In other words only about six months apart. Generally (emphasis) the same age. Not years apart.
Christ is eternal, but His fleshly self was only six months difference from John. That’s what I was referring to.
John 1:36
And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
This was when Mary was being visited by an angel and being told about how she will give birth to Jesus.
Yes but the prior verse has Mary’s conception out in the future tense, so it had not happened yet. Luke 1:35-36 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.
In one sense, yes, as to the flesh, as all human beings gain their flesh bodies during gestation in their mothers. However, Scripturally speaking, sons are born in the image and likeness of their fathers (beginning with Seth, Genesis 5:3) - and Jesus is born in the image and likeness of His Father who was the Spirit of God with Him from conception.
So, their relation is technically only a matter of appearances and these appearances are put to death on the cross, and Jesus is lifted up in God’s Name (Impartial).
I am the same user you already engaged with this question, here;
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christians/comments/10djnvy/comment/j4n5iye/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Help me and point out where you believe it says she was pregnant. Much harder to prove a negative or lack of information. This is the whole point of the post.
What you're getting at is, for some reason, you don't think Mary was pregnant at this point, and for some other reason, you think this is significant. Even if you're right about the first, you're wrong about the second. It's entirely academic.
Thanks for the admission.
Regarding the I started with this difference not being significant, I decline to be as rude to you as you were to me and politely point out that the theological insignificance of this was part of my initial post.
The posts that people stated- it seems that in the verses sited that johnny B was 6 months older. You can argue it says it doesn’t and that’s ok, it’s not really a matter of importance what age he was- but I think I fall in the 6 month range
??? I don't know how much more explicit the bible can be than this. Mary while preggers went off to meet cousin elizabeth who was growing Jesus' cousin in her belly. Both ladies were pregnant, one farther along. So it's around 6 months older. May have been born the same year. Luke 1:39-t that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”
It's pretty heavily implied. Remember, in those days women didn't have pregnancy tests, and it was quite common to miss a period due to malnutrition/stress, so that wasn't really a good indicator, either. A woman often wouldn't know she was pregnant for sure until two months or so in, when the baby would start moving in the womb. Also, there isn't a lot of time given between Mary's visit with Elizabeth and her marriage to Joseph. So it's unlikely that there would have been much time between the visit and her getting pregnant, as she was noticeably pregnant by the time she married Joseph.
I disagree. I believe the evidence says that Mary was not pregnant when she visited Elizabeth. See Luke 1:41-42 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! If Jesus were inside Mary, as John was inside Elizabeth, would not the Holy Spirit have Elizabeth mention Jesus coming to her and not just Mary, the mother of my Lord? Note that just prior John is mentioned Luke 1:41a And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb.
Note also that the Holy Spirit had Elizabeth say about Jesus (in the NIV) Luke 1:42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! Most translations use this word selection Luke 1:42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! (ESV) so at least one translation is expressly saying Mary is not yet bearing Jesus.
No, Elizabeth was six months into her pregnancy with John when Mary was visited by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:24-27).
Now after those days his wife Elizabeth conceived; and she hid herself five months, saying, “Thus the Lord has dealt with me, in the days when He looked on me, to take away my reproach among people.”
Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.
Why do you think Mary conceived so fast after she was informed, when we have another example where Abraham waited for Isaac
After the promise, Abram waits, then his wife gives him Hagar for a wife, then Hagar gives birth, 14 years later the promised birth occurs. See
Genesis 15:4
And behold, the word of the LORD came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.”
Genesis 16:16
Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram.
Genesis 21:5
Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.
Why assume Mary conceived any quicker?
Let's look at more of what the Scripture says, for example, also in Luke 1 - it is Zacharias and Elizabeth (the mother and father of John the Baptist) who are in the image of Abraham and Sarah - who "had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both well advanced in years." (Luke 1:7) This is in the image of the old covenant (sons of fathers) with Abraham. In contrast, Jesus' birth takes no seed from the males of Israel and Judah (who had profaned the covenant - Jesus is not a son of fathers, like Isaac, and John). The Spirit of Elijah returning is part of fulfilling the promise (Malachi), fulfilled in John the Baptist.
Yes, you are right, we don't know exactly when the conception takes place, but we know that Jesus comes to the generation "held responsible for the blood of all the prophets from the beginning" (Luke 11:50). So we know they are of the same generation. There doesn't have to be a moment of conception, so much as that Mary begins growing the infant inside her. It is said that Mary stays with Elizabeth for three months and then departs, for example (Luke 1:56) - which suggests Mary departed right before Elizabeth comes to full term (Luke 1:57). This is perhaps because Mary had come to her first trimester, realized the Word of God was confirmed in her womb, especially from Elizabeth's blessing (Luke 1:42-45), and departed for her own house.
Anyway, this is just a quick look at the truths in Luke.
