Garbage Removal (2)
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! John 1:29 ESV
Takes away – We continue.
Luke is the only writer who suggests John’s preaching is connected to forgiveness.
“And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins;” Luke 3:3
But even here we must note two important things. First, Luke’s audience is Gentiles. Matters of socio-political expectation for Israel are not in this audience’s sitz im leben. Their concerns are clearly more religious than socio-political, given the background of Greek philosophy that was ubiquitous in Hellenism.
Secondly, we should note the manifestation of John’s preaching forgiveness of sins, according to Luke:
“And the crowds were questioning him, saying, ‘Then what shall we do?’ And he would answer and say to them, ‘The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise.’ And some tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, ‘Teacher, what shall we do?’ And he said to them, ‘Collect no more than what you have been ordered to.’ Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, ‘And what about us, what shall we do?’ And he said to them, ‘Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages.’” Luke 3:10-14
Even in Luke, the outcome of forgiveness is completely situated in the social realm. There are no instructions about worship, religious ritual or dogma. For John the Baptist, forgiveness is preeminently shown in human interactions. John never mentions heaven or personal rescue to another world.
To this we must add Paul’s later remarks:
1 Cor 15:17 “and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.”
Paul’s comment raises some serious questions about John’s proclamation when it comes to personal salvation. First, we must note that Yeshua was beginning his ministry. Death and resurrection were a long way off, as yet only a possibility after a long road of obedience. If Paul is correct, then salvation is tied to the resurrection, not necessarily to the action of forgiveness. That might sound odd since we tend to incorporate these two ideas into one process. We believe salvation is the result of conviction, repentance and forgiveness. But we leave out the crucial step, not of our own doing, that the faithfulness of the Messiah and his resurrection are necessary conditions of salvation. We aren’t saved because we repent. We are saved because he was faithful. This is why Paul can argue that we are still in our sins without the resurrection. Because resurrection is the proof of the Kingdom, we now serve a King who cannot die. Therefore, his Kingdom is eternal and in his eternal Kingdom we are, at last, welcomed as citizens.
When John uses the expression “Lamb of God,” there are clear references to the Passover lamb. But the Passover lamb is not a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. The Passover lamb is a symbol of God’s aversion to death. Obedience was a sign of submission to God’s authority and exemption from the consequences of denying God’s authority. If John has this type in mind, then his use of “Lamb of God” isn’t about personal salvation as the Church teaches. It is about setting aside the consequences of sin, i.e. death. His baptism marked the supplicant’s alignment with obedience to YHVH and trust in God’s benevolence. Perhaps this is the reason why John’s words are not limited to the socio-political arena of Israel. This Lamb of God sets aside the ultimate consequence of sin for the world. Yeshua himself intimates such a scope when he speaks with Nicodemus about the “pole” Moses lifts up in the wilderness.
Topical Index: repentance, forgiveness, salvation, aírō,sṓzō, takes away, John 1:29
In the book of Jude we find that the teaching of the first prophet, Enoch, gave the world specific visions of the ultimate end of evil and the Second Coming of Christ. We cannot make statements that people had no hope of eternal life as a consequence of forgiveness of sin, for Job talks about it, as well as David, and most of all, Isaiah, who were all prophets who saw the future and wrote about it, as quoted repeatedly by the NT authors as they saw those prophecies come to pass. The notion of eternal life was not a new concept to the world: it’s just that after the resurrection I think it suddenly became clear as to HOW it was a plausible concept.
We can see that people (such as Job) hoped against hope up until that time, but we cannot say that they thought their measly earthly existence was all they had. For example, we can see that people knew perfectly well that Enoch (and Elijah!) had gone to the good place for good. Even the Egyptians had some concept of an afterlife (don’t go telling me that God thought the Egyptians had such a good idea that He decided to do it Himself). Enoch’s son Methuselah taught Ham’s father, Noah, and Ham fathered those Egyptians. These folks not only had long lives: we know they had long memories, too. I mean, exactly how long was it before Enoch’s prophecies got written down?
There is no way to “set aside the consequences of sin” (which, of course, is death) without blood, for blood is life. If sins are “washed in the blood of the Lamb” that means that the consequences of death have been erased by the (resurrected) life of that innocent Lamb, but it took Him bleeding out that life first. Our sins killed Him just as surely as His death erased those sins; returning us to back to life with Him. Life and death have been woven together irrevocably by that Lamb. We now don’t get one without the other. Death: His real one and our vicarious one to self and sin: is the only way to live (resurrection) for us, but the folks BC and AD (sorry, can’t get used to pagan CE) are all saved (that would be for eternity) the same way (through Yeshua) together. Even the wicked thief on the cross (um, that would be pre-resurrection) knew about eternal life as being somehow connected with Messiah (I don’t think he thought salvation was merely about living the good life in the flesh). Surely he wasn’t the only one in Israel who did, or else what do we make of Martha’s baldfaced faith statement in John 11:24 about knowing that her brother, Lazarus, would “be raised up in the last day”? Where did she, too, get such a notion; pre-resurrection?
P.S. Yeshua Himself tied the concept of forgiveness of sins with salvation when He simultaneously forgave sins and healed sickness and reversed death. If forgiveness of sin and disease and death reversal is not salvation, then what is? I think we are not going to be able to split the hair of salvation into separate components. I think it is all of a piece and that Yeshua did it all, as per all the prophecies about Him (He did nothing but fulfill those prophecies, as He continuously pointed out) and that is all any of us need to know. I think anybody who tries to minimize what He has, is, and will continuously be doing for us for forever is just going to be spinning circles in a very little pond in the dark.
Amen! (Preach it, Sister!)
In Matthew 3:1 John the Baptizer says, “Repent for the Kingdom of God is near” (and cf. 3:11), and in Matthew 11:20 Jesus denounces those cities in which He performed most of His miracles, for the people did not repent, explaining that if these miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon the people of those cities would have “repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes” (11:21), implying this would have alleviated their judgment (11:21-24), which also implies their forgiveness. Does this not indicate that John the Baptist’s call for repentance was tied to forgiveness, as well (see the entirety of Matthew 11)?
According to the TW, “John never mentions heaven or personal rescue to another world.” One must define “Kingdom of God” in Matthew and “Kingdom of Heaven” in Mark and Luke.
How about ‘Restoring mankind to the manufacturer’s specifications”; the return to cosmological harmony and productivity under the sovereign administration of God through mankind. Oh, and by the way, the “EO” is ALWAYS in.
Can you define “EO” for me?
“Executive Officer”
OK, so you see a distinction between “restoration” and “forgiveness”. How is one “restored”? Through contrition, correct? Who accepts this contrition?
I don’t see a distinction…an “either or”. I see restoration as proceeding from the forgiveness of a merciful Father who graciously receives the one who turns to him. If by ‘contrition’ you mean the genuine recognition by the human creature of his/her transgression against the desires and purposes of the Creator, then Scripture indicates that the Father is the one who accepts ‘contrition’, through Christ Jesus, who justifies such mercy shown by God toward his intended administrator/representative (man), whom He created.
For clarification, in my analogy the Father is the “EO”; the Son acts as the Administative Head (no dishonor intended). (But here it becomes simply foolishness, for they are One and far surpassing my (or any other) silly attempt at analogy.)
I don’t see a problem with listing identity by function, Richard; but, then, that’s just me.
Then it appears we are saying the same thing, in essence.
Well then, in essence that’s cool!
What does the Apostle Paul say elsewhere?
The cross provided the efficacy—1 Cor 15:3, “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures”; the resurrection was: (a) the proof of the efficacy of the former (cf. 1 Cor 15:4), and (b) the firstfruit promise of the future resurrection to life (1 Cor 15:20) of those who believe in Him who provided the Way. One cannot be without the other. But it was the cross that provided the means/expiation/substitution.
