petra1000

Problem: John records that Jesus called Andrew, Peter, Philip, Nathanael, and another disciple at this time. However, the other Gospels record their call as taking place much later (cf. Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11). When were they called?

Solution: The first passages indicate Jesus’ initial interview of the disciples, not their permanent call. As a result of this first contact they only stayed with Jesus “that day” (John 1:39), after which they returned to their homes and regular employment. The later passages indicate the time they left their former jobs and took up their full-time ministry as disciples of Christ.

Problem: Before His baptism John said categorically, “I did not know Him.” Yet in Matthew 3:13–14 John recognized Jesus before he baptized Him and said, “I have need to be baptized by You.”

Solution: John may have known Jesus before His baptism only by reputation, not by recognition. Or, he may have known Jesus only by personal acquaintance, but not by divine manifestation. After all, Jesus and John were relatives (Luke 1:36), even though they were reared in different places (Luke 1:80; 2:51). However, even though John may have had some previous family contact with Jesus, He had never known Jesus as He was revealed at His baptism when the Spirit descended on Him and the Father spoke from heaven (Matt. 3:16–17). The context indicates that, up to His baptism, no one really knew Jesus as He would then “be revealed to Israel” (John 1:31).

Problem: Jesus is called “the only begotten Son” in this verse. Yet only a few verses earlier John informs us that we can by faith “become children of God” (1:12). If then we are sons of God, how can Jesus be the only Son of God?

Solution: There is a gigantic difference between the senses in which Jesus is the “Son of God” and we are “sons of God.” First, He is the unique Son of God; I am only a son of God. He is the Son of God with a capital “S”; human beings can become sons of God only with a small “s.” Jesus was the Son of God by eternal right of inheritance (Col. 1:15); we are only the sons of God by adoption (Rom. 8:15). He is the Son of God because He is God by His very nature (John 1:1), whereas we are only made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27) and remade in “the image of Him” by redemption (Col. 3:10). Jesus is of God by His very nature; we are only from God. He is divine in nature, but we only participate in it by salvation (2 Peter 1:4). And we can participate only in God’s moral attributes (like holiness and love), not in His non-moral attributes (like infinity and eternality). To summarize the differences:

See All Problems

Problem: Orthodox Christians believe Jesus is God and often appeal to this passage to prove it. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses translate this verse “and the Word (Christ) was a god” because there is no definite article (“the”) in the Greek of this verse.

Solution: In Greek, when the definite article is used, it often stresses the individual, and, when it is not present, it refers to the nature of the one denoted. Thus, the verse can be rendered, “and the Word was of the nature of God.” The full deity of Christ is supported not only by general usage of the same construction, but by other references in John to Jesus being God (cf. 8:58; 10:30; 20:28) and the rest of the NT (cf. Col. 1:15–16; 2:9; Titus 2:13).

Furthermore, some NT texts use the definite article and speak of Christ as “the God.” So it does not matter whether John did or did not use the definite article here—the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God, not just a god (cf. Heb. 1:8).

That Jesus is Jehovah (Yahweh) is clear from the fact that the NT attributes to Jesus characteristics which in the OT apply only to God (cf. John 19:37 and Zech. 12:10).

See All Problems

Problem: In Genesis 49:14–15 Jacob prophesies that Issachar would become “a band of slaves” (Gen. 49:15). However, in Deuteronomy 33:19 Moses predicts that Issachar will “partake of the abundance of the seas and of treasures hidden in the sand.”

Solution: The history of the tribe of Issachar indicates that Jacob was looking forward to a time when, for the sake of their earthly possessions, Issachar would bow to foreign invaders under Tiglath-pileser rather than fight for their liberty. Moses, however, was looking forward to a time before this invasion when the tribe would prosper in the fertile plain which lay between the mountains of Gilboa and Tabor. The prosperity which they gained led to a relative life of ease, a characteristic alluded to in the figure of a lazy donkey unwilling to move its burden (Gen. 49:14). This prosperity in a land which was often threatened by foreign invaders, and their unwillingness to forfeit their possessions for liberty, created the eventual servitude predicted by Jacob.

Problem: Genesis 49:10 indicates that “the scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes.” But history records that the first king of Israel (Saul) was from “the tribe of Benjamin” (Acts 13:21; cf. 1 Sam. 9:1–2).

Solution: This problem is predicated on the assumption that “Shiloh” is a reference to the Messiah. Some scholars take it to refer to the city in Ephraim where the Tabernacle of Moses was erected. On this interpretation, Judah was to be the leader of the 12 tribes all during the wilderness, until they came into the Promised Land.

Even if “Shiloh” is a reference to the Messiah, there is no real problem here, since the Messiah came from the tribe of Judah (cf. Matt. 1:1–3, 16; Rev. 5:5). In God’s eyes David (from the tribe of Judah), not Saul, was His choice for the first king of Israel (cf. 1 Sam. 15–16). So, the tribe of Judah was always the ruling line from which the Messiah was to come.

Problem: The word “Shiloh” is often understood to be a reference to Jesus Christ as the coming Messiah. The word appears in a phrase which is part of the prophetic pronouncements of Jacob upon his son Judah. It is through the tribe of Judah that the Messiah will come (cf. 2 Sam. 7; Mic. 5:2), so it seems appropriate to understand this verse as a reference to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. However, the NT does not make any reference to this prophecy as being fulfilled in Christ, nor to the name Shiloh.

Solution: The solution to this problem involves the vowel pointing of the Masoretic Text (MT) of the OT (see Appendix 1). The New King James Version translates this portion of verse 10 as follows: “Until Shiloh comes.” This version follows the vowel pointing of the MT and translates the Hebrew word shylh as the proper name “Shiloh.” Shiloh was the name of a town situated approximately ten miles northeast of Bethel. Although some interpreters take the statement in Genesis 49:10 as a reference to this town, others have taken it to be a proper name for Messiah.