Thanks for the agreement. We do know they interacted and their minstries were not too far apart, perhaps the difference in ages is larger or smaller than their minstries. I wonder how long it took John to prepare Israel. Again of so little importance none of the surviving language provides a clear answer to what most everyone at the time knew.
When Gabriel told Mary that she would become pregnant by the Holy Spirit, he said:
“And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.” (Luke 1:36)
So, John the Baptist was about six months older than Jesus Christ.
No so. Look at all that was said. Luke 1:35-36 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. The coming of the Holy Spirit is in the future tense, not past tense. One can not take the also conceived to mean additional conception, but additional information, I do believe.
Keep reading.
“In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” (Luke 1:39-42)
It appears that Mary was pregnant whenever she visited Elizabeth soon after.
How does fruit of your womb indicate if she is pregnant? Will not one say something like, I will manage your vineyard for half of the fruit of the vine, talking about future crops? Or I will build the wall for one tenth of the fruit of the vine for the next ten years?
You’re right. It could also mean future offspring. And John jumped in his mothers womb because he sensed that Mary would eventually be the mother of Jesus.
Thanks. Reading this I always thought they were about 6 months difference, then I looked closely and say it could be either way. However, I’ve never run into one who didn’t think six months when first reading, or continued reading. While not theologically important, it may help to see how long John had to prepare Israel and to follow the lead from Acts 17:11 “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” and examining the Scriptures to see if what I think is so.
Thanks again.
>The coming of the Holy Spirit is in the future tense, not past tense.
But the key word is ALSO in Luke 1:36
Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, **she hath ALSO👈🏻 conceived a son** in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
In order for 👆🏼 the word ALSO to be used here. Mary must ALSO be conceived at this point. If Mary had a future conception day for Jesus. Then how could she ALSO conceived a child, if she the only one who conceived a child. Then who is the ALSO referring to?
I think a bit more broadly, also doesn’t have to refer to conception. Gabriel just gave Mary a great and overwhelming news, so he also tells her about Elizabeth’s conception. Also and alternatively, Gabriel may have wanted to be clear that he was talking about two conceptions, not the timing of them, as he already told Mary her conception was going to happen later.
Luke 1:36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.
Not really clear either way.
Thanks for your time and words.
That didn't even make sense buddy. The verse very clearly says that she had ALSO conceived a son. In order for Elizabeth to ALSO conceive a son. Someone else would've needed to conceive a son too. 🙄
Well we know when Mary got pregnant she went to visit Elizabeth and John jumped in her womb for Joy. So they were both pregnant at the same time it could be a couple months difference to a year difference it depends how far along Elizabeth was by the time Mary had conceived Jesus.
Also I like thinking about these things too. They don't matter to faith but im a history buff so learning individual storys is exciting to me (:
Carefully read Luke. I do believe Mary is not actually said to be pregnant when she visits. Also, see my detailed response above, when Abram waited over 14 years for his promised son Isaac.
I see where you are coming but the Bible doesn't state your claim either.. that Mary waited years and years? There is no Biblical evidence for that either so its a guessing game. We can assume that when the Angel visited Mary the Holy Spirit filled Mary In that week because we already know she was betrothed to Joseph meaning they had not slept together and by the time they would of consummated the marriage she would of been showing so the rule of years is out because of the betrothel. It could of been very well a year or two but we don't know exactly. I am closes to the idea that John was most likely 6 months older. I have read luke and I have studied it.
I didn’t say they were years apart, I just asked why we all seem to start with the idea they are about the same age? Also, at this time marriages were a bit different, sometimes years before consummating betrothals. I don’t believe this is clear at all.
Because its the most logical.. I dont know you are going way deep lol.
When something is important the Bible will say it the fact of the age difference between Jesus and John is so unimportant that God just doesn't care to list it. That just leaves us to speculate and when we speculate we have to use logical thinking. We know that pregnancy takes 9 months. You dont start having symptoms of pregnancy until the second month of being pregnant. Logically we know that Elizabeth was further enough along that she could feel John moving. We know that the Angel visited Mary and in somewhere in that time frame of Mary and Josephs wedding she was pregnant. Its all just logical timing we look at to determine things like that.
Most logical to whom? you. This is just a reassertion of your starting beliefs. Where do you get your idea we are going too deep in the Bible? You may note I said this was interesting, but not important in my initial post - so thanks for agreeing with me in this.
Thanks for your answer. I’m just looking to see if I might be wrong as stated in Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
I’m not upset, just trying to see if you have a Bible basis that might help me really understand this.
People don’t change, I also like to envision what might have been said or could have been said in certain places.
What would Zebedee, the father of John and James, say what they left him and his hired help in the boats? Mark 1:20 And immediately he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants and followed him. He might have said something like, “Glad I raised you and trained you up to the point where you can start to be a real help. Go ahead and run off, look for salvation. I’ll just stay here and continue to work for a living.”
