Discourse: S6K/Messianic – The Lamb of God – 2

For those interested in the continuing Discourse between Sinaite “S6K”/Messianic “RW”, here are other posts:

• Discourse: Messianic ‘RW’/Sinaite ‘VAN’
• Discourse: S6K/Messianic – 5
• Discourse: Sinaite/Messianic – [VAN/RW] = 2 – “Yeshua is not in the TNK”
• Discourse: S6K/Messianic – 3 – Before the “Apostasy”
• Discourse: Sinaite/Messianic [VAN/RW] Yeshua in Tanakh . . .?

—Admin1]

————————

—————————

S6K: 

First, the identity of “John.”  As we see it, there are 2  “Johns” involved here:

• the writer who used the name “John” for the 4th gospel;
• and John the baptist (baptizer), let’s call the baptizer by his Hebrew name Yochanan.  

John the gospel writer was supposedly—-

• John the beloved,
• one of the 12,
• the one to whom Mary was endorsed by Jesus while dying on the cross,
• established his ministry at Ephesus [or so christian tradition claims],
• to whom was attributed 3 epistles [1,2,3 John] and the Apocalyptic book of Revelation.
• His gospel, as scholars note, is different from the synoptic gospels, quite unique in his presentation of Jesus from the opening verses which read like the opening verses of Genesis. and designs his gospel like a good literary piece.
  • He simply states his claim—Jesus is the Word of God,
  • who himself is God the Creator,
  • who became man, etc.

But since the gospel writer put the words “Behold the Lamb of God” in Yochanan’s mouth, we have to figure out what was the gospel writer’s purpose for saying so —

• did all 4 gospels make the same claim, and if so, where did they get their material?
• Were the gospel writers eyewitnesses, participants in the events they recorded or did they record hand-me-down stories?
• Did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John really write the gospels that bear their names?
• There are current researches published in books today questioning the authorship of the 4 gospels which we have featured time and again; one of them is FORGED by Bart D. Ehrman [please refer to those articles listed on our Updated Site Contents.]

The writer of the gospel of John assigned these words to Yochanan; who is he? Culled from the gospels, he is—- 

• son of high priest Zechariah 
• and wife Elizabeth [cousin of Mary the mother of Jesus],
• from the tribe of Levi, 
• and as high priest, in the line of Aaron.  
• John as a Jew and a Levite would have been Torah-educated, and if so, Torah-observant,
• would associate the word “lamb” most likely with the passover lamb, 
• perhaps the lambs offered in the daily sacrifices at the Temple.  

First, a thought about Yochanan as “the baptist,” meaning someone who “baptizes.”  If Christianity officially became a religion in 325 CE and baptism was one of its rituals for babies (Catholics) and born-again baptism (adults who choose to be “Christians”), what is a Jew like Yochanan, doing “baptizing” people?  Was that a Jewish thing to do, required by the TORAH? We know about “ritual cleansing” which requires more than just being dunked in water or sprinkled, please go to this link to learn all about Mikveh and the purposes for it in scripture and in Judaism:[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0014_0_13881.html].

Second, why would Yochanan now refer to his cousin Jesus [let’s call him by his Hebrew name Yeshua] as “the Lamb of God”?  Both of them, being Jews, would know the symbolism of the passover lamb in the liberation of their people from Egyptian bondage. The lamb was one of the many gods of Egypt; we have written other articles on this [please check UPDATED SITE CONTENTS]. That lamb was cooked and consumed by the family; the blood on doorposts was a bold show of defiance to Egyptians about what Israelite slaves did to so many lambs slaughtered, cooked, and eaten. The temple sacrifices had not yet been given as a concession to the Israelites’ propensity to worship like the nations did. Certainly, the passover lamb was not a temple sacrifice.

Third, as for the lambs sacrificed at the tabernacle/temple as as commanded later, none of the Temple animal sacrifices were ever intended nor could actually take away man’s sins, not even make up for sins; only true repentance [conviction of sin, confession, and turning away from sin could earn God’s forgiveness—sample–David].

————————

RW: Their minds probably would think of Leviticus and the sin and trespass offerings.  Since most Jews in Yeshua’s day had the Torah memorized, they would have had no problem scanning their memory for information. 

Do you know of any place in the Tanakh where a male lamb is sacrificed as a sin offering? I cannot find any. What I do find consistently is a goat sacrificed as a sin offering, sometimes a bull, and a female lamb or goat for a sin or trespass offering.  

“If anyone of the common people sins unintentionally…he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish…(or) if he brings a lamb as his offering for a sin offering, he shall bring a female without blemish.” Lev 4:27-32 and Lev 5:6. 

“And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering.” 

Both a bull and two goats are used on Yom Kippur, and at other special times as well, including during the Millennium, or Kingdom Age, as we understand Ezekiel 40 – 48 to be.  

Another question that might come into their thinking, and ours, is, does the blood of goats or bulls actually take away sin?

 Up to Yeshua’s time, the answer would be “No,” since this blood only made “atonement,” a temporary “ransom by means of a substitute” to cover their sins shown by the fact that the Yom Kippur sacrifices had to be repeated every year at the moed, or appointed time on the 10th day of Tishrei.

 The answer for us is Hebrews 10:4.

 “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”

 ———————————-

S6K:   As Rabbi M. Younger of Aish.com answered in our “Ask the Rabbi” series:

The idea of how the animal offerings worked is most often misunderstood. Many believe that sacrifice was the only way to achieve atonement. Actually, atonement always was accompanied by sincere prayer, teshuva (spiritual return), and charity. Hoshea (8:13) decries people bringing offerings without making an attempt to get closer to God. For this reason, their offerings were rejected.

The animal offering aided the atonement process, as it drove home the point that really the person deserved to be slaughtered, but an animal was being used in his/her place. The offering also helped atonement in many spiritual mystical ways. But we should not mistake the animal offering for more than what it is. It was an aid to atonement. It did not cause atonement.

Logically, how can one think that the death of an animal could atone for their sins? If a person were to commit an atrocity, such as murder, stealing, adultery, or even less severe sin, could one possibly think that slaughtering a cow and a sheep will atone for the sin? Of course not! God is not a child who is appeased by gifts and animal slaughter. God, the true judge, provides atonement for those who sincerely desire to fix their ways. An offering must be accompanied with the will to get closer to God (prayer), a promise to observe the words of the Torah more carefully (teshuva), and concern for God’s creation (charity).

Since the baptizer was considered in Christian teaching to be the prophetic voice that breaks the 400 year silence since the last prophet in the TNK [Malachi] and later one referred to as Elijah by Jesus himself, then perhaps going along with this thinking/teaching, Yochanan was a prophet who could make such a proclamation that Jesus is the Lamb of God [pointing towards fulfillment of the FINAL sacrificial LAMB on the cross later in the gospel story.] 

——————————-

RW:  And what did it mean to those around him who heard it?  

——————————–

S6K:  Good question to ask of any bible student —what would any text have meant to the speaker and the original hearers, not to the reader today living in 21st century.  We must time-travel and place ourselves into the culture, original language and what words meant then [if possible], and listen and understand with their ears and their mindset. If that is at all possible for the student with limited access to resources, study aids, etc. The best approach would be to learn from Jews themselves who know how they would think if they heard such words uttered. The reason Jews cannot be persuaded to believe in the “New Testament” is because it conflicts with their “Old” even if they teach that one works perfectly with the other as prophecy and fulfillment. We have written articles about the differences between the two scriptures; again, please refer to those.