In John 1:29, John the Baptist says that Jesus is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. (I draw here from the KJV.) This passage has long puzzled me. Did John the Baptist believe that Jesus would die on the cross for people's sins, in a time when many Jews did not have that particular conception of the Messiah? If so, then why did John arrive at a point where he seriously questioned that Jesus was the Messiah (Matthew 11:13; Luke 7:18-20), perhaps because he expected for the Messiah to overthrow Israel's oppressors, and there he was in prison? I realize that I'm conflating John's Gospel with the synoptics, which is probably a no-no within biblical scholarship. Still, I wonder: did the author of the Gospel of John seriously believe that John the Baptist had an awareness of the plan of God that so many people in that day lacked?
Lee Harmon, in John's Gospel: The Way It Happened,
looks at Second Temple literature (and the Testament of Joseph,
whenever that is dated) to explain what John the Baptist in John's
Gospel may have meant when he called Jesus the Lamb of God who takes
away the sin of the world. Lee puts the following into the mouth of the
"Enoch wrote about a great horned bull that
morphs into a lamb with black horns. That's what the Baptizer talked
about, a heroic victory by the lamb, purging the world of sin...Enoch
wrote: 'Purify the earth from all oppression, from all injustice, from
all crime, from all impiety, and from all the pollution which is
committed upon it. Exterminate them from the earth. Then shall all the
children of men be righteous, and all nations shall pay me divine
honors, and bless me; and all shall adore me. The earth shall be
cleansed from all corruption, from every crime, from all punishment, and
from all suffering.'...And the Testament of Joseph tells how the lamb overcomes evil beasts and crushes them underfoot."
to Lee, John the Baptist in John's Gospel thought that Jesus was a lamb
who would purify the world of sin through judgment, not through
atonement, in accordance with certain Jewish eschatological
expectations. But one can make the case that, even if that were John
the Baptist's intent in John's Gospel, he could have been talking about
Jesus' role as the lamb who would atone for people's sins, without
realizing that he was doing so. After all, in John 11:50 and
18:14, the point is made that the priest Caiaphas said that it is better
for one man to die for the people. Caiaphas meant that Jesus should be
offered up to the Romans for execution, since that is preferable to the
Romans wiping out Israel out of concern for the Messianic foment that
could take place there. But the Gospel of John applies that to the plan
of God, in which Jesus dies for people.
Lee does not provide
references to the parts of I Enoch and the Testament of Joseph that he
mentions, but the part about the horned bull becoming a lamb is in I
Enoch90:38. The part about the purification of the earth is in I Enoch
10:20-22. And the Testament of Joseph passage is in Testament of Joseph
19:8. Click here for R.H. Charles' translation of I Enoch. Click here to read Robert Sinker's translation of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.
Lee may have a point about the Enoch passages. I'm still trying to figure out if he does.
I Enoch 90:38 mentions a bull that becomes a lamb with big black horns,
but it does not refer to that lamb conquering. Rather, it appears that
the eschatological era of peace has already arrived by the time that
the bull becomes a lamb. Perhaps the bull becomes a lamb because he no
longer needs to fight and can thus be peaceful. I'm just guessing here,
and I'm open to correction on this. Regarding I Enoch
10:20-22, that does not mention a lamb, but, if I Enoch 90:38 is indeed
about a lamb who conquers, then a first century Jew such as Matthew
could have conflated I Enoch 90:38 with an earlier section of Enoch that
describes God's purification of the earth of sin. My question is: Does
I Enoch 90:38 describe a conquering lamb?
In Testament of Joseph
19:8, there is indeed a conquering lamb. But the thing about the
Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs is that parts of it are Jewish, and
parts of it are Christian. As I look at Testament of Joseph 19, it strikes me as Christian:
ye also, my children, the visions which I saw. There were twelve deer
feeding, and the nine were divided and scattered in the land, likewise
also the three. And I saw that from Judah was born a virgin wearing a
linen garment, and from her went forth a Lamb, without spot, and on His
left hand there was as it were a lion; and all the beasts rushed against
Him, and the lamb overcame them, and destroyed them, and trod them
under foot. And because of Him the angels rejoiced, and men, and all the
earth. And these things shall take place in their season, in the last
days. Do ye therefore, my children, observe the commandments of the
Lord, and honour Judah and Levi; for from them shall arise unto you the
Lamb of God, by grace saving all the Gentiles and Israel. For His
kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, which shall not be shaken; but my
kingdom among you shall come to an end as a watcher's hammock, which
after the summer will not appear."
In this passage, we see such
concepts as the virgin birth and grace that saves Gentiles and Israel.
That sounds rather Christian to me. When the Testament of
Joseph here mentions the lamb conquering, I think that it's echoing
Revelation. The point in Revelation and the Testament of Joseph 19, in
my opinion, is that the same lamb who died for people's sins, Jesus
Christ, would overcome evil. I should also note that there are some scholars who have argued that Jesus in Revelation actually conquers evil through his death. In this scenario, the lamb imagery in Revelation cannot really be separated from Jesus' atoning work on the cross.
Lee is correct that John the Baptist in John 1:29 thought that Jesus
would be a conquering lamb who would purify the earth through judgment.
Or maybe John the Baptist in that passage had a brief moment of
inspiration in which he grasped that Jesus would somehow be a lamb who
would die for people's sin. I'm open on this.
Bad Atheist Arguments: “History Is Unreliable”
4 hours ago