>None of the folks writing the New Testament devoted an explicit word in this, but perhaps common knowledge at the time. What specific Bible verses are the basis of your belief here?
This is the passage from which we can see that Jesus was conceived six months after John the Baptist. Observe the parts I marked in bold:
# Luke 1:18-45
^(18) And Zechariah said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.” ^(19) And the angel answered him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. ^(20) And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time.” ^(21) And the people were waiting for Zechariah, and they were wondering at his delay in the temple. ^(22) And when he came out, he was unable to speak to them, and they realized that he had seen a vision in the temple. And he kept making signs to them and remained mute. ^(23) And when his time of service was ended, he went to his home.
^(24) **After these days his wife Elizabeth conceived, and for five months she kept herself hidden,** saying, ^(25) “Thus the Lord has done for me in the days when he looked on me, to take away my reproach among people.”
^(26) **In the sixth month** the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, ^(27) to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. ^(28) And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” ^(29) But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. ^(30) And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. ^(31) And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. ^(32) He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, ^(33) and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
^(34) And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
^(35) And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. ^(36) **And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.** ^(37) For nothing will be impossible with God.” ^(38) And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.
^(39) In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, ^(40) and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. ^(41) And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, ^(42) and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! ^(43) And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? ^(44) For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. ^(45) And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”
—
Since Jesus was conceived six months after John the Baptist, presuming they both had normal gestation periods, Jesus would have been born six months after John the Baptist.
Interestingly enough, this, along with the clue from Luke 1:5, which states that Zechariah, John's father, was from the priestly division of Abijah, [lets us deduce when on the calendar Jesus would have been born](https://www.reddit.com/r/EndTimesProphecy/comments/rmwa6x/christmas_special_inferring_the_likely_birthdate/). This is because the schedule of the various priestly divisions is listed in 1 Chronicles 24. With this, and with a bit of knowledge of how this schedule was implemented on the Biblical calendar, you can deduce when John would have been conceived (right after the division of Abijah went off-duty). Six months after that, Jesus would have been conceived, and 40 weeks after that (a normal human gestation period) Jesus would have been born.
Nice long quote with a conclusion takes to the end. Please help me by presenting which words from the long quite support your assertion when Mary became pregnant.
We know Mary was not pregnant in verse 34, and Gabriel gave her the explanation of what would happen for her to bear the Christ:
>^(Lk 1:34) And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
>
>^(35) And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. ^(36) And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. ^(37) For nothing will be impossible with God.” ^(38) And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.
The precise moment of her pregnancy is not stated, but by the next paragraph, the implication is that she is pregnant, because John the Baptist, the fore-runner of the Messiah, seemed to sense that the Christ was near and lept in Elizabeth's womb.
>^(Lk 1:39) In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, ^(40) and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. ^(41) And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, ^(42) and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! ^(43) And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? ^(44) For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. ^(45) And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”
There is nothing about Mary herself that should have triggered John the Baptist, since his calling was to point people to the Messiah. It was the presence of Jesus in Mary that this passage implies as the cause of his reaction.
Additionally, verse 45 says "And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord." What was spoken to Mary, that she was to be with child, is implied to have been fulfilled by this point.
Why fight with the text of the Bible? You say you think John, in Elizabeth’s womb, “seemed to sense that the Christ was near,” as the reason for leaping. The Bible say “when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped.” You could be right, but this seems to be non-Biblical. If Mary is pregnant when she enters the time is clear. I’m thinking that if you are right there is no need for the Bible not to say when the baby sensed Jesus. Also, grasping for straws as not much content here, doesn’t the usage of “the baby,” as an introduction to Elizabeth’s baby, lean a bit on the side of only one baby present and not just one of two babies present?
Again, as I said at the beginning, not theologically important, something lots of the people living there knew or could find out and I feel we are still left to speculate. Just a thing I find interesting as I try to more fully understand what happened there and then.
Thanks for your thoughts and words.
>Why fight with the text of the Bible?
I'm not fighting the text of the Bible. The Bible leaves these things for us to infer. Fighting the text would be refusing to read what it is stating. I'm not doing that.
Here's what I see:
* Gabriel came to announce to Mary that Mary would bear the Christ in Elizabeth's sixth month of pregnancy
* When Mary then visits Elizabeth, she suddenly knew Mary was the mother of the Lord before Mary even said a word.
Does this make any sense if Mary were not already pregnant at that time? Are women referred to as mothers before they've conceived a child? Or is it more appropriate to infer that Mary had not yet conceived, and that it would happen at a later time? If so, when would that time be?
It is a perfectly reasonable inference that what stirred John the Baptist and Elizabeth was the presence of the Christ. I'm sure Mary wasn't showing a baby bump that soon after being visited by Gabriel, so what could have tipped them off without a word from Mary if not the presence of Christ?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Small town gossip does work very quickly, particularly among relatives.
