Thoughts going in, Sun Jan 16th

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' 31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel." 32 Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33 And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.'34 I have seen and I testify that this is God's Chosen One." 35 The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. 36 When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!" 37 When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. 38 Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, "What do you want?" They said, "Rabbi" (which means "Teacher"), "where are you staying?" 39 "Come," he replied, "and you will see." So they went and saw where he was staying, and they spent that day with him. It was about four in the afternoon. 40 Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ). 42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas"(which, when translated, is Peter ).

John's Gospel is SO WEIRD!
We saw this on the 2nd Sunday after Christmas when we looked at John's version of the Christmas story. His version didn't take place in Bethlehem, it didn't have choirs of angels or magi traveling from afar. His Christmas story began before creation--before the foundations of the world were laid. Well, now that it's time to talk about the baptism of Jesus, John's at it again. He dances around the topic; from the narrative it can be clearly deduced that Jesus *has been baptized...but John does not actually include this detail. It almost seems like an oversight. Another way to put it might be that John is so interested in ensuring that he unpacks the *meaning of the events, that he sometimes chooses not to include the mundane *details of the event in question.

"Lamb of God." This is obviously an important saying--both for John the Baptist in the narrative, and for the writer of John's gospel. He mentions the phrase twice! Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi are the words from the Latin Mass--Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. As an interesting side note it's fun to see how this phrase has been used liturgically. In the western rite as inherited by the Lutheran Church, this phrase is sung/chanted **after** the words of institution. What this means is that it is a hymn to Christ, specifically, Christ **PRESENT** in the communion elements of the bread and the wine. In the Lutheran faith tradition there has never been any doubt or controversy about the *reality of Christ's presence in the communion elements. It is not a *physical reality; scientific study/testing will not reveal it. It is, rather, a *mystical reality; a *sacramental reality. But when we hop from the continent over to England during reformation times, we find a different story. The first English liturgy as found in Archbishop Cranmer's prayerbook of 1549 places the Agnus Dei in its normal position--as a hymn sung to Christ *following the words of institution. The Church of England, however, was in a state of flux during these years. With the death of the unpredictable Henry VIII the crown was now held by the sickly boy-king Edward VI. The protestant movement in England was taking more and more of a radical turn. In the end, Cranmer's first prayerbook was seen as too compromising; too supportive of the old "Romish" religion. And so, in 1552, a revision was produced. Without saying specifically *why, ....the Agnus Dei was simply....gone. Given that the revised prayerbook--in other places--takes pains to distance itself from belief in the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist, one can see that continued use of the Agnus Dei in that old context ...wouldn't work.

There are so many other things that could be mentioned. There's the *reality of Christ's designation of sacrificial lamb from the very beginning. These days we occasionally struggle with the image of a loving/fatherly 'god' who would demand a blood sacrifice....& then engage in sacrificing his own son. I can't help but think that at least a part of our squeamishness is based on a insufficient appraisal of the human condition. We're squeamish at the idea; we (or at least some of us) are even morally outraged at the idea. But this is because we don't fully understand the human condition. In the 1998 movie Armageddon, an astroid the size of Texas is headed directly toward earth. As the film's title implies, the resulting collision will spell THE END of everything. There's no sugar-coating the possibilities; there is no possibility for cooler, more rational minds to prevail. The situation really is **that bad. So, given this reality, a last-ditch desperate plan is hatched. The world's best deep core drilling team is sent up to try to nuke the asteroid before it gets here. There's only one problem....**someone** has to stay behind to trigger the nuke. That someone will die; that someone will sacrifice himself for everyone else. We can pontificate about how tragic it is.....or the luck of the draw that unfortunately picked this one man who was uniquely qualified to be there in the first place.....but at the end of the day the *reality is that either he dies or the whole world dies. The point is that sometimes the REALITY is such that sacrifice cannot be avoided. And *understanding that reality makes the objections sound a bit hollow. In the movie the people of earth may have been sorry that Bruce Willis had to die in the process, but they were sure glad he did. His sacrifice meant everything to them. People of faith who understand the sacrifice of Jesus feel the same way. Even so, the parallels eventually break down. After all, Bruce did a noble/magnanimous thing, but in the end the asteroid conquered him. In the case of Jesus, death could not hold him. His RIGHTEOUSNESS was stronger than death itself. Death, theologically, draws its power from sin. Yet, he was the sinLESS lamb of God. This made it impossible for him to stay dead.

The last little thing that comes to my mind as I work through this passage is the *evangelism that's going on--or at the very least, the POINTING to Christ that's occurring. (36 When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!"). Thinking liturgically again, I'm reminded of one of the optional phrases used in the liturgy. After consecration, the one presiding at the altar holds the wafer & the chalice up high and says: "THIS IS THE LAMB OF GOD who takes away our sins; happy are we who are called to this Eucharist." John the Baptist seemed DETERMINED to make sure that everyone within hearing distance heard him proclaim that THAT MAN OVER THERE was their savior; that HE, specifically, was the one. This remains our evangelistic call to this day......to continually point out to all who will hear that THAT MAN OVER THERE, JESUS OF NAZARETH is their Savior; but there's more. He is **FOUND** in the holy meal. We embrace him by faith, but faith is given something to cling to--tangible realities known as sacraments. These days people talk about having "Jesus in their heart." It's a colloquial way of referring to the reality of an active faith in the Savior. But the old Fathers of the Church called Holy Communion "the medicine of immortality" precisely because they saw it as having Jesus not only in their 'hearts,' but in their whole BODIES.

Cheers,

TM