Saving Grace
The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! John 1:29 NASB
Takes Away– “Take up and carry”? Or, maybe, “carry off.” The Greek verb, aíro, can mean either. “Whether the sense in Jn. 1:29 is ‘to take up and carry,’ i.e., in a vicarious bearing of penalty, or ‘to carry off,’ i.e., to remove by expiation, is debatable. If there is a reference to the Servant of the Lord, the former is more likely, but Lamb of God favors the latter: ‘takes away the sin of the world’ (by the atoning power of his blood; cf. 1 Jn. 1:7).”[1]
In order to know which one John the Baptist meant, we have to attempt to understand the words in Hebrew. John didn’t say them in Greek. So we’ll have to investigate the Hebrew possibilities before we tackle the Greek. There are many possible choices here. Chaim Bentorah mentions the fact that there are fifteen different Hebrew words that could be translated “take away,” so the field is very large.[2] We might consider at least these four important possibilities:
lāqaḥ: take (get, fetch), lay hold of (seize), receive, acquire (buy), bring, marry (take a wife), snatch (take away).[3] Perhaps the most common of the choices, used more than 1000 times.
gāraʿ: clip, diminish, restrain, take from, withdraw, abate, do away
šālaḥ: send, send away, let go. A particularly important usage is found in the instructions about atonement in Leviticus 16.
nāśāʾ: lift, carry, take. This verb is found in Isaiah 53:12, a description of the Suffering Servant.
aírō, the Greek translation of the Hebrew, actually seems to fit nāśāʾ. Both the possible meanings in Hebrew, “to carry off” and “to lift up”, can be attributed to the Greek verb. Maybe John used the Hebrew nāśāʾ because it reminded his audience of Yeshua’s connection to the Isaiah prophecy. When discussing the range of nāśāʾ, Kaiser notes:
“The second semantical category, of bearing or carrying, is used especially of bearing the guilt or punishment of sin. Thus Cain complains in Gen 4:13, ‘My punishment is greater than I can bear.’ The expression ‘he shall bear his iniquity’ occurs frequently (Lev 5:1, 17; 7:18; Num 5:31; 14:34, etc.). This leads easily into the idea of bearing the guilt of another by representation or substitution (Lev 10:17) or of the scapegoat (Lev 16:22). The root sābal, ‘to bear a burden’ in Isa 53:11 is paralleled in the next verse by nāśāʾ ‘the Servant bore the sins of many,’ as in Isa 53:4”[4]
If John used nāśāʾ, then he pointed his audience to the scapegoat characteristic of Yeshua, a representative of the people who took on their burden by substitution. This is not quite the same as “atone/expiate.” What this might mean is that the death on the cross is not an atonement but rather a substitution. The law governing atonement is still operative and continued long after the death of the Messiah because his death did not replace the Levitical commands. His death was a way to lift the burden through replacement but the requirement for personal atonement remained. Or maybe we’ll never really know what John had in mind and we’ll have to live with someone’s translation of his actual words. Do you think that’s good enough?
What do we learn from this little exercise? At least this much: we often believe that what we read in the apostolic writings is the exact representation of what God wants us to know. Then we discover that we are subject to the translator’s version of the original, but now lost, Hebrew statements. So we aren’t actually in touch with what the original speakers said, even if the speaker is Yeshua himself. What we eventually realize is that we believe in theological constructions of the original. Is that good enough for you?
Topical Index: substitution, atonement, nāśāʾ, lāqaḥ, gāraʿ, šālaḥ, take away, John 1:29
[1]Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament(29). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
[2] https://www.chaimbentorah.com/2018/05/hebrew-word-study-take-away/
[3]Kaiser, W. C. (1999). 1124 לָקַח. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (481). Chicago: Moody Press.
[4]Kaiser, W. C. (1999). 1421 נָשָׂא. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (601). Chicago: Moody Press.
There are two types of belief for me when I read the Bible. One of them is that what is being said is a true representation of what God inspired the writer to write: that it means something real on God’s end. The other type is what strikes my heart about what was written: what rings true FOR ME. If I did not have both types, reading the Bible would just be a semantic exercise: I could just as well have read the phone book. However, I think there is an important difference between the two types, even though I think they can overlap when I approach the Bible (if I remember that I must never read the Word alone, that is: I must always remember to invite it’s Interpreter along). That difference includes what Skip labors so hard to do, which is to make sure that we have understood what the writer understood as much as possible, but also I think we must not forget that the writer was not writing something he just made up: he himself is struggling (sometimes very, very hard) to convey things that lie as far beyond his understanding (or more) than what he wrote lies beyond ours. For example, when the prophets got shown visions of the possible future, they didn’t get a dictionary of that future to work with. Those who got shown our end times (a lot of them wrote about our times) got shown our cities, modern lifestyle, etc, too. They also got shown symbolic representations of spiritual implications of what could happen, too. I am sure they struggled just as hard to describe what they got shown as we should struggle to read what they wrote!
