John 1:29

Ver. 29. “ The next day he sees Jesus coming to him, and he says: Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. ”

The very next day after the day when John had proclaimed the presence of the Messiah in the midst of the people, Jesus approaches His forerunner, who recognizes Him and declares Him to be the Messiah. The words, coming to Him, have troubled the interpreters. Some have understood that He came to be baptized, which is impossible, since the following verses (John 1:31-33), and even John 1:26, imply that the baptism was already accomplished. Baur thinks that Jesus came to John for the purpose of receiving his testimony, and he, of course, finds in this fact, thus understood, a proof of the purely ideal character of the narrative. But this detail implies simply that Jesus, after having been baptized, had, previously to this meeting, separated Himself from John for a certain time, and that after this interval He, on this very day, returned to the presence of His forerunner, hoping to find in His presence those whom God should give to Him in order to begin His work. And we know, in fact, from the Synoptical account, that Jesus, after His baptism, had withdrawn into the solitude of the desert, where He had passed several weeks; it was now the moment, therefore, when He reappeared to take up His work as Redeemer. Nothing is more natural than that, with this design, He should return to the presence of John. Was not he the one who had been sent to open the way for Him to Israel? Was it not at his hands that He could hope to receive the instruments which were indispensable to Him for the accomplishment of His task? Jesus Himself (John 10:3) designates John as the porter who opens to the Shepherd the door of the sheepfold, so that He does not have to climb over the wall of the inclosure like the robber, but can enter without violence into the sheepfold.

Lucke also places this return of Jesus in connection with the narrative of the temptation.

We may be surprised that for the purpose of designating Jesus as the Messiah John does not employ one of the titles which were commonly used for this end: Christ, Son of God, or King of Israel. The term Lamb of God is so original that, if it is historical, it must have its ground in some particular impression which the Baptist had received at the time of his previous meeting with Jesus. And indeed, we must remember that when an Israelite came to have himself baptized by John, he began by making confession of his sins (Matthew 3:6; Mark 1:5). Jesus could not have dispensed with this preparatory act without arrogating to Himself from the first an exceptional position, and nothing was farther from His thought than this: He wished to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). What, then, could His confession be? Undoubtedly a collective confession, analogous to that of Daniel (Daniel 9), or that of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 9), a representation of the sin of Israel and of the world, as it could be traced by the pure being who was in communion with the perfectly holy God, and at the same time the tenderly loving being, who, instead of judging His brethren, consecrated Himself to the work of saving them. If, as we cannot doubt, this was the spirit in which Jesus spoke and perhaps prayed at that moment, we may understand that the expression which the forerunner uses here to designate Him, is indeed the reflection of what he had experienced when hearing and seeing this unique man, who, by His tender sympathy and His intercession, took upon Himself the burden of the sin of the world. On the other hand, in order that the title of which the Baptist made use might be intelligible for his hearers, it was indispensable that it should connect itself with some well-known word or some well-known fact of the Old Covenant, which was generally referred to the Messiah. This is implied by the article ὁ, the, before the term Lamb of God, an article which signifies the Lamb known and expected by the hearers. The thought which presents itself most naturally to the mind is that of seeing here an allusion to the Servant of the Lord described in Isaiah 53, under the figure of a lamb which allows itself “to be led to the slaughter without opening its mouth.” On the preceding day, the Baptist had already appealed to a saying of the same prophet (Isaiah 40:3). Before the polemic against the Christians had driven the Jewish interpreters to another explanation, they did not hesitate to apply that sublime representation (Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12) to the Messiah. Abarbanel says expressly: “Jonathan, the son of Usiel, referred this prophecy to the Messiah who was to come, and this is also the opinion of our sages of blessed memory.” (See Eisenmenger, Entdeckt, Judenth, II. Th. p. 758; Lucke, I. p. 406).

