Q1. Prophetic Insight

[windsor]

Lamb was the sacrife for sin in the old testiment.

Now Jesus was the sacrife for the world everyone is encluded Jew and gentile

[thlynch]

Do you think that John the Baptist had seen enough animal sacrifices to know there had to be an end. God must have planted upon John the incredible throught that Jesus represented the final sacrifice. Maybe through a glass darkly, he knew that Jeus would fulfill the role as the sacrificial lamb but not know how this would happen.

--Tom

[linda bass]

Lambs were commonly used by the Jews for sacrifaces to obtain forgiveness of sin. Jesus didn't come just to deal with the sins of the Jewish people on a yearly basis. Rather He came to forgive the sin of humanity in general for all time.

[Annette Phillips-Gay]

The statement "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" is indicative to me that not just anybody or anything could take away the sins of the world. Lambs were used sacrifically to ask for atonement from God, but it could not fully atone for our sins as one had to continually offer up sacrifices. The concept of "sins of the world" had to be a radical concept because making an animal sacrifice did not have the ability cleanse the world of its sins; and because they were under the mosaic law I'm sure that they had great difficulty in understanding that God through Jesus could cleanse our sins and forgive us, and break that chasm that once separated man from God. The Lamb of God would now replace the sacrificial lamb for once and for all. Jesus would be the sacrificial Lamb of God so it's comparative in that sense. Also if Jesus was to take away the sins of the world it would mean not only Jews but Gentiles.

[Fina]

How do you know that John the Baptist's statement about the Lamb of God refers to sacrifice? (John 1:29). How was the comprehensiveness of "sins of the world" so radical a concept?

'>>'John indicates that Jesus is the Lamb of God in some sacrificial sense, since lambs were commonly used by the Jews for sacrifices to obtain forgiveness for sin.'

>> it is not for the sin of one person but for everyone.

[Wendy Reid]

Q1. How do you know that John the Baptist's statement about the Lamb of God refers to sacrifice? (John 1:29). How was the comprehensiveness of "sins of the world" so radical a concept?

Lambs were used as sacrifies in the old testament.

"sins of the world" must have meen a radical concept because one person had to sacrifice a lamb for his sin, you could not do it on behalf of someone else. The whole world would include Jews and gentile alike.

[Jes Sanchez]

Well, I'm knew to the Bible Study, so sorry if I seem a bit naive. Now, a leader would be called the Shepard, but John calls Jesus the lamb. So, he doesn't see Christ as a leader. Then, he later asks Mary's son if he is truely the Messiah. Jesus, Josephs step-son, says yup. It seems hard to tell if John, who gave up a lot of power within his communite to gain even more power by living in the wilderness as a baptizer, really knows who Jesus The Son of Man is. I would guess that like all important desicions, it doen't come right away, but marinates, and eventually he accepts it in his heart. I'm probably way off the mark on this one..lol.

Now, sin of the world, I think that's radical because everyone found a way to cover sin. Also, because Jesus throws out a "Prosecho" and says not to be too legalistic, people at that time believed in Works rather than Faith. I think that's the direction.

[Beverly]

I believe "Lamb of God" refers to a sacrifice because lambs where often used in sacrifices prior to this time as per God's orders. Also it is conected to the words "who will take away the sins..." A sacrifice is needed to accomplish this.

"Sins of the world" is so radical a concept because it means All SIN! Not just the sins of a certian select few or just certian types of sin.

Beverly

[Larry Tobin]

Lambs were used as sin offerings. When John spoke these words he was essentially saying "look, here He is, the One God has provided as the sacrificial lamb to remove the sins of ALL of humanity". B. This would have been totally new for the Isrealites since the sin offering up until then was for individuals. When someone offered the sin offering it was for their sin only. Now John was saying that this Lamb was going to remove the sins of humanity once for all. This must have floored some.

[Liza]

John the Baptist was talking about a sacrifice - "who takes away the sin". That would have, in the minds of the audience, referred to the sacrificial lamb. A lamb that was perfect. Without sin. But made sin.

The Jews believed that they were chosen (which they were - God chose Abraham, and chose to reveal Himself continuously to Israel). They were commanded not mingle with the Gentiles, or intermarry with them. Now, "sins of the world" would include these sinful Gentiles too. This was definitely radical (and probably also unacceptable), but I am so glad He came!

