"Lamb of God" in John 1:29, 36

John the Baptist sees Jesus coming and says: “Look, the Lamb (amnos) of God, the one taking away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, later the Baptist simply says: “Look, the Lamb of God” [1:36]). The standard evangelical interpretation of “Lamb of God” is that the lamb refers to the animal used in either purification/sin sacrifice (Leviticus 4-5:13) or the guilt/reparation sacrifice (Leviticus 5:14-6:7). I want to argue that this interpretation is perhaps the least likely of those most often given.

Four Interpretations

Sacrificial Lamb

This interpretation is the one that evangelicals are most likely to espouse as mentioned above. The description that the lamb “takes away the sin of the world” naturally leads one to think of the sin/guilt offering because those sacrifices surely dealt with sins. Another link to these types of animal sacrifices is via Isaiah where the Servant is likened to a sheep led to slaughter (53:7) and his life is an offering for sin (53:10). John does allude to Isaiah 53 elsewhere (12:38=Isaiah 53:1—see also 12:40=Isaiah 6:10).
The first question to ask is whether the lamb in Isaiah 53:7 is necessarily a sacrificial lamb. The context of Isaiah 53:7 concerns the silence of the Servant in the face of his suffering. This silence is likened (Hebrew reads “as a lamb”) to a lamb going to the slaughter and to a sheep before the shearers. The point is the animal’s silence. We are not told that the lamb’s slaughter is for a sacrifice for the sheep being sheared definitely does not pertain to sacrifice. Also, it is not clear that if there is sacrificial meaning in Isaiah 53 that it might not better refer to the scapegoat of Leviticus 16. The bearing or taking on sin is not the same as taking away but this point is not decisive, however Isaiah 53:8 does mention being cut off from the land of the living and the scapegoat suffers a similar fate (“cut-off land”=Leviticus 16:22). Finally, the “guilt offering” in Isaiah 53:10 may not refer to animal sacrifice but might refer to another meaning (of the term “asam”) used in Genesis 26:10 and 1 Samuel 6:3-4, 8, 17. Even assuming that the Servant is likened to a sacrifice, and the words “he poured out his life-blood to death” (Isaiah 53:12) could add to this imagery, it should be noted that the Servant’s suffering is just as much in the fore as his death. He was despised and shunned, suffered, knowing sickness (53:3), and abused (53:7). These do not necessarily involve death and so the description of the Servant as a sacrifice would only be a metaphor, since there is no indication that sacrificial animals suffered as part of the cultic praxis.

Paschal Lamb

This interpretation is probably the strongest. The Passover lamb is a central feature of the Passover, whereas the lamb in Isaiah is only an incidental reference. That the Passover lamb could be said to be sacrificed is clear from Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 5:7: Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new mixture, as you are unleavened; for indeed the Passover [lamb] of us was sacrificed, Christ.” This may have developed from the fact that the Paschal lambs were killed by priests in the Temple. But strictly speaking, the paschal lamb was not a sacrifice (see below).
The Passover theme is prevalent in John, especially in connection with Jesus’ death. In 19:14, we are told that Jesus was condemned to death at noon the day before the Passover, which is the exact time when the priests began slaughtering the paschal lambs. In 19:29, we are told that wine was given to Jesus with the help of hyssop, and it was hyssop that was used to smear the blood of the paschal lamb on the doorposts (Exodus 12:22). In John 19:36, we are told that none of Jesus’ bones were broken, which seems to fulfill the requirement for the paschal lamb in Exodus 12:46. Finally, Jesus is the lamb in Revelation, a work related to John and Passover themes exist there too: Rev. 5:6 (slain lamb), Rev. 15:3 (Song of Moses=song of Lamb). Rev. 22:1 (Lamb=living water=Moses and water from rock), Rev. 5:9 (ransoming blood of lamb).
The theological upshot of this is that since the paschal lamb was not strictly atoning, there is no reason to assume that by saying that Jesus is the Lamb of God that his death just is a death on par with a sacrificial animal. The paschal blood saved not by atoning for sin but by marking the houses of the Israelites who were to be spared from God’s wrath. The Israelites were slaves and their redemption was not related to sin in any straightforward manner. In like manner, the blood of Jesus can save without being the blood of a sin/guilt offering.
However, this interpretation must still deal with the addition “the one taking away the sin of the world”. It seems likely that in the case involving Jesus, the redemption (the smearing of the blood on the doorposts, which is not a sacrifice) was redemption from the slavery to sin (see Paul!) and so the paschal lamb analogy can still work because Jesus’ redemption really was related to sin (even if the original Passover was not). However, again, this makes Jesus’ death and his blood on par with the Passover and not sacrificial animals.
This interpretation is probably strengthened by comparison with 1 Peter 1:18-19: “You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish.” This verse is very much in line with the Gospel Beyond Belief because by describing Jesus as “without defect or blemish” (see Exodus 12:5), Peter is probably referring to Jesus’ obedience. It is Jesus’ obedience that atones, not his blood-like-an-animal.

Lamb of Isaiah 53

I have really already covered this one by its connection to the first interpretation, but there is no reason to think that John the Baptist could not have also had Jesus and his role as the Suffering Servant in mind when he called him the “Lamb of God”. However, it just does not seem like the primary one. Also, even if the lamb of Isaiah 53:7 plays a part, it is only by analogy to sacrifice and not sacrifice in reality.

Apocalyptic Lamb

This interpretation is related to how the lamb functions in Revelation and in other Jewish writings. The apocalyptic lamb would take away sin by destroying evil. Comparisons with I John are also helpful in understanding this interpretation:
3:5: the one was manifested that the sins he might take away
3:8: for this reason was manifested the Son of God, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
The weakness of this interpretation is that there is really no other reference to an Apocalyptic Lamb in John, though it does appear in Revelation. However, as with the suffering servant from Isaiah, there is no reason why this interpretation might have not also been behind John the Baptist’s proclamation.

Conclusion

It should be clear that the paschal lamb is entirely different from the lambs used in other sacrifices. Even a paschal lamb can be related to the removal of sin if the redemption itself is from the slavery to sin. If the Passover as it is conceived in Christianity is tied to the New Exodus, and if the New Exodus is from the slavery to sin, then to be redeemed from sin is the same as to be forgiven from sin or that sin has been taken away. So, when John the Baptist says that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, he can mean that the blood of the paschal lamb redeems us and it is sin from which we are redeemed. Nothing here dictates that we have to conceive of Jesus’ death as a literal animal-like sacrifice.