the Spirit until after His resurrection).

But, John confesses both that he did not know him as Messiah as an adult, although, given other circumstances and calling, one could conjecture that he would have come to believe in due time just like the apostles did. But, it is clear that he is saying that what he was doing, he was doing only in his role as prophet, and he was only ministering as the 'voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord'.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.