Is John the Baptist greater than Mary?
I recently got the following question by email:
The scriptures tell us that among those born of women there have been none greater than John the baptist. So how do we reconcile this with Mary being more blessed than all?
The question is referring to Matthew 11:11, in which Jesus declares:
Amen, I say to you, among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
In this passage, our Lord is extolling the importance of John the Baptist in the plan of salvation. As the last of the prophets, he had the unique role as the forerunner to Christ. Furthermore, his greatness is seen in his humility: instead of his important role leading to pride, John the Baptist chose the humble path, making his whole life one that points to another. As Scripture constantly repeats, it is the humble who are exalted and the exalted who are humbled.
But does this statement mean that John the Baptist is “greater” than Mary? After all, both were “born of women”. To understand this saying of Jesus, one must understand that Jesus spoke in the way of the people around him; in other words, as a 1st century Jew (after all, he WAS a 1st century Jew). One of the common ways rabbis in that time spoke was to make an absolute statement to make a point, but which was understood as one that was not to be taken literally. For example, Jesus commanded that we call no one “father”, yet no one stopped calling their father by that name. He commanded that we cut off our hand if it causes us to sin, and none of his followers actually believed that they should dismember themselves. These “absolute” statements have a way of making a strong point that impresses upon the mind the point being made, but they are not to be taken literally.
But how do we know that this particular instance is an example of this type of “absolute” statement? Because we know for a fact that there is one “born of women” that is greater than John the Baptist: Jesus himself. After all, Jesus was truly born of Mary, and he is far greater than John the Baptist. Matthew himself in his Gospel takes pains to show us that Jesus is both born of a woman and that he is greater than John the Baptist, yet he has no problem in reporting this saying of Jesus in his Gospel. So we know that Jesus highly honors John the Baptist, but also that his statement should not be taken completely literally.
“One of the common ways rabbis in that time spoke was to make an absolute statement to make a point, but which was understood as one that was not to be taken literally.”
How come then ” This is my body…this is my blood” is understood literally?
Because the literal interpretation of the Eucharist fulfills what the totality of Scripture points to…
Notice that the rest of the verse says “yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” If Mary made it to the kingdom (and it appears she did) then she is greater than John.
As to the question about “this is my body …” etc., read John 6:22-59, especially 52-58.
My understanding is that this passage is largely the basis for the tradition that St. John, though not “conceived without sin”, never personally committed any sin.
Jesus was, of course, the greatest master of language. He only used rhetorical devices when appropriate and in such a way that the disposed listener could detect what was and was not rhetorical. Jesus’ statement about John does not seem to have a rhetorical quality.
Jon begins to lead us in his comment above to a more satisfying exposition of the verse than the one given. Aquinas helps us to arrive there (see Super Matt., cap. 1, lect. 1). The first part of Matt. 11:11 must be read in light of the second. Note that Jesus uses the phrase “born of women” in the first part, instead of simply saying born. He has in mind a specific kind of birth (albeit common to nearly all), and not birth absolutely speaking. He is, in fact, purposefully not speaking in absolute terms. What does He have in mind? His meaning is revealed by comparing this phrase to one in the second half of the verse, viz., those “in the kingdom of Heaven.” What is the difference between those “born of women” and those “in the kingdom of Heaven?” The first group are distinguished by original sin, i.e., by the “corruption of the woman,” as Aquinas puts (cf. Eph. 2:3, which Aquinas cites). The second are characterized by the grace that prevents or removes original sin. John is the greatest among those born or persisting in the corruption of original sin. Those not born in this corruption or whose corruption grace has removed, thereby making them fit for Heaven, are alone greater than he.
Eric, not that I doubt what you’re saying, but because practical apologetics need better authority than a blog post, do you have anything you can cite for this idea about “absolute statements”?
Jon, for your argument to work, it must necessarily imply that John the Baptist did not go to heaven. Otherwise he is just as much “in the kingdom of heaven” as Mary, thus eliminating the distinction you drawing. Moreover, the argument is somewhat anachronistic since neither Mary nor John were not in heaven when Christ spoke those words in the present tense. It could be argued that Jesus had perfect foreknowledge, but that position is again undercut by Mary’s and John’s similar situations.
Jesus meant what he said, like it or not. That philosophical dancing around doesnt change anything but weak minds.
Simon,
Eric, not that I doubt what you’re saying, but because practical apologetics need better authority than a blog post, do you have anything you can cite for this idea about “absolute statements”?
Most of your standard Biblical commentaries will speak of “Oriental hyperbolic” statements that were common in Jesus’ culture. For example, see the commentary on Matthew 5:29-30 in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary and the Ignatius Study Bible. These three commentaries come from very divergent philosophical backgrounds, but all agree that Jesus employed such hyperbolic statements in his ministry.
Sorry for my ignorance, but what about St. Joseph? Is St. John the Baptist greater than St. Joseph, the foster father of Jesus, the man closest to Christ? Thank you for answering…
Agnes,
From my post you can see that I do not believe that this statement of Christ’s should be taken literally, nor is the point of it is to set up a “competition” between saints. Instead, Christ is contrasting the Old Testament dispensation and the New Testament dispensation. The graces received under the New Covenant instituted by Christ (and represented by the term “Kingdom of Heaven”) are far greater than anything received by anyone under the Old Covenant, thus making even the least in that kingdom “greater” than anyone under the Old.
An arguement over who is the greatest. This can only come from religious people. Jesus said John was the greatest person born of a woman. Now the religious people are trying to twist it to fit unbiblical theology, some religious doctrine thought up by men. Just like the contortions folks go thru to justify calling men Holy Father when it is expressly forbidden by Jesus himself.
John the Baptist was born of a woman. He was a son of Eve. Our Blessed Lady was THE woman of Genesis 3:15. I will put enmities between you and the woman, and your seed and her seed: she shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for her heel.
Our Lady is the new Eve. If Mary had not been full of grace she could not have been the mother of our Saviour.
The least of the kingdom is greater than the Baptist. Great! Who are those least? Anyone profess Christ and is saved is in the Kingdom.. Not just Mary.. And hence is greater than the Baptist..
I think we all in our pride want to be greater that the other…
(In Mathew 20:20 States): “Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons, came to Jesus with her sons. She knelt respectfully to ask a favor… (And it continues in Mathew 20:21)”What is it you want? He asked. She replied. In you Kingdom, please let my two sons sit in places of honor next to you, one on your right and the other on your left” (and in Mathew 20:22) “You don’t know what you are asking.” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink of the cup I am going to drink?” “We can.” they answered.(Then on Mathew 20:23) Jesus said to them. “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to gran. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father” (Mathe 20:24 continues to state that:) When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers.”
Now who are we to criticize the designs of the Almighty who EXISTS in space or time, where one can be greater that another at the same time…. So what is your problem? Perhaps that we cannot understand the deepness of the designs of God, we are only creatures… He is God, and greater or smaller are terms in time and space. Our Lord Jesus Divine and Human when he spoke was in time and space so his words have to be interpreted also in the context of his Divinity, where there is no time and space, and things are possible that would be impossible to comprehend by the human mind
The “kingdom of heaven” is not talking about going or not going to heaven. Don’t forget that Jesus referred to being born of “water and the Spirit”, i.e., Baptism. When this was said, sacramental Baptism did not yet exist as the Holy Spirit had not yet descended. Therefore, being born into the kingdom is heaven is a greater privileged than being the greatest prophet of the Old Covenant. Remember, John was executed prior to the New Covenant.
Mother Mary, of course, is the exception since she was given unique status of receiving the fruits of Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection, prior to the passion.
The first line of the second paragraph above should read:
Now who are we to criticize the designs of the Almighty who EXISTS NOT in space or time
“the religious people are trying to twist it to fit unbiblical theology” – st. bosco (shome mishtake shurely?).
st. bosco is too quick on the draw over the implications of Mt.23:9.
The prohibition on calling any man “father” (not “holy father”) would – if taken literally – prevent children from using the term with reference to their male parent.
In fact, St. Paul applies the term “father” to himself (in a spiritual sense) at, for example, 2Co.6:18 and 1Thess.2:11, and he refers to both Abraham (Ro.4:1 etc.) and Isaac as “our father” (Ro.9:10).
St. James, too, calls Abraham “our father” (Jas.2:21), as does St. Stephen (Ac.7:2 where he also addresses the Sanhedrin as “brothers and fathers”. The spiritual fatherhood of Abraham is taken for granted by Our Lord (e.g., at Lk.16:24 and in His debates with “the Jews” at, e.g. Jn.8:56).