[DebChats]

Because in John1:29, John the Baptist, also claims He takes away the sins of the world. The only way to do atone for sin in the OT, is to sacrifice an animal, many times a lamb. There is also reference to this in 1Peter1:19 and Rev.12:11. Lev.4:32-35 is a reference in the OT. Note that in Lev.4:27 states this sacrifice of a lamb - is for the common people.

I believe this to be a "radical concept" because in the OT, there was no such sacrifie - sacrifice was an individual or congregational atonement for the Israelites. Sacrifice was not made available to the world.

[billhayes]

I'm new with these studies -- but have been an ordained Presbyterian minister for 20 years. That doesn't mean I know everything -- I am still learning and opening myself up to God's direction and knowledge of God's word and will. I look forward to learning from God and from each of you!

I believe that we can know that John was referring to animal sacrafice when he called Jesus "the Lamb of God" because -- being raised in a Priest's family (although we do not know how long Zehcariah lived after John was born) he would have known the Hebrew tradition of animal sacrafice, the OT laws concerning the animals to sacrafice, etc.

By divine revelation he knew that someone was coming who would be God's answer to our sins. Even in ELizabeth's womb he knew who Jesus was (Luke 2:41) -- so as an adult told others who Jesus was -- "the La,b of God who takes away the sins of the world" -- God's perfect sacrafical answer -- to our sin -- and the only way real answer to our sins.

The comprehensive "sins of the world" is a radical concept in that, for other religions, salvation is only individual -- each individual has to "do something" to obtain salvation. For Christians, salvation comes because of our belief in what Christ has done for us. I like what the author Frederick Buechner says about this: "There is nothing you have to do. There is NOTHING you have to do. There is nothing YOU have to do. There is nothing you HAVE to do. There is nothing you have to DO." THanks be to God -- who give us the victory throug our Lord Jesus Christ!

[Liberte]

I have been writing to a professed Christian who has some different ideas about Jesus, this is her comment and my answers.

HER: I'll have to look over it again, Isaiah 11 huh, I wasn't sure where it was any more.

There is a prophesy about Dan that says he will be like a snake in the grass, it calls his snake an adder. Wonder what the difference is between one kind and another.

The snake deal on the cadusis came from Moses making that snake on a stick figure back when they were in the desert. I don't know why it represents healing, but that snake on a stick wasn't destroyed for 400 years, then God had someone get rid of it, because they were worshipping it, instead of him.

Oh God... Jesus made public display of the enemy on the cross, the enemy was his flesh...

ME: There is absolutely no comparison to Jesus on the cross. I'm sorry, but I find the analogy blasphemous. Moses created the former and it was given some minor power by God to heal the Israelites from serpent bites, but that is it. Jesus Christ died as a sacrifice to sins and a means to our healing; we are told to worship Him. I will worship Him on the cross and off. I really hope you can see that some day before it is too late, and the new age tripe you follow is satan's way of separating you from the power of God and reliance on Him.

HER: Christians worship that figure on a stick... no wonder I've always been drawn to the fish figure.

ME: That is not what Jesus did on the cross, the enemy was not his flesh, it was satan. Jesus never sinned had He done so he would not have been a fitting sacrifice and His death would have been futile. The shame that he carried to the cross was the sins of the world not His own. He died as a sacrifice, not a display. Blood must be shed for the remission of sins and the blood must be from a pure and sinless creature. But under mosaic law the animal sacrifice only held for one year, it just was not sufficient. So God sent Christ to be the ultimate sacrifice. It was on the cross that he knew me and you and died in remission of my and your sins. It was there, no where else. That is why the cross figures so strongly in our faith. The figure on the cross must be worshiped, He is Lord! No He isn't on the cross any more, but He still bares the wounds, why would He carry those marks after the fact if He didn't want us to remember? He could make them go away in a second, but they are still there today.

I know you still want to separate Jesus from Christ and both from God and the Holy Spirit, but that just isn't Biblical. Jesus and Christ are one and the same. He was born of a virgin overshadowed by God the Father, Mary was a virgin then and a virgin still at His birth. Either you believe the Bible in its entirety, or you don't believe it at all. If any part of the Bible is wrong, then none of it has credence. For God is not God if he hasn't the power to keep his word true. God called Jesus His Son, God. There is only one God, therefore they are one. There can be no other answer ...

There was a lot more to this letter and I included a lot of scripture, but this portion was kind of appropriate.

John knew Jesus' nature from the womb. He was the one crying in the wilderness preparing the way. Just as while a babe in the womb he lept for joy at recognizing the prescense of Jesus in Mary's womb, the man recognized the man. Both were filled with the Holy Spirit and bore witness one with another to their true character. It was a prophetic declaration, John knew by the Spirit in him that Jesus would be the sacrifice for the sins of the world.

I know that John's reference to Jesus as a lamb is about the ultimate sacrifice because:

• Lambs were traditional sacrifices and John knew this.
  
• Jesus' sacrificial death was prophesied and John knew that.
  
• John declared that He would take away the sin of the world knowing such a feat could only be accomplished by the shedding of blood, He called Jesus the Lamb of God because his purpose was to be the ultimate sacrifice.
  
• Further reading of the gospels tells us that is what happened, John must have known as he knew from the womb.
  

I know this because the Bible tells me so, yes, but I also know in my heart down to my soul that Jesus died for me alone and you alone and each who accepts His sacrifice alone and all at once. Hallelujah! He is God!

[jmadison]

#1) It seems I'm coming late to the discussion but, as many have already alluded to, I think John was referencing the passage in Isaiah 53...the Servant of the Lord would be sacrificed for the sins of the world. John's upbringing/background surely gave him some understanding into that passage, but I'm not sure that even John, with his eyes being opened by God, really knew what lay ahead for Jesus. I don't think he knew at this point that Jesus was going to be sacrificed for on the Cross.

#2) The radicalness of the concept of the "sins of the world" is that up until Jesus only the Jews were allowed the redemptive nature of the sin offering. John seems to be alluding to a new time, when the offering would be made for the whole world.

[Daniel R. Smith]

Q1. How do you know that John the Baptist's statement about the Lamb of God refers to sacrifice? (John 1:29).

Because the Jewish people had been using lambs as sacrifices for their sin, as per the commandment of God. So when John called Jesus the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, he knew exactly what he was saying.

How was the comprehensiveness of "sins of the world" so radical a concept? That He would take away the sins of the world would be radical to the Jewish people. Here they are, sacrifice an expensive and innocent lamb to make atonement for one personal sin. If I had to do this, the blood of lambs would run thick indeed! Yet, Jesus, one Person, one sacrifice, was going to take away all the sins of the world. And He did!

[Barabbas]

Q1. How do you know that John the Baptist's statement about the Lamb of God refers to sacrifice? (John 1:29). How was the comprehensiveness of "sins of the world" so radical a concept? Exposition

It is like the saying about a rose or a duck. A rose, like the Rose of Bethlehem, by any other name would smell as sweet. Itf it looks and walks and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Here, the "Lamb" who "takes away sin" has to be referring to sacrifice.

It is radical in that in the sacrificial system it was a one-for-one concept, not one-for-all. Like you pay the price for the one new car, it is never intended to be the price that will cover all the cars you will ever need for the rest of your life.

[jjperra]

There was only one way that the Jews of that day knew how to atone for sins was the sacrifice of an unblemished, or perfect, lamb. If we are to be considered God's flock of sheep with Him as the Shepard, than only the perfect Lamb from this flock could stand in for the perfect and complete sacrifice. Only one person ever (or ever will) fill that description: my Lord, Jesus Christ.

The comprehensiveness of "the sins of the world" I see as two-fold. One, that "the world" meant more than just the Jews. The other is that the act of sacrifice that the Jews partook in, was committed by the sinner. Each person had to kill his own lamb. With the sacrifice of Jesus, the one act covered the world...even people who were not born for 2000 years!

One curious thing. If the Jews don't believe in Jesus as the Messiah and their Salvation, shouldn't they still be sacrificing lambs today?

Thank you Lord for this AWESOME gift!!!!

[Jacque]

Until the lesson, I just took it for granted the meaning of the statement "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." Now, I realize that this is probably one of the most powerful statements in the Bible.

I wonder if the people that heard John say those words and followed Jesus knew the power of what he said. Also, from my understandig of the Jewish understanding of the Messiah, if they just washed from their minds th words "takes aways the sins of the world". Because most or all of them believed that the Messiah would come and rescue them from their troubles with the Roman occupation.