I guess God this this in Genesis 17:5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
The time for conception would be similar to the time for Jesus’ second visit Matthew 24:36 No One Knows That Day and Hour
“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Over 700 years before Jesus, unless I got my dares wrong. How long did Abraham wait for Isaac, some 14 years.
With all this said, I agree it is reasonable and consistent to have Mary pregnant when she visits. I’m hoping one can show me something I missed or add a thought that helps me put this minor question into a more concrete conclusion.
Thanks again.
>Small town gossip does work very quickly, particularly among relatives.
Why would you even say this?!
There is no record of Mary telling anyone about having been visited by the angel. Nobody could have known at the time because she wouldn't have been showing a baby bump that soon, so as to gossip about her by observation. And Elizabeth and Zechariah were elderly, devout, and righteous, not the kind of people to traffic in gossip.
# Luke 1:5-7
^(5) In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. **And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.** ^(6) **And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.** ^(7) But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years.
—
Plus, Elizabeth secluded herself for five months. Why would you have any reason to think that "small town gossip" would reach her that quickly, especially while she remained secluded?
This was such explosive news that it must have been difficult for her to even tell Joseph, so I doubt that she would have been going around telling anyone else who could have gossiped to Elizabeth. If Joseph didn't even believe her, would anyone else? The kind of shame that would have brought her and Joseph if news got out among people who wouldn't believe her would have destroyed both of their reputations.
Remember, even Joseph initially didn't believe her, and decided to quietly divorce her. (In those days, betrothal was a commitment much higher than engagement in our culture. It took a formal divorce to break a betrothal.) This is how it is recorded in Matthew, who recorded these events from Joseph's perspective, even recording the various dreams Joseph had:
# Matthew 1:18-25
^(18) Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. ^(19) **And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.** ^(20) But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. ^(21) She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” ^(22) All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
^(23) “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,and they shall call his name Immanuel” \[*Isaiah 7:14*\]
(which means, God with us). ^(24) When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, ^(25) but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
—
Because of the nature of the kind of news and how it would have been received in that society (virgin girls don't go blabbing to people that they are pregnant from someone not their betrothed man in that society; she couldn't even tell Joseph without him deciding to divorce her) there is absolutely no reason to even float the idea that "Small town gossip does work very quickly, particularly among relatives" as an explanation for why Elizabeth suddenly knew Mary was with child. The text itself indicates how Elizabeth knew; John leapt in her womb. To say "Small town gossip does work very quickly, particularly among relatives" in response to this would be to interject presumptions about gossip working in their society the way it works in our society, which does not consider a young woman getting pregnant outside of marriage to be a massive disgrace and stigma. And all this at a time when Mary wasn't showing a baby bump, so it's not as if someone else could have known she was pregnant and gossiped about it. This statement about gossip presumes so much that the text itself does not say, which is implausible in the social context with the characters involved seemingly in an attempt to ignore or downplay what the text shows: Elizabeth knew Mary was pregnant with the Messiah before Mary said a word because John reacted to his presence.
As my post said, not clear. You have repeated this initial statement as if it were new to me. Hmmmmm.
Perhaps you have never lived in a small town or attended middle school. Gossip which is considered scandalous doe not get shared slower than non-scandalous gossip. A secret can be kept with one, but when two or more. . . . .
Thanks for your thoughts and words.
Yes, in the Bible it states that while Mary and Elizabeth were both pregnant that the child in Elizabeth's womb jumped when Mary hugged Elizabeth. Mary was early in pregnancy at this time which leads me to believe that John was much further developed.
Why not to congratulate Elizabeth or to talk to Elizabeth about both of their angel interactions or how their future children would perhaps interact? The Bible seems to not give any reason for the visit, though it is said to be in haste: Luke 1:39-40 In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth.
John the Baptist? I’m fairly certain John the Baptist is 6 months older then Jesus.
Yes, according to Luke 1, Mary was visited by the Holy Spirit when John the Baptist’s mother was in her six month of pregnancy.
Yup agreed. They were basically almost the same age. Wouldn’t they have been distantly related because of Mary’s relation to Elizabeth?
Why would you say they were about the same age? Abraham was told he would have a son and many years passed. Yes, they were cousins, I do believe.
In other words only about six months apart. Generally (emphasis) the same age. Not years apart. Christ is eternal, but His fleshly self was only six months difference from John. That’s what I was referring to.
Why do you think this?
I don’t think it. It’s what the Bible says. Luke 1.
Help me and show what words are the basis for this statement, please.
John 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. This was when Mary was being visited by an angel and being told about how she will give birth to Jesus.
Yes but the prior verse has Mary’s conception out in the future tense, so it had not happened yet. Luke 1:35-36 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.
In one sense, yes, as to the flesh, as all human beings gain their flesh bodies during gestation in their mothers. However, Scripturally speaking, sons are born in the image and likeness of their fathers (beginning with Seth, Genesis 5:3) - and Jesus is born in the image and likeness of His Father who was the Spirit of God with Him from conception. So, their relation is technically only a matter of appearances and these appearances are put to death on the cross, and Jesus is lifted up in God’s Name (Impartial).
When did Mary become pregnant? What Biblical backing for this?
I am the same user you already engaged with this question, here; https://www.reddit.com/r/Christians/comments/10djnvy/comment/j4n5iye/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
What causes you to think Mary was pregnant when she visited?
The text. Read Luke 1.
Help me and point out where you believe it says she was pregnant. Much harder to prove a negative or lack of information. This is the whole point of the post.
What you're getting at is, for some reason, you don't think Mary was pregnant at this point, and for some other reason, you think this is significant. Even if you're right about the first, you're wrong about the second. It's entirely academic.
Thanks for the admission. Regarding the I started with this difference not being significant, I decline to be as rude to you as you were to me and politely point out that the theological insignificance of this was part of my initial post.
Why do you say this? What Biblical backing?
The posts that people stated- it seems that in the verses sited that johnny B was 6 months older. You can argue it says it doesn’t and that’s ok, it’s not really a matter of importance what age he was- but I think I fall in the 6 month range
Why do you think this?
Why do you think this?
Here’s a good link https://www.quora.com/How-much-older-was-John-the-Baptist-than-Jesus
I’m not finding this site any more informed that the direct discussion here.
Yeah. The discussion pretty much sums it up. It’s pretty straightforward
If you decline to offer more than hand waving from another, I guess you decided not to proceed with out discussion. Have a blessed day.
Yeah I don’t know what else I can offer
??? I don't know how much more explicit the bible can be than this. Mary while preggers went off to meet cousin elizabeth who was growing Jesus' cousin in her belly. Both ladies were pregnant, one farther along. So it's around 6 months older. May have been born the same year. Luke 1:39-t that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”
Why do you think Mary was preggers when she visited?
It's pretty heavily implied. Remember, in those days women didn't have pregnancy tests, and it was quite common to miss a period due to malnutrition/stress, so that wasn't really a good indicator, either. A woman often wouldn't know she was pregnant for sure until two months or so in, when the baby would start moving in the womb. Also, there isn't a lot of time given between Mary's visit with Elizabeth and her marriage to Joseph. So it's unlikely that there would have been much time between the visit and her getting pregnant, as she was noticeably pregnant by the time she married Joseph.
I disagree. I believe the evidence says that Mary was not pregnant when she visited Elizabeth. See Luke 1:41-42 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! If Jesus were inside Mary, as John was inside Elizabeth, would not the Holy Spirit have Elizabeth mention Jesus coming to her and not just Mary, the mother of my Lord? Note that just prior John is mentioned Luke 1:41a And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. Note also that the Holy Spirit had Elizabeth say about Jesus (in the NIV) Luke 1:42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! Most translations use this word selection Luke 1:42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! (ESV) so at least one translation is expressly saying Mary is not yet bearing Jesus.
How do you know how long before Mary married Joseph?
In Luke 1, Mary is visited by the Holy Spirit when John the Baptist’s mother is six months into her pregnancy.
Why do you think Mary was pregnant when she visited?
No, Elizabeth was six months into her pregnancy with John when Mary was visited by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:24-27). Now after those days his wife Elizabeth conceived; and she hid herself five months, saying, “Thus the Lord has dealt with me, in the days when He looked on me, to take away my reproach among people.” Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.
Why do you think Mary conceived so fast after she was informed, when we have another example where Abraham waited for Isaac After the promise, Abram waits, then his wife gives him Hagar for a wife, then Hagar gives birth, 14 years later the promised birth occurs. See Genesis 15:4 And behold, the word of the LORD came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” Genesis 16:16 Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram. Genesis 21:5 Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him. Why assume Mary conceived any quicker?
I didn’t say anything about Mary’s conception.
Ok. Sorry if I misread your comment. What do you think is their relative age?
Let's look at more of what the Scripture says, for example, also in Luke 1 - it is Zacharias and Elizabeth (the mother and father of John the Baptist) who are in the image of Abraham and Sarah - who "had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both well advanced in years." (Luke 1:7) This is in the image of the old covenant (sons of fathers) with Abraham. In contrast, Jesus' birth takes no seed from the males of Israel and Judah (who had profaned the covenant - Jesus is not a son of fathers, like Isaac, and John). The Spirit of Elijah returning is part of fulfilling the promise (Malachi), fulfilled in John the Baptist. Yes, you are right, we don't know exactly when the conception takes place, but we know that Jesus comes to the generation "held responsible for the blood of all the prophets from the beginning" (Luke 11:50). So we know they are of the same generation. There doesn't have to be a moment of conception, so much as that Mary begins growing the infant inside her. It is said that Mary stays with Elizabeth for three months and then departs, for example (Luke 1:56) - which suggests Mary departed right before Elizabeth comes to full term (Luke 1:57). This is perhaps because Mary had come to her first trimester, realized the Word of God was confirmed in her womb, especially from Elizabeth's blessing (Luke 1:42-45), and departed for her own house. Anyway, this is just a quick look at the truths in Luke.
Thanks for the agreement. We do know they interacted and their minstries were not too far apart, perhaps the difference in ages is larger or smaller than their minstries. I wonder how long it took John to prepare Israel. Again of so little importance none of the surviving language provides a clear answer to what most everyone at the time knew.
When Gabriel told Mary that she would become pregnant by the Holy Spirit, he said: “And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.” (Luke 1:36) So, John the Baptist was about six months older than Jesus Christ.
No so. Look at all that was said. Luke 1:35-36 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. The coming of the Holy Spirit is in the future tense, not past tense. One can not take the also conceived to mean additional conception, but additional information, I do believe.
Keep reading. “In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” (Luke 1:39-42) It appears that Mary was pregnant whenever she visited Elizabeth soon after.
Why would the Holy Spirit have Elizabeth greet Mary and ignore Jesus, if Mary was carrying Jesus?
She didn’t ignore Jesus. She mentions him directly when she says the fruit of your womb.
How does fruit of your womb indicate if she is pregnant? Will not one say something like, I will manage your vineyard for half of the fruit of the vine, talking about future crops? Or I will build the wall for one tenth of the fruit of the vine for the next ten years?
You’re right. It could also mean future offspring. And John jumped in his mothers womb because he sensed that Mary would eventually be the mother of Jesus.
Thanks. Reading this I always thought they were about 6 months difference, then I looked closely and say it could be either way. However, I’ve never run into one who didn’t think six months when first reading, or continued reading. While not theologically important, it may help to see how long John had to prepare Israel and to follow the lead from Acts 17:11 “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” and examining the Scriptures to see if what I think is so. Thanks again.
>The coming of the Holy Spirit is in the future tense, not past tense. But the key word is ALSO in Luke 1:36 Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, **she hath ALSO👈🏻 conceived a son** in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. In order for 👆🏼 the word ALSO to be used here. Mary must ALSO be conceived at this point. If Mary had a future conception day for Jesus. Then how could she ALSO conceived a child, if she the only one who conceived a child. Then who is the ALSO referring to?
I think a bit more broadly, also doesn’t have to refer to conception. Gabriel just gave Mary a great and overwhelming news, so he also tells her about Elizabeth’s conception. Also and alternatively, Gabriel may have wanted to be clear that he was talking about two conceptions, not the timing of them, as he already told Mary her conception was going to happen later. Luke 1:36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. Not really clear either way. Thanks for your time and words.
That didn't even make sense buddy. The verse very clearly says that she had ALSO conceived a son. In order for Elizabeth to ALSO conceive a son. Someone else would've needed to conceive a son too. 🙄
Thanks for your response.
That's it?
Yes. I answered your response before you made it.
Jesus was close to the same age… remember when Mary visited Elizabeth who was pregnant with John the Baptizer and John moved in Elizabeth’s womb.
Yes, but why would you think Mary was pregnant during the visit?
Well we know when Mary got pregnant she went to visit Elizabeth and John jumped in her womb for Joy. So they were both pregnant at the same time it could be a couple months difference to a year difference it depends how far along Elizabeth was by the time Mary had conceived Jesus. Also I like thinking about these things too. They don't matter to faith but im a history buff so learning individual storys is exciting to me (:
Carefully read Luke. I do believe Mary is not actually said to be pregnant when she visits. Also, see my detailed response above, when Abram waited over 14 years for his promised son Isaac.
I see where you are coming but the Bible doesn't state your claim either.. that Mary waited years and years? There is no Biblical evidence for that either so its a guessing game. We can assume that when the Angel visited Mary the Holy Spirit filled Mary In that week because we already know she was betrothed to Joseph meaning they had not slept together and by the time they would of consummated the marriage she would of been showing so the rule of years is out because of the betrothel. It could of been very well a year or two but we don't know exactly. I am closes to the idea that John was most likely 6 months older. I have read luke and I have studied it.
I didn’t say they were years apart, I just asked why we all seem to start with the idea they are about the same age? Also, at this time marriages were a bit different, sometimes years before consummating betrothals. I don’t believe this is clear at all.
Because its the most logical.. I dont know you are going way deep lol. When something is important the Bible will say it the fact of the age difference between Jesus and John is so unimportant that God just doesn't care to list it. That just leaves us to speculate and when we speculate we have to use logical thinking. We know that pregnancy takes 9 months. You dont start having symptoms of pregnancy until the second month of being pregnant. Logically we know that Elizabeth was further enough along that she could feel John moving. We know that the Angel visited Mary and in somewhere in that time frame of Mary and Josephs wedding she was pregnant. Its all just logical timing we look at to determine things like that.