We need not here prove the truth of this explanation of Isaiah 53 and the insoluble difficulties in which every contrary interpretation is involved. The fact is sufficient for us that it was the prevalent one among the ancient Jews. From this it follows that the allusion of John the Baptist could be easi!y understood by the people who were present. Some interpreters have claimed that the term, Lamb, represents, in the mouth of the forerunner as well as in the book of Isaiah, only the meekness and patience of the just one suffering for the cause of God. Thus Gabler: “Here is the man full of meekness who will support patiently the evils which human perversity shall occasion him;” and Kuinoel: “Here is the innocent and pious being who will take away wickedness from the earth.” But these explanations do not account for the article ὁ, the well-known, expected, Lamb, and they entirely efface the manifest relation which the text establishes between the figure of lamb and the act of taking away sin. Weiss explains, almost as the preceding writers do, by emphasizing the allusion to Isaiah 53:7, but without finding here the least notion of sacrifice. This last view seems to us not defensible. The idea of sacrifice is at the foundation of the whole passage Isaiah 53; comp. especially, John 1:10-12: “When his soul shall have offered the expiatory sacrifice ascham),” and: “He shall bear their iniquities,” words to which precisely John the Baptist alludes in these last words: “ who takes away the sin of the world. ” The Lamb of God designates Jesus, therefore, as realizing the type of the Servant of Jehovah, Isaiah 53, charged with delivering the world from sin by His sacrifice. Some interpreters, especially Grotius, Lampe, Luthardt and Hofmann, believe that the Baptist is thinking only of the sacrifices of the Old Covenant in which the lamb was used as a victim, specially of that of the Paschal lamb. It is, indeed, indisputable that, among the clean animals used as victims, the lamb was the one which, by its character of innocence and mildness, presented the emblem most suited to the character of the Messiah as John the Baptist here describes Him (comp. Leviticus 4:32; Leviticus 5:6; Leviticus 14:12; Num 6:12), and that, in particular, the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb really possessed an expiatory value (comp. Exo 12:13).

It appears to me indubitable, therefore, notwithstanding all that Weiss and Keil still say, that, in expressing himself as he does here, the forerunner is thinking of the part of the lamb, not in the daily Jewish worship, but in the Paschal feast. And this allusion seems to me to be perfectly reconcilable with the reference to that saying of Isaiah 53 since in this chapter Isaiah represents the Servant of the Lord precisely under the figure of the lamb sacrificed as an expiatory and delivering victim. The complement θεοῦ, of God, is the genitive of possession, and at the same time of origin. In this sacrifice, indeed, it is not man who offers and slays, it is God who gives, and gives of His own. Comp. 1 Peter 1:19-20; Romans 8:32. It is remarkable that this title of lamb, under which the evangelist learned to know Jesus for the first time, is that by means of which the Saviour is by preference designated in the Apocalypse. The chord which had vibrated, at this decisive hour, in the deepest part of John's heart resounded within him even to his latest breath.

Exegetes are not agreed as to the sense which the word αἴρων, who takes away, has here. The verb αἴρειν sometimes signifies to raise a thing from the ground, to lift it, sometimes to take it away, to carry it away. For the first sense, comp. John 8:29 (stones); Matthew 11:29 (the yoke): John 16:24 (the cross). For the second: John 11:39; John 11:48; John 15:2; John 17:15, etc., and especially 1 John 3:5: “Jesus Christ appeared to take away our sins.” The second sense would lead rather to the idea of the destruction of sin; the first, to that of expiation, as in some expressions of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. But if John had thought especially of expiation, he would probably have employed the term βαστάζειν, to bear, which the LXX. used in the words quoted from Isaiah 53. He is probably, therefore, thinking of the taking away of sin. Let us not forget, however, that, in accordance with Isaiah 53 and the Israelitish worship in general, this end cannot be attained except by means of expiation. In order to take away sin, it was necessary that Christ should begin by taking upon Himself the burden of it, to the end that he might be able afterwards to remove it by the work of sanctification. The idea of removing includes, therefore, implicitly that of bearing. The present participle αἴρων might be referred to the idea of the mission of Jesus. But it is more simple to see in it an historical present; since the first act of His ministry, Jesus has labored for the taking away of sin on earth.

The burden to be taken away is designated in a grand and sublime way: the sin of the world. This substantive in the singular presents the sinful error of humanity in its profound unity. It is sin in the mass, in which all the sins of all the sinners of the world are comprehended. Do they not all spring from the same root? We must guard against understanding by ἁμαρτία, as de Wette does, the penalty of sin. This idea, “the sin of the world,” has been judged too universal for the Baptist's mouth. So Weiss ascribes it solely to the evangelist. Reuss says: “We have here an essentially Christian declaration.” But in Isaiah 52:13-15, it was already said that the sight of the suffering Servant would startle many peoples (rabbim) and would strike their kings with astonishment. And who, then, were these many individuals (rabbim) whom, according to Isaiah 53:11, this same Servant was to justify, after Israel had rejected Him (John 1:1)? Comp. also the wonderful prophecy, Isaiah 19:24-25, where the Assyrians, the Egyptians and Israel are represented as forming the three parts, perfectly equal in dignity, of the kingdom of God. Could Isaiah have surpassed in clearness of vision the Baptist, who was not only a prophet, but the greatest of the prophets? This expression the world says no more, in reality, than that threatening or promise which the Synoptics put into the mouth of the forerunner: “Even of these stones God will raise up children to Abraham.” Let us also recall that first word of the Lord to Abraham (Gen 12:3): “All the families of the earth shall be blessed (or shall bless themselves) in thee.”

The forerunner, after having described the work of Jesus, designates Him Himself as the one to whom, notwithstanding His humble appearance, his declaration of the day before applies: