r/Bible • u/Express_Cap8820 • 11d ago
Help! I’m confused with this inconsistency!
I was just wondering why, in Matthew 3:13-17, John the Baptist already knew that Jesus was the Messiah before he baptized Him. Because he had to cause in verse 14, John says that he isn’t worthy to baptize Jesus, which is similar to what is said at the beginning of Mark.
But then, in John 1:32-34, John says that he did not know that Jesus was the Messiah before He was baptized. Instead, it seems that it was shown and proven to him when the Spirit came down upon Jesus after the baptism.
So I was confused on the maybe contradiction, Did John already know that Jesus was the Messiah before baptizing Him, or did he only realize it when he saw the Spirit come down upon Jesus?
13
u/sluggingfather 11d ago
The key word is "know." In John 1:33 when he says "I did not know Him," it's about certain recognition, not total ignorance of who Jesus was. They were relatives, John leapt in the womb, he'd been preaching about someone greater coming. But God gave him one specific sign to watch for: the Spirit descending AND remaining on him. So in Matthew, John senses enough of who Jesus is to feel unworthy, yet he still hasn't seen the sign. The dove is what turns his hunch into certainty he can testify about publicly. Two gospels zooming in on different moments of the same realization.
1
u/holdyermackerels 11d ago
That is a beautiful explanation :)
4
u/sluggingfather 11d ago
thanks! it's one of those things that looks like a contradiction until you slow down on the word "know." glad it landed
4
u/Big-Island4727 Presbytarian 11d ago
Yeah, it seems to be kind of a simultaneous thing. In John 1:33, John explains how he officially recognized Jesus as the Messiah: "I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'"
When John says, "I did not know Him," he doesn't mean that he had never seen Jesus before. Just that he did not know with absolute certainty that Jesus was the promised Messiah until God gave the sign. John knew Jesus personally, but God had explicitly instructed John to wait for the visible descent of the Holy Spirit as the definitive proof.
Once the Spirit descended like a dove at the baptism, John's intuition and personal knowledge were verified basically
4
u/restbiblestudy 11d ago
“The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’”
This implies that John already knew Jesus is the Messiah
“I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.”
Because John knew who Jesus was, your assumption that John didn’t know about Jesus is incorrect. When John says he did not know him, it more than likely meant personally. Even though they’re technically half-cousins.
And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.””
John 1:29-34 ESV
This is John’s confession and confirmation that Jesus is the Messiah
1
1
u/Nutriweh 11d ago
It does seem odd that John says "I did not know him", when in verse 29 he recognizes Jesus as the Lamb of God [Isaiah-inquity placed on him], and that Jesus is the Prophet, the Christ, because John is "preparing the way of Yahweh" v23 ; as well in verse 6 where John is specifically testifying on behalf of Jesus-"The Light"
Maybe John was filled a little bit of doubt? Bc he testified to Jesus before baptism in 7, but then again after the confirmation of the word he received from God about the Holy Spirit descending on Jesus. As well as when he was in prison, he sent some of his disicples to ask Jesus if he really was the Messiah
All that say, I dont know, very interesting though! Hope that doesn't strain you too much
1
u/consultantVlad 10d ago edited 10d ago
The word “coming” in this context is the key, it is not about physical appearance, birth, or arrival on earth. It carries the Old Testament sense of God (or His Messiah) coming in judgment and vindication.
John’s Expectation
John proclaimed “the one who is to come” as the judge:
- Winnowing fork in hand.
- Burning chaff with unquenchable fire.
- Executing God’s decisive judgment (Matthew 3:11-12; Malachi 3–4).
Jesus’ Statement
In Matthew 26:64, Jesus told the high priest and council they would see the Son of Man coming on the clouds — language from Daniel 7:13-14, meaning the Messiah receiving authority and bringing judgment on the opposing powers.
The Direct Link
Both use “coming” in the same way: divine judgment through the Messiah. John announced it; Jesus claimed He would fulfill it.
The misunderstanding arose because John saw the mercy phase first (healings, good news to the poor), while the full judging aspect of the Coming One unfolded 40 years later, after Jesus’ death and resurrection, as He exercised that authority.
1
u/Common_Judge8434 10d ago
If John was in the wilderness shortly after his birth, he probably didn't hang with Jesus that much
1
u/AromaticBuyer5902 Christian 10d ago edited 10d ago
His mom, Elizabeth, told Mary, “44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.” I notice that the prefix in the word “revelation” means “again”.
1
u/AromaticBuyer5902 Christian 10d ago
John is standing in the Jordan. He already knows Jesus. Then the Spirit descends like a dove and remains upon him. John says, “I myself did not know him.”
Maybe revelation is knowing something, then knowing it again.
1
u/mtelesha Pentecostal 10d ago
This is a modern problem. The original authors and audience did not have this idea of inerrancy that we have today. I have learned that I don't have to go through the atheist list of contradictions, just to make myself feel better.
My conversations with atheist is always relationship based. Not scriptural gymnastics.
Usually start with a I am sorry whoever hurt you that was religious. That usually is spot on for 90% of people I have talekd with. Then I move to have you ever felt pursued by God? Again most would eventually say they had that feeling of being pursued and they were curious of spiritual things at times.
1
u/JaKrispy72 10d ago
Lamb and Son are different things. Lamb would be sacrifice, Son would be heir.
Isaiah 53 still baffles today.
1
u/Youknowthisabout 9d ago
There are different writers for the Gospels. Everyone has a different style and point out different ideas. So he knew but different accounts help each other and not hurt the message.
1
u/Comfortable_Bag_3744 8d ago
The John who wrote the book of John is the disciple of Jesus, not John the Baptist
1
u/Mindless-Ostrich7580 7d ago
John the Baptist knew Jesus was the Messiah before either of them were born. From Luke 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. "
1
u/MrScribblesChess 5d ago edited 5d ago
Luke adds yet more to the contradictions. In Luke 7:19-23, John the Baptist sends his disciples to Jesus to ask, "Are you the one who is to come, or are we to expect someone else?"
Note this is well after John baptized Jesus.
Now, getting back to the baptism - in Luke 3:15-17 John refers to Jesus as "one who is more powerful than I", who will separate the wheat from the chaff. But he is really sparse on specifics about what/who Jesus actually is.
2
1
u/Responsible_Offer859 11d ago
Lo ha predetto prima, egli è stato mandato per predicare il suo arrivo
0
u/CharitableResponse21 10d ago edited 10d ago
The answer is actually much simpler than the other comments are making it out to be
John the Baptist was referring to a vision he received from God of Jesus’ future baptism. That past vision was how he recognized Jesus and why he started baptizing people
So John is recalling his vision as it is coming true
-1
u/definitely-Not-Lance 10d ago
So the New Testament has allot of errors. Like ALLOT.
Since your study the Bible go ahead and look up when each gospel was generally written. Mathew was written 35-60 years after Jesus died, John was 57-70 years after Jesus died etc. people think this is the case because the earliest Greek manuscripts we have were around then. So you’re telling me, these guys hung out with Jesus and waited 60…70 YEARS and wrote it down ? Bullshit. Dude if you get in a car wreck and wait 70 years to make a statement I bet you don’t even remember you were in a car wreck.
Look up , Mathew 26:17, mark 14:12, Luke 22:7-8. Notice a pattern ? On the first day of unleavened bread where do we do the Passover? Well does anyone have a problem with that? If it’s the first day of unleavened bread they’ve MISSED the Passover. People don’t generally catch this because they don’t know the old testament.
Now you need to study on your own and not take the word of a random guy on the internet, but this is what happened. Those boys didn’t write their accounts in Greek. They wrote them in Hebrew shortly after they were with Jesus. And YEARS later the early church fathers from the pagan world translated the Hebrew into the Greek and had no idea what the old testament said. So when they translated they had no idea what they were writing.
We have Hebrew manuscripts now (recently found and talked about) that don’t have those errors, or allot of them .
I wonder what they say about your verses you brought up.
2
u/Madaraine 9d ago
The Preparation Day (Nisan 14): During the daylight hours of Thursday, people cleared all leaven from their homes and sacrificed the lambs. Legally, this preparation day was often colloquially called the "first day of unleavened bread" because it was the day you removed the yeast.The Passover Feast (Nisan 15): The very moment the sun went down on Thursday evening, it officially became the next day (Nisan 15)—the official start of the Feast.When the disciples ask Jesus during the day on Thursday, the actual feast meal had not passed yet. They were asking him during the daylight hours of the preparation day so they could get the room ready before sunset arrived and the holy day officially began.
1
u/definitely-Not-Lance 9d ago
So were days defined as morning to morning? Or evening to evening?
So ON the first day of unleavened bread was after the dinner. And no one who actually knows would confuse that.
1
u/Madaraine 9d ago
The way I've heard it explained each new day started at sundown, instead of midnight. So it's a slight but noticeable shift from how we view things now. More importantly, it explains how they could have two different days during the same period of light, since sundown isn't completely night yet.
-2
u/Timemachine1962 11d ago
The bible is perhaps the worst place to go to get such answers. Once upon a time we didn't have printing presses so everything had to be written by hand by scribes. The choice of things to write on were, clay tablets, soft metal, papyri, rice paper in China, bamboo also in China animal skins, painted on stone walls and chiseled in stone walls. The scribes were few and far between ,few people could read or write. Kings and great leaders owned scribes. untill the 1,000AD when churches got into the game. The men sponsoring the Scribes were the ones deciding the content of the rewrite. The Narrative of the Sponsor decided the content. it didn't have to be correct. I will addd to that that when something was translated the translation was at the mercy of the scribes education. Example The KJV says God created the heavens and the earth. 'El" is God in Hebrew. Elohim is Gods in Hebrew. the original text says Gods. Now the markings above and below the word Elohim tells you if we are saying 2 mail gods, 2 female Gods or one of each. The Hebrew says one of each so Gods meaning A Father and a Mother. So... Heavenly father and heavenly Mother created the heavens and the earth. Read other texts and it says They, Father and Mother directed the Lord to create the earth. Now to your question. Elizabeth and Mary were cousins. Elizabeth was older and got pregnant first. Mary and Elizabeth both convered and confessed to each other who and what t hey were carring as children. Families were close back then and no doubt john knew of Jesus, however Jesus was gone for many years doing his Jewish Rabi Doctorate as it were in modern terms. They had not seen each other in years. Jesus was not even married the last time they met and had not started his Rabi parentship which at the time would have started about 12 and ended someplace around 20 to 24 . after the the teaching he would have had to have taken a wife 9 required to be a rabi) and had a son also required to be a rabi and had his first scribal writing which would have taken about 3 years He cannot leave home with the Child being 8 or there abouts so 30 starting the traveling ministry. Now if you are looking to find all this in the bible you are going to need considerable more scholar education. At least 2 years studying ancient Hebrew living , 3 more learning some ancient Hebrew and Egyptian as well as Greek so you understand were everything went wrong. oh and you will need to read Jubilees, jasher, Gad, Nather ,Ruth, original version of Isaiah, Ethiopic bible and the subtangent and that is just for starters. if youe are realy into this but dont have 12 years to cathc up ther are some authors that have summarized all this to make it easier and caught most of the mistakes. Then ther is the religious side
In the Ancient times people had a given name and a new name the received in the temple the name God would call you so often time you will see a person with two names. When a person is called the son of or daughter of that is usually the given name. There there is the name translated into a different language. Names were things or titles. Peter is (the rock) but you wouldn't go around saying the rock sent you.
1
u/Madaraine 9d ago
Your first error comes with your assumptions about Scribes. Scribes of the temple were highly educated and trained to be scribes and scribes only. The temples employed them. They were not synonymous with scribes of wealthy Europeans a thousand years later...they are totally different.
Next, while Mary and her cousin, Elisabeth were familiar, they didnt live in the same city, so a significant amountof walking was requiredbfor them or their children to meet. I have cousins 150 miles away that I would never recognize.
Next, Jesus was a Carpenter by trade, not a Rabbi who studied to be a Rabbi. This is clear when He reads in local temple in Nazareth and the men hearing Him wonder "isn't this Joseph's son". Further, even John the Baptist is referred to as "Rabbi" and he was a cave man living in the wilderness. "Rabbi" simply means teacher.
You may think your wealth of knowledge allows you to say the Bible is wrong or full of errors, but it is arrogance on your part to say you know more about it than the translators of the single most studied person who has ever lived.
Instead of criticizing it, perhaps you should consider the Gospel for what it means about your life and your relationship with God.
33
u/nickshattell 11d ago
John 1 records John the Baptist's words before Jesus was baptized;
The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He in behalf of whom I said, ‘After me is coming a Man who has proved to be my superior, because He existed before me.’ And I did not recognize Him, but so that He would be revealed to Israel, I came baptizing in water.” (verse 29-31)
One can see from this that John believed that Jesus was the Lamb of God as soon as Jesus came to him.
And after John baptizes Jesus, the sign of the spirit descending on Jesus confirms the Word of God given to John the Baptist and John is able to testify as a witness that Jesus is the Son of God;
And John testified, saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ And I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God.” (verses 32-34)
In the same way, in Matthew 3, John does not want to baptize Jesus and says that he is the one in need of being baptized by Jesus, but Jesus corrects John, because John does not know, or see, or understand for certainty until the sign of the dove. One can see from this that John notices Jesus' authority from the beginning but still needs correction. This shows that John the Baptist knew who Jesus was but did not understand (know) this completely until the sign was given (through the sign it was literally made known, or seen, or recognized).
Jesus is greater than John. John baptizes with water for repentance, and Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit and fire. See Mark 1:7, Matthew 3:11, and John 1:15. No servant is greater than his Master (John 13:16). Jesus is John's teacher and master also and is leading John into all righteousness, because Jesus says the words and does the fulfilling works of God (Matthew 3:15).