John 1:29-34

John 1:29-34     John’s Testimony – About Jesus

The author would narrate a series of encounters taking place over successive days. His interest was less historical than theological. He wished to lead his readers ever more deeply into the mystery of the identity of Jesus. He would mention four separate days, then his count would be interrupted: he would skip two days and put the next incident on the third day. The awkward numbering served to put the attentive reader in mind of Moses’ approach to God on Mt Sinai (which mentioned a preparatory four days, followed by a second series of three days, culminating in God’s revealing himself and his commandments to Moses).

The narrative would allow four days on which different characters would testify to their growing awareness of the mystery of Jesus. The fuller revelation would be made on the final third day.

The Lamb of God

This, then, was the second day. John’s testimony would now move from himself to concentrate clearly on Jesus.

There is no mention in the Hebrew scriptures of the actual term Lamb of God – though lambs figured frequently.

The Lamb of God – Scriptural Origins

Victorious Lamb. By his reference to “the lamb who takes away the sin of the world”, the historical John (the Baptist) may have had in mind a figure found in much apocalyptic literature of the period. This was a conquering lamb, killed, yet ultimately triumphant over its enemy, the evil of the world. Possibly, in the literature, the figure represented faithful Israel, suffering, yet destined to be victorious. One such apocalyptic Christian work, The Book of Revelation, prophesied:

Paschal Lamb. Distinct from the historical John, the author may have had in mind a different image drawn from Israel’s glorious past – the lamb killed at Passover. Towards the end of the Gospel narrative [19.36], he would expressly draw attention to the fact that Jesus' crucifixion began at midday of the day preceding Passover, the moment when lambs were killed in the Jerusalem Temple in preparation for the Paschal supper. The Paschal Lamb, however, was never referred to as the Lamb of God, nor was it directly associated with the removal of the sin of the world. The ritual celebrated liberation from oppression – the lamb’s blood sprinkled at the entry to the Israelite homes substituting for the blood of Israel’s firstborn sons. 

Blood of God. The author may also have had in mind a further figure – the goat or lamb [the one Hebrew word meant lamb or young goat] killed on the Feast of Atonement. That animal was referred to as being “of God”. According to the ritual, its blood symbolized the blood [or life] of God. With this blood, God, represented by the high priest, symbolically purified creation. In the process, God took away the sin of the world, offered reconciliation to humanity and brought it to “at-one-ment”.

Suffering Servant. Some scholars see a further possibility. In John's native language, Aramaic, the same word, literally meaning “young one”, was commonly used to refer to both lambs and servants. As in English, the Greek did not have one single word to cover both meanings of the Aramaic word, so the author opted for “lamb”. However, Second Isaiah, writing from Babylon during the period of Israelite captivity five centuries earlier, had spoken of an unidentified figure who came to be called the “Suffering Servant”. This innocent “Servant” would “bear our infirmities”, give his “life as an offering for sin” and remain dignified despite the degradation and dehumanization that his oppressors would seek to inflict on him [Isaiah 53.11]. This Gospel, however, would put no emphasis on Jesus’ suffering and would clearly show a Jesus fully in control during the entire time of his passion.

The sin taken away by the Lamb of the atoning God was the world’s sin: the phrase meant something other than the accumulation of everyone's individual sins. It referred to the power that cultures, community attitudes, group interactions etc. exert over individual persons – tending to blind them and to diminish their freedom.

As the Gospel unfolded, the author would make clear that sin consisted essentially in darkness and disbelief – the unwillingness, or inability, of the world to see the attitudes and works of Jesus as revealing the mind and heart of God.

Such structural sin, since it is more impersonal than personal, requires not so much forgiveness as a more radical removal through 

• exposing it for what it is, 
• leading people to clear awareness of their almost inevitable complicity in it, 
• and empowering them to change.

The love shown by the innocent and non-vindictive Jesus, his love and truth – revealed throughout his life and actualized particularly in his death and resurrection – would forever expose sin for what it is and be source of discernment and empowerment for people. As the revelation of God made flesh, he would take away the sin of the world.

John’s denial of any previous historical encounter with Jesus served to highlight the supernatural origin of his witness to Jesus.

John made no clear reference to whether he had personally baptised Jesus. He did, however, witness Jesus’ anointing by the Spirit. More significantly, he testified that the Spirit rested on him. The continuing narrative would assume Jesus’ continuous intimacy with the Spirit of God. (In a variety of contexts and translations scattered throughout the narrative, the author would make regular use of the concept of resting/remaining. For him, the word was laden with meaning.)

The Spirit's coming down upon persons and resting with them contained the essence of what was otherwise referred to as anointing. Third Isaiah had said of himself:

Isaiah understood the Spirit's anointing him as constituting him as prophet. Within the tradition, kings and priests were also liturgically anointed. Jesus would embody, re-interpret and immeasurably fulfil all three roles.

John stated that Jesus would baptise with the Holy Spirit. According to the scriptural mindset, the Spirit of God is the creative love and truth of God at work in the world. Indeed, it would be by baptising the world with the Holy Spirit that Jesus would take away the sin of the world.

Jesus himself, full of love and truth, would plunge – baptise – the world into the love and faithful integrity of God. The world would be called and empowered to live and act with love, trust, honesty, justice and integrity. Unfortunately, history has shown that the world chose not to recognise him [1:10].

Baptising with the Holy Spirit

Like the High Priest in the Rite of Atonement, Jesus would himself “take on” himself the sin of the world. As the Paschal Lamb, by his crucifixion, he would lay down his life for the liberation of the world.

But the story would not end there. Jesus, who had absorbed the world’s hatred and its cruel violence (disguised as political expediency, national security and sheer power), would rise out of death, and his immediate message on the night of his resurrection would be not revenge, or even triumph, but simply: “Peace be with you” [20.19,21,26]. The work of the world's restoration and recreation – reconciliation and atonement – had been accomplished.

He would answer the world’s violence – the sin of the world – with calm forgiveness and the gift of peace.  He would meet evil with love. He would baptise the world with the Holy Spirit, the love of God at large. 

John’s witness to Jesus climaxed with a wonderful profession of his personal faith in Jesus. It would provide a precedent for the disciples as they, too, pursued their journey of faith.

Next >> John 1:35-39