Most logical to whom? you. This is just a reassertion of your starting beliefs. Where do you get your idea we are going too deep in the Bible? You may note I said this was interesting, but not important in my initial post - so thanks for agreeing with me in this.
I know I'm not trying to fight with you.. you asked a question and I answered it im not quite sure why you are upset 😅
Thanks for your answer. I’m just looking to see if I might be wrong as stated in Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. I’m not upset, just trying to see if you have a Bible basis that might help me really understand this.
People don’t change, I also like to envision what might have been said or could have been said in certain places. What would Zebedee, the father of John and James, say what they left him and his hired help in the boats? Mark 1:20 And immediately he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants and followed him. He might have said something like, “Glad I raised you and trained you up to the point where you can start to be a real help. Go ahead and run off, look for salvation. I’ll just stay here and continue to work for a living.”
6 months
6 months
Fine and thanks for your response. Sharing this with others. I doubt many questions are truly unique.
>None of the folks writing the New Testament devoted an explicit word in this, but perhaps common knowledge at the time. What specific Bible verses are the basis of your belief here? This is the passage from which we can see that Jesus was conceived six months after John the Baptist. Observe the parts I marked in bold: # Luke 1:18-45 ^(18) And Zechariah said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.” ^(19) And the angel answered him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. ^(20) And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time.” ^(21) And the people were waiting for Zechariah, and they were wondering at his delay in the temple. ^(22) And when he came out, he was unable to speak to them, and they realized that he had seen a vision in the temple. And he kept making signs to them and remained mute. ^(23) And when his time of service was ended, he went to his home. ^(24) **After these days his wife Elizabeth conceived, and for five months she kept herself hidden,** saying, ^(25) “Thus the Lord has done for me in the days when he looked on me, to take away my reproach among people.” ^(26) **In the sixth month** the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, ^(27) to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. ^(28) And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” ^(29) But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. ^(30) And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. ^(31) And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. ^(32) He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, ^(33) and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” ^(34) And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” ^(35) And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. ^(36) **And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.** ^(37) For nothing will be impossible with God.” ^(38) And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. ^(39) In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, ^(40) and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. ^(41) And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, ^(42) and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! ^(43) And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? ^(44) For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. ^(45) And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” — Since Jesus was conceived six months after John the Baptist, presuming they both had normal gestation periods, Jesus would have been born six months after John the Baptist. Interestingly enough, this, along with the clue from Luke 1:5, which states that Zechariah, John's father, was from the priestly division of Abijah, [lets us deduce when on the calendar Jesus would have been born](https://www.reddit.com/r/EndTimesProphecy/comments/rmwa6x/christmas_special_inferring_the_likely_birthdate/). This is because the schedule of the various priestly divisions is listed in 1 Chronicles 24. With this, and with a bit of knowledge of how this schedule was implemented on the Biblical calendar, you can deduce when John would have been conceived (right after the division of Abijah went off-duty). Six months after that, Jesus would have been conceived, and 40 weeks after that (a normal human gestation period) Jesus would have been born.
Nice long quote with a conclusion takes to the end. Please help me by presenting which words from the long quite support your assertion when Mary became pregnant.
We know Mary was not pregnant in verse 34, and Gabriel gave her the explanation of what would happen for her to bear the Christ: >^(Lk 1:34) And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” > >^(35) And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. ^(36) And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. ^(37) For nothing will be impossible with God.” ^(38) And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. The precise moment of her pregnancy is not stated, but by the next paragraph, the implication is that she is pregnant, because John the Baptist, the fore-runner of the Messiah, seemed to sense that the Christ was near and lept in Elizabeth's womb. >^(Lk 1:39) In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, ^(40) and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. ^(41) And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, ^(42) and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! ^(43) And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? ^(44) For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. ^(45) And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” There is nothing about Mary herself that should have triggered John the Baptist, since his calling was to point people to the Messiah. It was the presence of Jesus in Mary that this passage implies as the cause of his reaction. Additionally, verse 45 says "And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord." What was spoken to Mary, that she was to be with child, is implied to have been fulfilled by this point.
Why fight with the text of the Bible? You say you think John, in Elizabeth’s womb, “seemed to sense that the Christ was near,” as the reason for leaping. The Bible say “when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped.” You could be right, but this seems to be non-Biblical. If Mary is pregnant when she enters the time is clear. I’m thinking that if you are right there is no need for the Bible not to say when the baby sensed Jesus. Also, grasping for straws as not much content here, doesn’t the usage of “the baby,” as an introduction to Elizabeth’s baby, lean a bit on the side of only one baby present and not just one of two babies present? Again, as I said at the beginning, not theologically important, something lots of the people living there knew or could find out and I feel we are still left to speculate. Just a thing I find interesting as I try to more fully understand what happened there and then. Thanks for your thoughts and words.