The second part of the difference between the two types of belief for me when I read the Word lies in my personal take on it: a combo of what has convicted me as accurate or true in the past as well as my ever-expanding experience and the convictions and experience of others that I bring fresh to the text each time. My conviction that the Word is true: that it represents truth from heaven’s point of view is not the same as how I interpret that truth: get it out of the box on the other end and switch it on in my life. As I struggle to apply it in my life – to see how it works for me and those around me – I have learned to hold it with a very loose rein, because each encounter with that Word not only changes me (which all convicting truth does to all of us) but my understanding of it changes right along with that change in me. My little apple cart gets tipped over or overloaded or abandoned all the time. And that’s great! Here’s to all our little apple carts today: may we show up at Skip’s table at God’s farmer’s market to see what happens together. Halleluah!
A Workman is worthy of his labor, the wages our righteousness in the Lord for the individual and put the one he prays for.. study and show yourself approved, we know the rest. Hallelujah thank you. Skip the work here is usually very easy to confirm. The hard work has already been done. The reward is in the referencing, to lift the Lord High. He has exalted his word even above his name. Psalm 138 verse 2, yes you have made you or greater than your name in my understanding underscores his word with his name.. he stands behind what he says.
Brother Brett, I don’t always understand what you say…but i do ‘feel’ your passion for Him.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was hoping for something to back up the Bible study for this week. Right on target. God is amazing. When we dig for the truth we will find it, those who seek for him diligently, he will be they’re great reward…. Trust in the Lord always and lean not on your own understanding. I apologize I had not seen Mrs Hayes reply yet. When I dig my roots deep, I usually find out what God is saying to the children of Israel, the sons of Jacob, and of course me.
If I was able to theologically construct white,
I might produce literally hundreds of varying
shades and hues of white. They all exist.
But wouldn’t most people, regardless of the hue,
still see white?
How one sees white is what makes us all individuals.
How we understand white might surprise us if we were
asked to describe it. We do vary.
Still, true white is God’s business.
I’m pressing on to get as close to Him and His ways
and His thoughts as I can. All of us are.
As an artist, I read your comments with the understanding of “hue” as what I want reflected back into the observers eyes from the canvas; even so I recognize that there is a subjective element to consider, because not all retinas are created equal.
Just for kicks I looked up the term “hue” on Wikipedia…wow! Talk about an opportunity for a range of possibilities of understanding. It made me sense amazement that any meaningful consistency or singularity can be intelligibly communicated at all.
How profound, then, is the statement of John…”And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we have “beheld’ his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
If it were “good enough” I dare say we wouldn’t be here with you, Skip. Press on!
I’m not convinced that searching for a supposed ‘original’ Hebrew (or, more likely, Aramaic) statement is the correct way to go. Now, before going further, I’m not necessarily negating the entirety of the explanation provided for the meaning here. There is no doubt a reference to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.
The “apostolic” writings are written in Greek. This mustn’t mean the Biblical author recalled the exact words—in this case, of John the Baptizer—and consciously ‘translated’ them into Koine Greek. Each Biblical author wrote in his own vernacular and with a specific purpose. The Gospel of John especially is unique in that it’s a reframing of some of the Synoptic material for theological and christological purposes. In fact, the writer of John specifically transliterates certain Aramaic and Hebrew words when he deems necessary.
In the present example airō is likely multivalent, to include the meaning of being ‘taken up’, or ‘lifted up’ on the cross. John uses this same verb in 10:18: “no one airō it [My life (psychē)] from Me…”. In addition it is used (ironically) in the imperative by Jesus’ Jewish adversaries in 19:15: “airō, airō, crucify him!” His adversaries may have demanded that He be airō, but “no one airō it from Me”. Jesus allowed Himself to be ‘taken up’ voluntarily (this is stressed in John’s Gospel, though the Synoptics are a bit ambivalent [‘if possible, take this cup from Me, yet not My will but Yours be done’ compared to John 18:11, e.g.]).