It is telling that “it is finished” was pronounced over the cross; not the grave. The work was done at that point. Resurrection was expected for One who had not sinned, for the grave could not keep Him. The way I read the text, He rested as long as He did to honor the Sabbath.
He said that the life was in Himself. He did not ever lose that life as He did not ever sever His relationship (which is that life) through sin. His cooperation with His Father was a choice. It was a choice He made to walk the walk of total dependence that we need to do: He did not have to be submissive. If He said that He “laid down” His own life and retained the ability to “raise” Himself, who am I to doubt Him?` The resurrection is an important part of our salvation, but I think of it as a result of salvation: not as salvation itself. Salvation happened at the cross – complete with blood – as Paul points out. Life is a given at that point. I read that it was the cross, not the grave, that restored our connection to God (conversely, nowhere do I read that it was the grave that did that). Death, not life, is the hard part for God, I would imagine (as it is for us, too).
If the Jews choose not to believe that blood atoned for sin, I can see why they think they have to believe that, but it certainly makes it hard to understand what exactly they thought they were doing with all that blood!
If I fully understand you (and it’s possible I’m overlooking a nuance here that is in partial objection to my previous comment), my only quibble would be: If He said that He “laid down” His own life and retained the ability to “raise” Himself, who am I to doubt Him? While I concur that Jesus had the power to raise Himself (John 2:19-22—“I will raise” is in the active voice), in John 10:17-18 He receives the authority (exousia) to both lay down and take up (airō) His life (psychē) from the Father. The important word there is exousia, “authority”, over against dynamis, “power”. That is, the Father granted Him the authority, though the Son already possessed the inherent power.
We are agreeing. I think the authority He was under was voluntary: which is to say that He COULD HAVE authored His own resurrection, but He CHOSE TO be under the authority of His Father in regards to His own life. The Father’s response? Hand that authority right back to His Son. We get a first-Person glimpse at how love works from God’s standpoint. Nothing is done from the standpoint of power FOR POWER’S SAKE; authority is not taken advantage of; everything is done from a position of the power of choice (everyone here is freely choosing, which is to say, they MADE UP what happened (because they could have done anything) and they agreed together on it), but I can see that love always chooses to use that power (of choice) to invest in faith (risk): to be ‘under’: to “serve”. We see that even God submits! The way I see it, love asks nothing of anyone that it is not only willing and able to do, but DOES FIRST. That is something I can trust!
Let me add something tangential that I find hilarious, though it’s only found when one looks at the Greek. In 10:17 Jesus states, …hoti egō tithēmi tēn psychēn mou…, “…that I ‘put’/’lay aside’ the life of Me…” (“that I lay down my life”); and, in 10:18 He states, oudeis airei [from airō] autēn ap’ emou…, “no one takes it [tēn psychēn] from Me”. Then in 10:24 His adversaries ask, using an idiom that it is now not fully understood:
Interestingly, though tēn psychēn remains singular the personal pronoun (hēmōn, our) is plural.
Fascinating and humorous…Jewish adversaries of a Jewish rabbi, bantering in an exhibition typical of Jewish witticism…all translated into the Greek vernacular of the day!
Yes!
“Life for life.” The life of the ‘flesh’ is in the blood. The blood of atonement covers the shame of the exposure of the sin (transgression) of our flesh that leads to death. That is demonstrated and consummated at the cross.
“The Spirit is life.” That life of the ‘spirit’ is in the Spirit. The Spirit of life is eternal. That is demonstrated and affirmed by the resurrection of Messiah. It will be our experience at Messiah’s return.
“The Spirit, by which you are sealed and by which you shall live.” Following the waving (and lifting) of the firstfruits offering on Yom Bikkurim is the counting of the omer- the anticipatory count to attaining that hope of fullness of the grain harvest and the food/bread that sustains life. This is demonstrated by the giving of the Spirit in fullness on Pentecost, the day that completes the counting.
“But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.” – Romans 8.10-11
Salvation is wrapped in forgiveness.
Miraculously, God has designed forgiveness to be
reciprocal . . . . and He’s designed it to get us somewhere.
First, Yeshua’s shed blood on the cross and His resulting
resurrection was forgiveness for sins far beyond what man
can do. But God is also asking that man forgive his fellow
man, too, just as God forgives him. In God’s mind, forgiveness
has to be reciprocal so man can truly please God by obediently
living out true faith.
And where does this get man?
“I go to prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you
to be with me that you also may be where I am.” Jn 14:3
From the TW:
The term ho airōn, “[the One] Who takes up/away” is a present active participle, prefaced by the article, making it a nominative in apposition to (another designation for) “The Lamb”. The verb may be used in a proleptic, futurisitic sense; or, it may be timeless/atemporal, with the focus on the verb’s continuous (imperfective) aspect. I think the latter makes better sense of the overall context of John’s Gospel and Scripture in general.
Greek is an aspect-prominent language, as compared to English which is time-prominent. Aspect signifies the speaker’s or writer’s perspective of the verb’s action. There are two (or three—depending on how one interprets the Greek “perfect” tense-form) aspects in ancient Greek. The aorist is the only one indicating perfective (think ‘complete-ive’, though not necessarily indicating a completed action). The “present” tense-form and the “imperfect” tense-form are both imperfective in aspect, indicating action as continuing, without reference to its beginning or endpoint. Comparatively, the perfective aspect in the aorist specifically means the beginning and endpoint are included (even if the end is in the future).
In a nutshell, since a strict present temporal reference does not seem to work well here in John 1:29, understanding the verb as focusing on its continuous aspect harmonizes better with the context in John and Scripture overall. Though Christ’s crucifixion would be in the future from the perspective of John the Baptizer’s statement, the Lamb was slain from the foundations of the world (Rev 13:8).
I should note that, for whatever the reason, John’s Gospel uses amnos for Lamb [of God] (1:29, 36; cf. Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19), while Revelation 13:8 uses arnion (27 of the 28 uses are throughout Revelation, with the remaining one in John 21:15).
Craig, once again you have provided quite a bit of insight relative to the grammatical construct of the Greek text, which I find both interesting and helpful (insofar as I am able to follow your precise analysis). Thanks for your contributions to the group.
I recognize the temporal aspects of koine greek can be significant. I wonder if in this case the fact is that the resurrection connects us ultimately with the final judgement and salvation (in that we are temporally saved from it -at that time). Furthermore, those who have faith in God through Jesus Christ (Yeshua HaMashiach) have been (temporally) already resurrected ‘unto’ eternal life at that time (“complete-ive”; not yet temporally completed). If you will, in accordance with God’s purposes there exists a kind of projected temporal reality ever much part our experience as if we had already experienced it temporally. In other words, ‘eternal’ seems to be the sense of aspect here; an aspect, I think, which is lacking in the Greek.
Richard,
What you are outlining is known as inaugurated eschatology (some call it realized eschatology, but that has some negative connotations). In shorthand this called ‘the already but not yet’. John’s Gospel in particular promotes this (e.g. 5:24-25). Paul’s writings also illustrate this at times (e.g. Eph. 2:6).
Actually, Ephesians 2:6 nicely illustrates your position. Both verbs—“raised together” and “seated with”—are aorist (perfective aspect). This is best rendered in English as the English past tense, but I don’t think that’s what Paul intends. It’s obviously not a ‘done-deal’, as all reading this are currently right here on this earth! It seems that the best way to understand is to do so as a sort of bridge between the ‘already’ and ‘not yet’. In other words, all true believers (who remain true believers) have a future inheritance, and that inheritance has its beginning in the here and now. Understanding this as such means that the temporal reference/sphere in both aorist verbs here began with the first believer in Christ and continues on into the next age.