Another very clear instance of “oriental hyperbole” is to be found in Our Lord’s teaching on the cost of discipleship: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes, even his own life – he cannot be my disciple” (Lk.14:26). i doubt that any Christian would dare to apply this literally; nor could they, without breaking the greatest of all the commandments (see, Mk.12:31).
In following the Church’s teaching on these questions, we trust in Our Lord’s promises that the Holy Spirit will lead the Apostles in all truth (Jn.16:13) and that He Himself will remain with them “until the end of time” (Mt.28:20).
It was St. Paul who confirms that these are promises made to the Church “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1Tim.3:15).
Faced with seeming contradictions within Sacred Scripture, we have no option but to trust the Church. Unbiblical theology? I don’t think so.
Only one is good. Only God is great. It had always seemed to me that in this passage Christ is identifying John the Baptist as the culmination of the prophets and all of salvation history leading up to the moment of the coming of the Kingdom of God. He then speaks of the superiority of being born again and entering into this Kingdom as compared to the prior covenants (see John 3:5-8). There is a double affirmation here, nothing more. I liked that Jacques quoted the story of the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Mt. 20:20-28). I think that if Jesus were to have been asked if he meant literally that John the Baptist was the greatest of all he would have responded similarly.
“But does this statement mean that John the Baptist is ‘greater’ than Mary?”
Forget about Mary; does it mean John the Baptist was greater than Jesus?
“And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone’” (Mark 10:17-18).
Just throwing some fodder on the fire…
“among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist”
Has anyone pointed out that Jesus was born of a woman?
The interpretation that Jesus was born of a woman would mean that John the Baptist is greater than Jesus. Jesus was born of THE woman of Genesis 3:15. Jesus identifies her as the woman both at the beginning of his public life and at the end of his life. At the marriage feast at Cana in John 2 :4 Jesus said to her, “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.” At the end of his life on the cross Jesus says “Woman, behold, your son.” John 19:26
The Angel Gabriel in Luke 1:28 did not use Mary’s name but a description of what she was, favoured by God and that the Lord was with her. As such she was full of grace.
If we degrade Mary to being just a woman then we invalidate the Divinity of Christ.
In the words of Columba Marmion [1]
“To separate Christ from His mother in our loving devotion is to divide Christ; it is to lose from sight the essential role of His sacred humanity in the conferment of Divine grace. When one forsakes the Mother, one no longer understands the Son. Is not this what has happened to the Protestant nations? In having rejected devotion to Mary, on the plea of not derogating from the dignity of the one and only Mediator, have they not even ended up by losing faith in the divinity of Christ Himself?”
[1]Blessed Columba Marmion. Christ The Life of the Soul, Page 470.
@Mike… It sounds pejorative when one says that Mary was “just a woman” like saying to an administrative assistant that he/she is “just a secretary”. But Mary is and was a woman, a member of the human race, like you and me. She was given certain priviledges and graces, but, she was (just) a woman. She was BLESSED above all other women, but she is to be counted among the many other women that have lived that live now and that will live in the future. See Galatians 4:4 – “But when the time had fully come, God sent His son, born of a woman…”. I dont think Blessed Comumba would disagree with this.
Could it be that the inundation of sports in our current age has warped our minds to think in terms of 1st, 2nd and 3rd? i highly doubt that when Christ said this of John the Baptist he likened it to placing a gold medal around his neck, leaving the silver and the bronze to Mary and Joseph respectively.
See my comment above, Fred, concerning the meaning of the phrase “born of women.” Note that the reference to Aquinas’ commentary on Matthew should be chapter 11, and not chapter 1, as I erroneously wrote. We distinguish Jesus, who is born of the Woman, the New Eve, from the rest of humanity, who are born of women, the daughters of the first Eve. Mary, the New Eve is, herself, of course, a special case, which I also address in my comment above.
Pius XII confirms your observation, Eric, about the use of oriental hyperbole when he writes that there are “in the Sacred Writers, as in other ancient authors, certain fixed ways of expounding and narrating, certain definite idioms, especially of a kind peculiar to the Semitic tongues, so-called approximations, and certain hyperbolical modes of expression” (Divino afflante Spiritu, 37).
Jesus clearly avails Himself of most every rhetorical device. I maintain, however, that He is not employing hyperbole in His statement about John the Baptist.