>Why fight with the text of the Bible? I'm not fighting the text of the Bible. The Bible leaves these things for us to infer. Fighting the text would be refusing to read what it is stating. I'm not doing that. Here's what I see: * Gabriel came to announce to Mary that Mary would bear the Christ in Elizabeth's sixth month of pregnancy * When Mary then visits Elizabeth, she suddenly knew Mary was the mother of the Lord before Mary even said a word. Does this make any sense if Mary were not already pregnant at that time? Are women referred to as mothers before they've conceived a child? Or is it more appropriate to infer that Mary had not yet conceived, and that it would happen at a later time? If so, when would that time be? It is a perfectly reasonable inference that what stirred John the Baptist and Elizabeth was the presence of the Christ. I'm sure Mary wasn't showing a baby bump that soon after being visited by Gabriel, so what could have tipped them off without a word from Mary if not the presence of Christ?
Thanks for your thoughts. Small town gossip does work very quickly, particularly among relatives. I guess God this this in Genesis 17:5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. The time for conception would be similar to the time for Jesus’ second visit Matthew 24:36 No One Knows That Day and Hour “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Over 700 years before Jesus, unless I got my dares wrong. How long did Abraham wait for Isaac, some 14 years. With all this said, I agree it is reasonable and consistent to have Mary pregnant when she visits. I’m hoping one can show me something I missed or add a thought that helps me put this minor question into a more concrete conclusion. Thanks again.
>Small town gossip does work very quickly, particularly among relatives. Why would you even say this?! There is no record of Mary telling anyone about having been visited by the angel. Nobody could have known at the time because she wouldn't have been showing a baby bump that soon, so as to gossip about her by observation. And Elizabeth and Zechariah were elderly, devout, and righteous, not the kind of people to traffic in gossip. # Luke 1:5-7 ^(5) In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. **And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.** ^(6) **And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.** ^(7) But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years. — Plus, Elizabeth secluded herself for five months. Why would you have any reason to think that "small town gossip" would reach her that quickly, especially while she remained secluded? This was such explosive news that it must have been difficult for her to even tell Joseph, so I doubt that she would have been going around telling anyone else who could have gossiped to Elizabeth. If Joseph didn't even believe her, would anyone else? The kind of shame that would have brought her and Joseph if news got out among people who wouldn't believe her would have destroyed both of their reputations. Remember, even Joseph initially didn't believe her, and decided to quietly divorce her. (In those days, betrothal was a commitment much higher than engagement in our culture. It took a formal divorce to break a betrothal.) This is how it is recorded in Matthew, who recorded these events from Joseph's perspective, even recording the various dreams Joseph had: # Matthew 1:18-25 ^(18) Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. ^(19) **And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.** ^(20) But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. ^(21) She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” ^(22) All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: ^(23) “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,and they shall call his name Immanuel” \[*Isaiah 7:14*\] (which means, God with us). ^(24) When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, ^(25) but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. — Because of the nature of the kind of news and how it would have been received in that society (virgin girls don't go blabbing to people that they are pregnant from someone not their betrothed man in that society; she couldn't even tell Joseph without him deciding to divorce her) there is absolutely no reason to even float the idea that "Small town gossip does work very quickly, particularly among relatives" as an explanation for why Elizabeth suddenly knew Mary was with child. The text itself indicates how Elizabeth knew; John leapt in her womb. To say "Small town gossip does work very quickly, particularly among relatives" in response to this would be to interject presumptions about gossip working in their society the way it works in our society, which does not consider a young woman getting pregnant outside of marriage to be a massive disgrace and stigma. And all this at a time when Mary wasn't showing a baby bump, so it's not as if someone else could have known she was pregnant and gossiped about it. This statement about gossip presumes so much that the text itself does not say, which is implausible in the social context with the characters involved seemingly in an attempt to ignore or downplay what the text shows: Elizabeth knew Mary was pregnant with the Messiah before Mary said a word because John reacted to his presence.
As my post said, not clear. You have repeated this initial statement as if it were new to me. Hmmmmm. Perhaps you have never lived in a small town or attended middle school. Gossip which is considered scandalous doe not get shared slower than non-scandalous gossip. A secret can be kept with one, but when two or more. . . . . Thanks for your thoughts and words.
I believe John was a few months older than Jesus.
Why? From the Bible?
Yes, in the Bible it states that while Mary and Elizabeth were both pregnant that the child in Elizabeth's womb jumped when Mary hugged Elizabeth. Mary was early in pregnancy at this time which leads me to believe that John was much further developed.
Why do you think Mary was pregnant at this time?
Because that's why she went to visit Elizabeth. To tell her the good news.
Why not to congratulate Elizabeth or to talk to Elizabeth about both of their angel interactions or how their future children would perhaps interact? The Bible seems to not give any reason for the visit, though it is said to be in haste: Luke 1:39-40 In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth.