Talk:Lamb of God

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Pastor Rob Smith: I started to change the explanation about the Book that the lamb received from HE that sat on the throne. Where in Revelations does it declare that the book with the names is the same book as the book of the seals of the destruction of this world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSmith1982 (talkcontribs) 06:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I removed the following paragraph from the intro:

It should be mentioned that since Jesus called himself a shepherd and not a lamb, so some Christians reject the title, and reject the idea that Jesus was the passover lamb for in Exod. 12 the lambs are not sacrificed to God. Families were told to kill a lamb and put its blood on their door posts. The Atonement was a different ritual and entailed a goat which they say was an evil animal to Jesus for he said sinner were goats who would go into hell fire.

This paragraph, in addition to its attrocious grammar, seems to be full of original research and unreferenced assertions. Which Christians reject the title of "Lamb of God" for Jesus? The idea that Jesus was not the Passover Lamb directly contradicts 1 Corinthians 5:7-8. If there are reliable references for these assertions, well and good; otherwise, it doesn't really seem appropriate in an encyclopedic context. MishaPan (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

God's Kid

The material about the nickname "God's Kid" having anything to do with goats doesn't make sense. "Kid" is just American slang for "child." (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

MishaPan's edit

Since the paragraph quoted above has been removed, the following should also be removed, as it bears a similar hesitancy towards the concept of Jesus as Lamb of God, this time not in Christianity in general but in the New Testament text.

"Although also indirectly referred to in Pauline writings, nothing in the context of 1 Corinthians 5:7 directly implies that in that specific passage Saint Paul refers the death of Jesus using the same theme as in Johannine writings."[5]

The words "sacrificed" and "passover" are specifically mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:7. Both words being used together, Christ is clearly being described as a passover sacrifice in a conceptual parallel with the unblemished lamb or goat to be sacrificed at the passover. This parallel is confirmed in Haydock. The idea that there can be no reference to the passover lamb in 1 Cor 5:7 defines common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Latin text for this verse taken from 1 Cor 5:7 "Expurgate vetus fermentum, ut sitis nova conspersio, sicut estis azymi. Etenim Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus." The word Pascha here points to Christ being the sacrifice of the Passover. And what was the sacrifice of the Passover? The lamb, just like in Exodus 12 the entire Passover is described. Then again in John 1:29 Jesus is called by John the Baptist "Behold the lamb of God". If this paragraph is not removed it should at least be marked as a Methodist belief vs. Catholic belief. (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternative Interpretation[edit]

