Skip to main content

Behold The Lamb Of God (John 1:29-34)

 John the Baptist sees Jesus on the next day, and we should understand some background about the title he gives Jesus. Lambs were often given to God in sacrifice, commanded by Him to signify the forgiveness of sins. Leviticus 1-7 describes many sacrifices for sins that the Israelites were aware of, both large and small. The Passover (Exodus 12) was a sacrifice, and arguably the most important one for the people. As each family ate their Passover Lamb, they were participating in the memory of God passing over the houses of the Israelites with the final plague, when he led them out of Egypt. One critical thing to remember is that sacrifice in the Bible is not about death, for the most part. Sacrifices are about the life of the animal (see also Leviticus 17:11). The death of an animal sacrifice is meant to teach us that sin causes death, just as it did for Adam and Eve (see Genesis 3). St. Paul will say later, "For the wages of sin is death…" (Romans 6:23)

Therefore, John the Baptist is telling us that Jesus will be a pure sacrifice, once-for-all, to take away all of our sin. There is a mystery here, because we would naturally ask, "How can Jesus be before John the Baptist, when Jesus was born at a particular time, and the two men are about the same age?" We need to go back to the prologue, and remember that St. John's wording is meant to teach us that Jesus is God, who took on a human nature. He is not a human person who became God; he is God, who became man. This is probably the most important thing that John wants us to know. John the Baptist is also giving us a little preview of his plan to step aside, because his work is done. He doesn't need to announce the coming of Jesus once Jesus has come. This will help us to understand some things John the Baptist says later. John the Baptist is reminding us that his water baptism is not the same as the one Jesus will give, which is one in and by the Holy Spirit. We will get a chance to explore this more later.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...