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.

Problem: In Genesis 49:5–7, Jacob pronounces a curse upon Levi: “Cursed be their [Simeon’s and Levi’s] anger, for it is fierce; And their wrath, for it is cruel! I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel” (v. 7). However, in Deuteronomy 33:8–11, Moses blessed Levi: “They [the Levites] shall teach Jacob Your judgments, and Israel Your Law… Bless his substance, Lord, and accept the work of his hands” (Deut. 33:10–11).

Solution: Jacob pronounces this curse upon Levi and Simeon because of the cruel manner in which they took revenge upon the inhabitants of Shechem (Gen. 34:1–31). As a punishment for their crime, they would be scattered among the other tribes of Israel so that they would not obtain a land possession of their own. However, the curse upon Levi was turned into a blessing for all the tribes of Israel. For it was God’s plan to scatter the descendants of Levi throughout Israel so that “They shall teach Jacob Your judgments, and Israel Your law” (Deut. 33:10).

There is no contradiction between these two proclamations. Levi’s descendants were scattered, as Jacob prophesied, but they were used by God to function as the priestly tribe throughout all Israel, as Moses had proclaimed. Levi was not given an inheritance of land among the other tribes because, in Numbers 18:20, God had said, “You shall have no inheritance in their land, nor shall you have any portion among them; I am your portion and your inheritance among the children of Israel.”

Problem: The Bible often states that there were twelve tribes of Israel. Yet, in three different passages, the lists are different. In fact, there are 14 different tribes listed as one of the 12 tribes.

Were there twelve tribes of Israel or fourteen?

Solution: In response, it must be noted that Jacob had only twelve sons. Their descendants comprised the original twelve tribes. However, for various reasons these same descendants are rearranged at different times into somewhat different groups of twelve. For example, in Genesis 48:22, Jacob grants to Joseph a double portion of the inheritance. In the list in Numbers, Manasseh and Ephraim, the sons of Joseph, are substituted for the tribe of Joseph. Also, Levi was not given a portion of the land as an inheritance because the Levites functioned as priests. Scattered among all the tribes in 48 Levitical cities, they taught the tribes the statutes of the Lord (Deut. 33:10). Consequently, Joseph’s double portion is divided between Manasseh and Ephraim, his two sons in order to fill the space left by Levi.

In the Revelation passage, Joseph and Manasseh are counted separately, possibly indicating that Joseph and Ephraim (Joseph’s son) are counted as one tribe. Dan is omitted from that list, possibly because the Danites took their own allotment by force in an area north of Asher, effectively separating themselves from their original inheritance in the south. Further, the Danites were the first tribe to go into idolatry. Levi is listed here as a separate tribe, possibly because, after the cross, the Levites no longer function in the priestly office for all the tribes and, thus, could be given a specific land inheritance of their own. In each case, the biblical author is careful to preserve the original number 12, with its spiritual significance indicating heavenly perfection (cf. the gates and foundations of the heavenly City, Rev. 21).

Problem: In this verse, God promised Jacob, “I will go down with you to Egypt, and I will also surely bring you up again.” However, Jacob died in Egypt (Gen. 49:33) and never returned to the Land of Promise.

Solution: This promise was fulfilled to Jacob in several ways, any one of which would explain the difficulty. First, it was a promise to Jacob’s posterity who were brought back out of Egypt. This is indicated by the statement, “I will make of you a great nation” (v. 3). Second, Jacob was probably brought back from Egypt along with Joseph, though not alive (Gen. 50:25; Ex. 13:19). Finally, after the resurrection Jacob will return to the Land alive (cf. Matt. 8:11).

Problem: God declared to Moses, “No man shall see Me, and live” (Ex. 33:20, see comments on John 1:18). Moses was allowed only to see God’s “back” (Ex. 33:23). Yet the Bible informs us that Moses spoke with God “face to face” (Deut. 5:4). How could he speak to God face to face without seeing His face?

Solution: It is possible for a blind person to speak face to face with someone without seeing their face. The phrase “face to face” means personally, directly, or intimately. Moses had this kind of unmediated relationship with God. But he, like all other mortals, never saw the “face” (essence) of God directly.

Problem: Genesis 31:32 makes the statement that Jacob did not know that “Rachel had stolen” Laban’s idols. However, it seems that God blessed Rachel because she lied to Laban.

Solution: God did not bless Rachel either for stealing the idols or for lying about her deed. Simply because Laban did not discover that Rachel was the thief does not mean that God blessed her. On the contrary, it is more reasonable to assume that God did not expose Rachel’s theft in order to protect Jacob. Also, Genesis 35:16–19 reports that Rachel died in delivering her second son, Benjamin. In the intervening chapters between 31:32 and 35:19 very little is said about Rachel. The biblical record reveals that in fact God did not bless Rachel for what she did, but allowed her to fall into the background of importance until her painful death.

Problem: In Genesis 31:20, Jacob is said to have deceived Laban by not telling him that he was fleeing. However, God blessed Jacob by appearing to Laban and warning him not to speak either good or evil to Jacob (Gen. 31:24). How could God bless Jacob after he had deceived Laban?

Solution: First, it is not necessary to translate the Hebrew word in Genesis 31:20 as “deceived.” The passage literally states, “And Jacob stole Laban’s heart.” This is a Hebrew idiom which can be used in a given context to mean “to deceive” or “to outwit.” Jacob did not tell Laban that he was going to leave, nor did he tell Laban that he was going to stay. He may have left in secret because he feared Laban (cf. Gen. 31:2). Neither was Jacob obligated to remain with Laban, since he had fulfilled all the requirements of the contracts between them. In spite of the accusations by Laban, Jacob was justified in his fear and his action to leave without telling Laban.

Second, even on the assumption that Jacob was involved in deception, God would not bless him because of it, but in spite of his shortcomings. This kind of situation is an example of the principle that “Not everything recorded by the Bible is approved by the Bible” (see Introduction). God had chosen Jacob to become the father of the 12 tribes of Israel, not because of any righteousness in Jacob, but on the basis of God’s grace. God could bless Jacob according to His grace even though he was a sinner. Through Jacob’s experiences with Laban, and later his confrontation with Esau, and his wrestling with the angel of the Lord in the night, Jacob’s character was changed so that he became a fit vessel for God to use.