This is the suggestion to insert this interpretation under this new section's heading: Concerning "God's Lamb", I must say that I've been thinking about this and it stands fairly clear to me, over the Scientific Bible (minimally The Old Testament) that this must be a symbolic encouragement "to stay alert" and "not to fall into heathens' hands/power" and thus, by animal convention as guinea pigs and more, the God's Lamb is sacrificed. I think Christianity is getting better by the day now and I hope you find it beautiful too, even though our ancestors have been simpler than us today. Cheers! (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have WP:RS sources that say something to that effect, nothing can be done, per the WP:V policy. History2007 (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
One thing should be for certain: you can't wipe off sins by using a lamb, an animal. There has to be something metaphorical going on here. Besides, I want to note that this may represent "a significant view", not to be messed with as such. Also, do you want a blog reference for it or not? Based on former experience, I need "a positive" here before I bother to. LFOlsnes-Lea 18:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Blogs are not WP:RS and can not be used as sources in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Any help from anyone, please, over the story in the Bible where a sheep/lamb/goat is gathered around by some people to "lay down the sins on" and for it to be sent into the desert? Does anybody know? It's not the most common quote of the lamb/sheep/goat in the Bible and that I may be looking for only a single reference throughout the Bible, all of its 1000 pages (appx.) or so. "The Bible is tough sometimes." Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Alright! Here is something: "The subject of this study concerns the activities of the high priest on the Day of Atonement; in particular, confessing the sins of Israel upon the head of the goat that was sent away into the wilderness (Lev.16:21)." by URL, ! Yes! Yes! Yes! Good? Can it enter the article soon? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Regarding your comment 'the story in the Bible where a sheep/lamb/goat is gathered around by some people to "lay down the sins on" and for it to be sent into the desert' please see Scapegoat and also the Rabbinical rites section. That web site is not WP:RS. But there are multiple symbolisms and I added RS sources for the major ones. But none of them is a totally accepted view, etc. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to add the following, but I've been immediately deleted by History2007, so I add it here for discussion (largely because I find it unwise and unjust): =-=Leviticus=-=
There is one mentioning of "live goat" as a goat for laying one's sins on for it to be sent into the wilderness and then slaughtered, probably. This occurs already in Leviticus, the 3rd book of the Old Testament by 16:21.
Leviticus 16:21. It says: "He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and put them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the wilderness in the care of someone appointed for the task."
What's interesting more is that it can explain some of the mystery concerning innocence and why this "innocence" can be one's animal for sins since foolishness often comes with innocence and that consequently this is the reason why innocence must carry the sins like this, much alike criminals and those who breach the Cardinal Vices, break away from the path to God! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I did offer apologies and explain that it was WP:OR given the lack of WP:RS sources. The Scapegoat aspect already has WP:RS sources in the section below. But let us wait for possible comments from other users as well. History2007 (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But wouldn't the Lev. 16:21 itself make it perfectly valid because it originates directly from the Bible, more or less as you mentioned before I entered the "new" Lev. 16:21 into the text? Well, well, I have patience too. Let's see what happens. This isn't a race-competition, and we do stand some good 1500 years of top of the whole material discussed herein. LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
That is a WP:Primary source, not a WP:Secondary and still there is the WP:Due issue. Lev 16 is already discussed along with the other symbolisms. History2007 (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
However, the encyclopedic duties remain and readers probably have rightful quality demands insofar as importance goes! (Waiting more...) LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Importance is per WP:Due and the sources cited list Lev along with other symbolisms on equal footings, so it is one of several and is already mentioned with WP:RS. Moreover, there are sources such as Anselm and Calvin that directly reject that. History2007 (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Note also that "Jesus taking away the sins of the World", contrasts with "You know what you have done, the sins are yours" unless Jesus has been on Earth to tell a story more immediate to human kind and present the ideal human being to God. This goes to "alternative interpretations". Cheers! (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Potential Citation Discrepancy & Misidentification of Calvin's Understanding of the Scapegoat[edit]

I hope you'll excuse any violation of custom/norms on this talk page; this is actually my first "contribution" to Wikipedia. I have done and continue to do extensive research on Calvin, and my review of biblical literature usually begins with what Calvin had to say. A friend asked me to do some research on the historic symbolism behind the "Lamb of God" in various Christian traditions, and it led me to this article.

Under the Christology heading, it is written that,

John Calvin presented the same Christological view of "The Lamb as the agent of God" by arguing that in his trial before Pilate and while at Herod's Court Jesus could have argued for his innocence, but instead remained mostly quiet and submitted to Crucifixion in obedience to the Father, for he knew his role as the Lamb of God.[18][19].

Reference number 19[1] is to Stephen Edmondson's (of Virginia Theological Seminary) 2004 book Calvin's Christology. The author of the encyclopedia text sourced p. 91 to evince the quoted material above, and while I have not accessed or read reference number 18, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures by Hughes Oliphant Old, I can attest that p. 91 of Edmondson's text is absolutely unconnected to the statement that "...Calvin presented the same [i.e. St. Anselm (from previous ¶)] Christological view of "The Lamb as the agent of God by arguing..." Searching the index of the text for important keywords like Herod, trial, and Pilate referenced in the quote yields no attributions to p. 91. In addition, the word "scapegoat" or any meaningful derivations do not have any attribution to p. 91 in the index or in the table of contents. In fact, the new sub-heading for p. 91 in the paperback edition is "The Sacerdotal Office in the Gospel Commentaries." Edmondson mentions the word "scapegoat" ostensibly once in the text, on p. 61[2],

The ways in which Christ was prefigured in Israel’s worship are so commonplace for Calvin that he does not bother to enumerate them in the Institutes; but in his commentaries, he develops the typology in a number of directions. He discusses the purity of the priests, the singularity of the High Priest, the meaning of both the goat who was sacrificed and the scapegoat on the day of Atonement, and the spiritual pattern of the tabernacle, which was found in Christ. The one theme that runs through this discussion most clearly is the need for a pure offering to atone for the sins of the people – a need to which the ceremonies of the Law pointed, but which in Christ was fulfilled.

While Edmondson himself is somewhat general, his point seems to be that the scope of Calvin's discussion includes a few remarks on the "meaning of...the scapegoat on the day of Atonement..." This is all well and good, but a reader of the article who finished the Christology section would come across the following,

However, as above Saint Anselm and John Calvin's view reject the Scapegoat symbolism for they view Jesus as making a knowing sacrifice as an agent of God, unlike an unwitting Scapegoat.[2][18][19].

Again, reference number 19 is, interestingly enough, attributed to this line of argument that Calvin in some sense rejects a symbolic resemblance of the scapegoat to Jesus Christ. In light of the observation's I've made about the content of p. 91, this is troubling in and of itself. However, if we are to go off of p. 61, this line of reasoning can not be drawn by any sort of reasonable text analysis. In fact, Edmondson himself references Calvin's own commentary on Leviticus, which is publicly available. Both Calvin and Edmondson's reading of Leviticus seem to argue exactly against what the texts to which reference number 19 is attributed seems to suggest.

On his commentary on Leviticus 16:7, Calvin writes[3],

A twofold mode of expiation is here presented to us; for one of the two goats was offered in sacrifice according to the provisions of the Law, the other was sent away to be an outcast, or offscouring... The fulfillment of both figures, however, was manifested in Christ, since He was both the Lamb of God, whose offering blotted out the sins of the world, and, that He might be as an offscouring, ... His comeliness [i.e. attractiveness] was destroyed, and He was rejected of men. A more subtle speculation might indeed be advanced, viz., that after the goat was presented, its sending away was a type of the resurrection of Christ; as if the slaying of the one goat testified that the satisfaction for sins was to be sought in the death of Christ; whilst the preservation and dismissal of the other shewed, that after Christ had been offered for sin, and had borne the curse of men, He still remained alive. I embrace, however, what is more simple and certain, and am satisfied with that; i.e., that the goat which departed alive and free, was an atonement, ... that by its departure and flight the people might be assured that their sins were put away and vanished. This was the only expiatory sacrifice in the Law without blood; nor does this contradict the statement of the Apostle, for since two goats were offered together, it was enough that the death of one should take place, and that its blood should be shed for expiation; for the lot was not cast until both goats had been brought to the door of the tabernacle; and thus although the priest presented one of them alive "to make an atonement with him," as Moses expressly says, yet God was not propitiated without blood, since the efficacy of the expiation depended on the sacrifice of the other goat.

If the contributor to the encyclopedia was attempting to equate St. Anselm's Christological perspective on the symbology of the Lamb, Calvin's own words (my own emphasis in bold) seem to directly contradict this. It is not so much that Christ couldn't serve as a typology of scapegoat because "he knew his role as the Lamb of God," whereas the Levitical scapegoat did not (obviously), rather that Calvin himself subscribes to a prefigurative and symbolical interpretive framework on the Lamb metaphor.

Since I'm very new to Wikipedia and haven't actually edited the visible text of an entry, I would like to have some feedback on my observations on this potential reference discrepancy. Thank you for your time.

StylishTheology 08:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ Edmondson, Stephen (2004). Calvin's Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-521-54154-1. 
  2. ^ Edmondson, Stephen (2004). Calvin's Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-521-54154-1. 
  3. ^ Calvin, John. "Calvin's Commentaries: Leviticus 16:1-34". Bible Hub. Retrieved 20 September 2014. 

'lamb of God' - emblem of Preston North End Football Club[edit]

Preston North End Football Club seemingly have always had an 'Lamb of God' has their club emblem and PNE are mayhap one of the oldest sports club in Europe. Cannot be that many sports clubs that (for somewhy) have bothered to incorporate an 'Lamb of God' in their identity, unlike say an 'grasshopper' which is borne as the emblem of Preston Grasshoppers Rugby Union Club. So maybe a mention under something like: 'Lamb of God in popular culture'

Any takers?

Only John said this.[edit]

Much of this article implies that Christianity is defined, at its core, by a phrase used in only one of the Gospels. Although Paul later picked up on it in a letter, the other three Gospels do not remotely suggest that the Crucifixion was some sort of grisly animal sacrifice, but rather that Jesus was a martyr for a viewpoint that was considered heretical, and that part of the reason the Romans killed him is that he was attracting a lot of crowds and was perceived as a threat to the security of the Roman occupation of the region. The Gospel Of John is considered to be more flowery and poetic than the other three, and it is a mistake to attach greater importance to it, although it is indeed a mistake that is widespread in many Christian denominations. I think that should be pointed out in the article, i.e. that it is only certain denominations that have elevated the Gospel of John to a position above the other three. The idea of a blood sacrifice is quite appalling to many Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)