The literary analysis here is interesting, although I don’t think I’m following it all. I think that ‘lamb of God’ is exactly what John the B meant.
Correct. John
did mean that Jesus is the Lamb of God, I’ve no doubt about that; but the word he may have used indicates other valid meanings as well; i.e. when he called Jesus the Lamb of God, at the same time he had ALSO called Him ‘Servant of God’, and ALSO ‘Son of God’ due to the meanings pf the word
talya (Son/Servant/Lamb). This is a
both/and, not an
either/or case.
However, that does not mean John called Jesus the Son of God but not the Lamb of God; he meant all of it, and they all apply fittingly and properly to Jesus.
At first, some of those who heard (such as John’s disciples) may have grasped only one of the meanings of the word, yet may realized the other meanings (perhaps taught more comprehensively to them by John) and believed in Jesus.
I don’t know what kind of analysis this is, but isn’t this the answer to Abraham’s remark to Isaac, that God will provide the lamb?
Isn’t this the fulfillment of the OT practice of the high priest imputing sins to the “scape goat” or lamb? Wasn’t the baptism of Jesus just such an annointing and imputing of sin to Jesus, as evidence that he “was led” into the wilderness by the Spirit? Isn’t it that, which makes sense of what Jesus said to John, that it must be so that he baptizes Jesus?
The original scape goat was released into the wilderness to be devoured by the wild animals out there. In comparison, Jesus meets and confronts and defeats Satan.
What kind of water are you drinking out there in Sour Lake, N.W.?
Good analysis on the goat offered to Azazel and its relation to Jesus.
If I may suggest, another interesting similarity would be the
Korban Pesach, the lamb offered on the day of the Passover.
During Temple times, people usually offered a year-old lamb without blemish at the 14th of Nisan. The killing of the sacrifice took place in the court of the Temple at Jerusalem at mid-afternoon (two or three o’ clock; parallel Matt. 27:46-50), and might be performed by a layman, although the blood had to be caught by a priest, and rows of priests with gold or silver cups with rounded bottoms in their hands stood in line from the Temple court to the altar, where the blood of the lamb was sprinkled.
The priest who caught the blood as it dropped from the victim then handed the cup to the priest next to him, receiving from him an empty one, and the full cup was passed along the line until it reached the last priest, who sprinkled its contents on the altar.
The lamb was then hung upon special hooks or sticks and skinned, then the abdomen was then cut open, and the fatty portions intended for the altar were taken out, placed in a vessel, salted, and offered by the priest on the altar, while the remaining entrails likewise were taken out and cleansed.
When the sacrifice was completed and the animal was ready for roasting, each one took their lambs home and roasted them on a spit of pomegranate-wood. No bones might be broken either during the cooking or during the eating (cf. John 19:36).