I actually think Jesus is implying…really, I haven’t the slightest idea.
Mary was a member of the human race just like you and me but Mary was different because she was born free from original sin. Mary was chosen from all eternity to be mother of God.
Genesis 3:15. tells us “I will place enmity between you [Satan] and the woman”. The woman who should bear the Saviour would have perfect enmity with Satan and hence Satan should have no dominion over her. To be so she must be without sin.
Columba Marmion does quote Galations 4:4 on page 473. Marmion (1858-1923) was Franco Irish and mostly wrote in French. His books are all translations from the French. He does not use the word “born” when quoting Galations 4:4 but says ‘formed of a woman’. that is more in keeping with the Douai-Rheims use of “made of a woman” “Born” seems to be a modern paraphrase that is not in the Latin Vulgate (see the New Advent on line bible of Latin along side the English) nor in the KJV for that matter.
Blessed Columba writes:
“Mary is the mother of Christ, for, like all other mothers for their sons, she formed and nourished the body of Jesus from her substance most pure. Christ, says St Paul, was ‘formed of a woman’. That is a dogma of faith. If, by His eternal birth in holy splendour. Christ is truly Son of God-’God from God, He is truly Son of Mary by His birth in the sphere of time. The only Son of God is also the only Son of the Virgin. Such is the ineffable union that exists between Jesus and Mary: she is His mother, He her Son. This union is indissoluble; and as Jesus is at the same time the Son of God, come to save the world, Mary is, in actual fact, associated intimately with the life-giving mystery of the whole of Christianity. The foundation of all her greatness is this special privilege of her being Mother of God.”
Thank you for the explanation, Mike. You are correct in pointing out that Gal. 4:4 is rendered in the Latin as “formed” or, more literally, “made of a woman” (“factum ex muliere“) and that this rendering alludes to the source of Jesus’ human nature. Note that the phrase “born of women” under examination here comes from Matt. 11:11, which reads in Latin “Non surrexit inter natos mulierum maior Ioanne Baptista.” “Born” is, in this case, an accurate translation of the Latin.
It might be helpful to know what the Greek reads in these two verses. Unfortunately, I can offer no assistance with the Greek.
NEVER WILL JOHN BIG BIGGER THE MARRIE HOLY MOTHER OF GOD HOLY WOMAN WERE GOD DID NOT FIND ANY SIN I SWEAR TO YOU IF YOU NO SCRIPTURES YOU THEN UNDERSTAND THAT JOHN REAL PLACE IS AS OF A SLAVE .JHON IS NOT VEN BIGGER THEN HOLY SAINT PETER.
Peregrinus,
Matthew 11:11 uses the term “γεννητοις”, which is a form of the word “γενναω”, and is the only place this word (in this form) is found in the New Testament. “γενναω” means “begetting” of the father and the “bearing” of the mother. According to Kittel, the form used in Matthew 11:11 is a common Jewish expression which “denotes men a distinct from angels and God, i.e. as earthly creatures.”
Galatians 4:4 uses the term “γενομενον”, which is a form of “γινομαι”, which simply means to “be born”.
I must point out that I wrote “If Mary made it to the KINGDOM” not HEAVEN. The kingdom is more than heaven – it is all the baptized, all the believers – through every generation, through all time. It is the Church Suffering (Purgatory), the Church Militant (in this life), the Church Triumphant (Heaven). Look a few verses above – verses 2 & 3 – John was still alive and doubtful, wondering if Jesus was the one he was preparing for. Mary was in the kingdom from the moment she said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” She surrendered herself utterly to Christ before he was even born. Folks, we’re all Catholics, we KNOW this stuff.
Your explanation of the Greek words, Eric, seems to indicate that Jesus meant something very specific with the phrase “those born of women” in Matt. 11:11; namely those both conceived with men and born of women. He excludes both His mother and Himself from the comparison with John the Baptist for an obvious reason by using a special term here.
I am, of course, relying on the precision of both your lexica and the Greek to reach this conclusion.
Peregrinus,
I’m still not convinced that this statement was anything more than a hyperbole intended to compare and contrast the Old and New Covenants, but I agree that it is possible that the original Greek might preclude Jesus from the equation.
But I would still argue that Mary falls into the category of “conceived with men and born of women”. Yes, her conception was unique in that it didn’t include Original Sin, but it was still a conception like any other in how it came about.
Perhaps I am reaching in the case of Mary. I would point out, nonetheless, that the description of the conception of Mary as “conceived with men and born of women” is incomplete and, therefore, inaccurate. Remember that Mary is immaculate “at the first moment of her conception” (“in primo instanti suae conceptionis“). Her conception was, in fact, unlike any other in how it came about.
As has now been noted above, “man born of woman” is a Semitism meaning nothing more or less than “mortal”/ “human”: compare Job 14:1. In the Vulgate, the phrase in Job is “homo natus de muliere” (LXX “brotos gennetos gunaikos”). Nothing turns on the grammatical construction in the Greek or in the Latin (whether simple genitive, or a prepositional phrase).
Compare what the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed asserts of Our Lord: “ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula . . genitum non factum”. And in the Apostles’ Creed we have “natus ex Maria vergine”. Our Lord, born of the Father before all time (natus/ genitus/ gennetos) was, in His passible existence, “born of a woman” and was mortal – like us in all things except sin.
Speculation that some subtlety resides in St. Matthew’s use of the word “gennetos” (Latin equivalent, “natus”) only distracts from the focus of the passage in Mt.11:7-19 which is a straightforward rebuke of contemporary popular attitudes to John the Baptist and to Our Lord Himself. The passage begins with the words “Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John . . .” (Mt.11:7). It is highly unlikely that any technical use of terms is involved here.
As for Our Lady, Peregrinus cannot have intended to say that her conception was UNlike any other – in particular in “how it came about” (if, by that, is meant the sexual physiology). She was conceived and born in the order of nature – although conceived without the stain of original sin. What was different about her was the condition of her soul.
Well put, Bain. I am almost certainly giving a greater significance to Jesus’ words than they actually possess to allow for a more certain explanation of the verse. My hypothesis is, however, unnecessary, since the explanation we have without it is sufficient. It must, moreover, remain only an hypothesis without recourse to the original words themselves.
You understand correctly my statement concerning Mary’s conception. The sexual physiology, as you put it, was ordinary; but the participation of God when infusing the soul was unique. This latter act, and not the former, was, as Holweck observes in his article on the matter in The Catholic Encyclopedia, truly the conception of Mary.
On the point of the translation of Galation 4:4 as to whether it should be “born of a woman ” or “made of a woman” there is extensive discussion of that point in the New Advent Catholic Encylopedia. This is quoted below.
As to the Epistles, the only direct reference to Mary is found in Galatians 4:4: “But when the fulness of time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law”. Some Greek and Latin manuscripts, followed by several Fathers, read gennomenon ek gynaikos instead of genomenon ek gynaikos, “born of a woman” instead of “made of a woman”. But this variant reading cannot be accepted. For
* gennomenon is the present participle, and must be rendered, “being born of a woman”, so that it does not fit into the context. [104]
* though the Latin variant rendering “natum” is the perfect participle, and does not imply the inconveniences of its Greek original, St. Bede [105] rejects it, on account of its less appropriate sense.
* In Romans 1:3, which is to a certain extent a parallel of Galatians 4:4, St. Paul writes genomenos ek stermatos Daveid kata sarka, i.e. “made of the seed of David, according to the flesh”.
* Tertullian [106] points out that the word “made” implies more than the word “born”; for it calls to mind the “Word made flesh”, and establishes the reality of the flesh made of the Virgin.
Furthermore, the Apostle employs the word “woman” in the phrase under consideration, because he wishes to indicate merely the sex, without any ulterior connotation. In reality, however, the idea of a man made of a woman alone, suggests the virginal conception of the Son of God. St. Paul seems to emphasize the true idea of the Incarnation of the Word; a true understanding of this mystery safeguards both the Divinity and the real humanity of Jesus Christ. [107]
The Apostle St. John never uses the name Mary when speaking of Our Blessed Lady; he always refers to her as Mother of Jesus (John 2:1-3; 19:25-26). In his last hour, Jesus had established the relation of mother and son between Mary and John, and a child does not usually address his mother by her first name.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
[...] Is John the Baptist greater than Mary? (ericsammons.com) [...]
Pingback by SECRET ESSENCE -ANCIENT MYSTERY | American News Magazine — May 26, 2010 @ 6:42 pmGospel of Mark 1:1-13…
I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog
…
Trackback by Wild Rock Honey — May 27, 2010 @ 4:29 pm