[DiscipleDonald]

I believe that it is fairly easy to see that the statement of John about the Lamb of God refers to sacrifice clearly because he aslo mentions that He's for the taking away of the sins of the world. The reason the statement for the "sins of the world" is so radical a concept is because it implyed that is wasn't only for a person or a people (the Hebrews), but for all humanity. EVEN THE PAGANS!!!

[jonathan_apana]

I think that what John was trying to say is that the people of the world used to sacrifice the lamb to cleanse their sins. However with so many sins that each of us do, there would not be any Lambs left. so Instead the Lord Almighty sent a Lamb of His Own,"Jesus". And through Jesus he would be sacrificed to cleanse all of the sins of the world from past to present. So John knew that Jesus would do his ministery of God's work and then later in Jesus' life, Jesus would be put to the cross and then be sacrificed, like a Lamb. Knowing that it was not the "lamb of the people", But the "Lamb of God", that it was God who would sacrifice His Lamb, not the people. And that the people must realize that only One sacrifice was made for all their sins if they would only believe in Him.

[jonathan_apana]

I think that what John was trying to say is that the people of the world used to sacrifice the lamb to cleanse their sins. However with so many sins that each of us do, there would not be any Lambs left. so Instead the Lord Almighty sent a Lamb of His Own,"Jesus". And through Jesus he would be sacrificed to cleanse all of the sins of the world from past to present. So John knew that Jesus would do his ministery of God's work and then later in Jesus' life, Jesus would be put to the cross and then be sacrificed, like a Lamb. Knowing that it was not the "lamb of the people", But the "Lamb of God", that it was God who would sacrifice His Lamb, not the people. And that the people must realize that only One sacrifice was made for all their sins if they would only believe in Him.

The sins of the world would mean "The sins of past and present of all mankind until there is no world at all", meaning that when there is no world all that would be left is "Heaven", And there are " no sinners in Heaven". Amen.

[Alicia]

Q1. How do you know that John the Baptist's statement about the Lamb of God refers to sacrifice? (John 1:29). How was the comprehensiveness of "sins of the world" so radical a concept?

Because at that time the only way sin was atoned for was sacrifice of a perfect and blameless lamb. Of course God's only Son it would be no less than the sins of the world. The sins of the world was radical because they could only atone for their own sin with a lamb.

Alicia

[HisSchechinahGlory]

Just below John stating

[AmyJoRN]

How do you know that John the Baptist's statement about the lamb of God refers to sacrifice?

Throughout biblical times and even now humankind conforms God to its own cultural ideas, activities, and motives (whether good or bad) to gain understanding of Him...hence the many different religions. Every culture with awareness of a higher power shapes and molds God's character, laws, and abilities to fulfill their desire of closeness and oneness with Him. John's declaration of Jesus being "the lamb of God" who "takes away the sin of the world" in that era and setting was a statement that was made to provide understanding to those people at that time. I know that this statement refers to sacrifice because of the people it was being delivered to and the time it was delivered.

How was the comprehensiveness of sins of the world so radical a concept?

Throughout Hebrew scripture the Jews were promised a deliverer of their nation. They looked forward to, longed for, and prayed that the deliverer would come to them freeing their nation from oppression. They were promised a mighty King. So, when John said that the lamb would take away the sins "of the world" this broke away from the traditional belief that the deliverer would free only the Hebrew nation. Jesus came to deliver not only the Hebrews but also the Gentiles. I believe many Jews probably may have felt shocked and even cheated that Jesus was not their own personal deliverer but came to offer all of their promises to even their enemies, opressors, and slave masters. (holy smokes I know I would)

[kitty]

How do I know that John the Baptist's statement about the Lamb of God refers to sacrifice?

The statement John the Baptist made about the Lamb of God implies that Jesus was a living sacrifice just as a lamb was a sacrifice in the Old Testament. (Eph. 5:2) Jesus is the only human who has no sin, so Jesus would be the only Human who can be the Lamb that makes the sacrifice.

How was the conprehensive of "sins of the world" so radical a concept?

I believe that when a christian witness' to non-christians, the world doesn't understand what sins of the world. We as christians try and not sin. When we do we have a gracious God who will forgive us.