A Messianic teaching from the weekly Torah Portion several months ago…”The Pesach Lamb was a sacrifice, but it was NOT a sacrifice for sin. “The blood shall be a sign for you on the houses. When I see the blood, I will pass over and no plague will befall you.” Exodus 12:13 Did God really need a sign. Didn’t He know which houses belonged to the Hebrews. Of course He did. God wanted to familiarize His people with the concepts of sacrifice and blood atonement, because one day their lives would depend on it. The ritual of the lamb’s blood at Passover provided Israel with a marvelous object lesson…to prepare all of us for understanding the atoning work of Yeshua. The Passover lamb is foundational for understanding the gospel. Just as the Passover lamb needed to be unblemished and flawless, we need a sinless substitute to take our place in judgement. Just as the blood markings protected everyone in the house, we need total shelter under the spilled blood of Messiah. Just as the firstborn of those who did not prepare a passover lamb were struck down, so too, those outside Messiah are without hope.
The Passover lamb was the avenue of escape that God provided in Egypt and it was not just for the Hebrews. Had the Egyptians scarified a lamb according to the instructions and applied its blood to the doorposts of their houses, they too would have been spared. The sacrificial death of Yeshua (AND, our repentant hearts…teshuva) is the avenue of escape that God has provided to spare us from the condemnation of eternal death. One need not be Jewish to benefit. One only needs to be under the blood of Yeshua. Yeshua’s crucifixion validates the Resurrection, First Fruits, Conquering death, that Yeshua is who He says He is, and our future. Where oh death is thy victory…where is thy sting!! (The Torah is very much a part of the gospel, and the message of the gospel is quite meaningless without the Torah.)
“those outside Messiah are without hope.”
Hi Judy, I can buy this statement within the limits of Gentile application but I have a LOT of trouble accepting it in on a Jewish basis, particularly since the RCC decided to go with Yeshua as a trinitarian God in 325CE rather than divine in the most exalted sense expressible, whatever that might be.
How and when and why this developed is impossible to nail down but I dont see the problem with a Jew in any age who is as faithful as possible to Torah anytime, anywhere since Sinai, pre or post Messiah being righteous to God. To my mind faithful is faithful absolutely but particularly when God becomes more than One God by any fancy descriptive definition but especially one that is implied at best.
Yeshua said definitively that “nobody comes to the Father except by me”. What does that mean? It has to mean that He is the saving vector: the conduit whereby we have access to the Father’s love again, whether we know it or not. Will many heathen be saved? Absolutely! How? By what they mentally assented to (the best they knew) or by Christ, whether they knew Him or not? Saving happens on God’s end, not ours, after all. Those who do not harden their hearts to love will be led by love and saved by their obedience to that leading, regardless of what is in their poor heads.
I was taught that people are only judged by what they know OR HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW if they chose – not by what they don’t or didn’t. However, salvation has no provision for “willful blindness”, which Yeshua also made clear. Truth convicts. If we harden our hearts to the truth we have been exposed to, we will be judged for that hardening. Those who have had no such exposure, and therefore, no hardening, won’t. Jews, Gentiles or heathen are saved by Christ if they are living up to the best light that they have.
Only hardened hearts in opposition to exposed truth will be judged, for they have JUDGED that truth (instead of allowing it to judge them) and we are told that we will be judged as we have judged. That includes whatever truth we have been exposed to. The Holy Spirit convicts. It is rejection of that conviction that will expose us to judgment. Yeshua taught that, too.
Truth rings a bell – conscience – in every one of us, even the most hardened. Truth is never neutral: it evokes a reaction in everyone. Truth changes everyone exposed to it in one of two ways. It either softens the heart or hardens it because we either argue with it (in an attempt to resist that change) and thus change our hearts for the worse (hardened, or less able to accept any further truth by means of confirmation bias) or embrace it whereby we become yet more able to hear and obey the next truth and so are changed for the better.
My mama always said that you don’t get the next lesson until you learned the last one. The Jews have had no new light for 2,000 years. They are still stumbling, whether they know it or not. Will the ones who have not had an opportunity to examine the truth (rather, be examined by that truth) be saved according to all that they have been convicted of? Absolutely! But if truth ever convicted them, but their response to it was a hardening of the heart, then at that point they lose further light and so “stumble in darkness”. Some of them are stumbling a lot! But this goes for Christians too, who have also had opportunity to be convicted that the Law applies to them. If they use confirmation bias to reject that truth, then they stumble too. Some of them are stumbling a lot!
Let us resolve to not harden our hearts when truth speaks to us.
Laurita, let’s get down to specifics on this for example Rabbi Akiva of the 1st – 2nd century CE was a highly respected rabbi as you may know. He was wrong twice about the Messiah in his era, first with Yeshua and second with Simon bar Kokhba who he thought was the Messiah. As I understand it accepting or rejecting ANYONE as the Messiah was, is not a hallmark for orthodoxy in Judaism and never will be as it is with Torah and Shema. Rabbi Akiva was a leading contributor to the Mishnah and to Midrash halakha and he still has a big impact on people’s lives today. I would describe him as a righteous Jew par excellence.
Now let’s take a typical RCC raised child like me for example who has a baptismal certificate and was confirmed at the age of about 12 along with a class of probably 40/50 others, probably more. Today who knows where each one is individually in their spiritual lives but I know some who live dramatically unorthodox lives shall we gently say. As I read you, regardless of what our lives consist of since confirmation, we are all saved, while Rabbi Akiva is dead in the water floating belly up and so is every other righteous Torah faithful Jew especially those who reject Yeshua as being God but who might accept him otherwise but for Christian dogma.
Hear O Israel (Jews) the Lord, the Lord our God (Jews and gentiles together) is One, not three in one. It was always about Jews and Gentiles together, but separate, a root and a branch joined as one.
Am I right or wrong?
p.s. Yeshua was 100% Torah perfect. Is not that the ultimate truth test?
George, perhaps you tried to read me through your paradigm. Well, here’s mine (I reserve the right to be wrong, of course).
There have been many “righteous Jews”, and we are going to be sharing eternity with them, as there have been many righteous heathen and Christians, etc., living up to the light they had (yes, surely even some of those amazing artists who created all that religious art for Rome): that’s all any of us are judged on, after all. BUT, if those of us who have had lots of light opportunities choose to turn a blind eye to whatever does not fit our paradigm instead of hearts tender for the truth, we stumble in the dark we created. That goes for Jews, Christians and everybody: including you and all the others in your particular confirmation class (hey, including me!). The Holy Spirit will convict anybody not hardened to truth that they are exposed to, but there is no provision for willful blindness AFTER exposure; which is to say, after being convicted that the truth that has been presented is true. That is a sin against the Holy Spirit, and there is no further remedy for anybody after that.
The Jews and the Christians are both branches; its just that neither branch is more or less special than the other. Christ is the root of both. The way I see it, the Christians do bear blame for excluding Jews, but the Jews bear blame for excluding Christians, too. They are BOTH guilty because they both need to fix the problem TOGETHER, but somehow I doubt that is going to happen at the level of the Pope shaking hands with Jewish leadership over a temple getting built in Jerusalem or not. The Jews are still going to have to embrace their Messiah (and no, that is not the one they are dreaming of coming to a rebuilt third Temple but the one who came to the second one) and the Christians are still going to have to embrace the Law (and no, that is not the amended one Rome came up with)!
Rabbi Akiva has a lot of good stuff; I like a lot of it, but you could not say that it is new light: the good parts, that I can see, anyway, are rehashed basics – wonderful basics, but not new, groundbreaking bases, but, according to my paradigm and what I think of is the case, whether or not we share eternity with him is going to be determined by whether or not he accepted or rejected light that he was CONVICTED was true, regardless of how ‘good’ (or not: think thief on the cross) he was otherwise.
Torah is the same proving ground for all people, but the “types and shadows” pointing to Christ: the ceremonial law given by angels to Moses, was flannel-graph helps for kindergarteners: pictures of Messiah to come and He was the real deal: what He fulfilled (no, the Ten Commands were not types or shadows of anything) is done. The Jews want all the types and shadow pictures to still point to something and the Christians want it all to already be fulfilled and so I think they agree on silly fights that allow both sides to keep their fantasies. Neither of them want to share those Commands as belonging to all, with Messiah being the rest. So the fight continues. The best I think I can do is refuse to carry water for either side.
Very well summarized Laurita and I agree with your conclusion; “The best I can do is refuse to carry water for either side” which is why I no longer call myself a Christian but a Messianic believer. Anything more carries too much political baggage including a trinitarian God which I think you favour.
The Shema explanation that I included which I think was developed or explained by Mark Nanos maybe, covers both Jew and Gentile. With N.T. Wright providing covenantal explanation of eternal (re)new(ed) (Jewish) Gentile covenant for both parties, I rest in the peace of a grace AND works faith of my monotheistic God.