João 1
John Trapp · Citado em PreceptAustin
João 1
Trapp says this present tense "should be as a perpetual picture in our hearts. As we multiply sins, he multiplieth pardons, Isaiah 55:7." Sin (hamartia) is singular and in essence depicts ALL of the variegated sins of ALL mankind for all time (Original Sin and Imputed Sin and Personal Sins - see chart comparing all three "classes" of sin), ALL collected together (so to speak). Christ's death was sufficient to take them ALL away, but of course only those who believe in His sin erasing death will be credited with His righteousness (right standing with God, blameless in Him). John
João 1:1
Trapp - Here this heavenly eagle, John the Divine, soars at first out of sight. Here doth God detonate ab alto, thunder from on high. This barbarian (said the philosopher, concerning our evangelist) hath comprised more stupendous stuff in three lines than we have done in all our voluminous discourses. {a} Happy had it been for him if he had been made, by this first chapter, of an atheist, a true Christian, as learned Junius was. {b} But he only admired it, and so left it where he found it; as too many do the Word at this day. Bruce Milne comments on the reason the use of Logos or Word would be so appealing to John's Jewish readers - The opening phrase In the beginning … links directly to Genesis 1:1: ‘In the beginning God created …’. This allusion is the more likely bearing in mind that Jewish readers referred to the Bible books by their opening words. Thus In the beginning is shorthand for Genesis. ‘The Word of God’ appears in Genesis chapter 1 as the means whereby God accomplishes his acts of creation, ‘God said, “Let there be light” ’ (so also Ge 1:6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26). The Word of God is God himself in his creative action. More generally in the Old Testament the Word of God is God in his powerful and effective action in creation (Ps. 33:6), deliverance (Ps. 107:20), and judgment (Ps. 29:3-4.; Is. 55:11). It is the ‘Word of God’ who gives understanding to the prophets concerning the mind and will of God (cf. Isa. 38:4; Jer. 1:4; Ezek. 1:3). This thought of God’s illumination is developed and personified in the concept of ‘wisdom’, particularly in the book of Proverbs; cf. ‘The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works,… I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began… I was there when he set the heavens in place,… I was the craftsman at his side… rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind’ (Pr. 8:22–23, 27, 30, 31). ‘The Word of God’ also served as a common replacement for the divine name when the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) was read in the synagogue, and the speaker required an alternative to express the unmentionable Name of the Lord. Generally in the Old Testament ‘Word of God’, logos, refers to an action rather than an idea. (The Message of John Bible Speaks Today) (Bolding added)
João 1:1
Trapp says this phrase "sweetly sets forth his co-eternity and co-existency with the Father." Hebert Lockyer on with God - A suggestive rendering of the phrase before us is, The Word was towards God." "Face to face" is the idea in the Greek, and is significant of fellowship with, and delight in God, the personality of the Son attracted by the personality of the Father, as some flowers are attracted by the sun. F. B. Meyer on with God - The preposition with means communion with and movement towards. It denotes the intimate fellowship subsisting between two, and well befits the intercourse of the distinct Persons of the one and ever-blessed God. The face of the everlasting Word was ever directed towards the face of the everlasting Father.' He was in the bosom of the Father. 'He makes the Divine glory shine outwardly because He is filled inwardly. (Ed: Cf use of apaugasma in Heb 1:3) He contemplates before He reflects. He receives before He gives'… Let us not forget that He is our Savior, and our familiar Friend, and a distinct personality, Who was before all worlds, and will be unchanged for evermore." With (4314)(pros) is a preposition which properly speaks of motion towards to "interface with" (literally, moving toward a goal or destination). In Jn 1:1 pros indicates place or accompaniment, but also disposition and orientation. Kostenberger commenting on John's use of pros adds that "What is expressed is “not simple co-existence, but rather the idea of active relationship or intercourse ‘with’ ” (Pollard). In terms of relationship, not only does pros establish a relationship between God and the Word, but also it distinguishes the two from each other.
João 1:1
Trapp - This whole Gospel is a continuate demonstration of Christ’s Deity, which began to be denied, while this evangelist lived, by Ebion, Cerinthus, and other odious antichrists. Alexander
João 1:10
Trapp says "This little world knew not Christ, for God had hid Him under the carpenter's Son; His glory was inward, His kingdom came not by observation." Edwin Blum says that "The failure to recognize (egnō, “know”) Him was not because God’s nature was somehow “hidden” in people, as some suggest. Rather, it is because of human ignorance and blindness, caused by sin (John 12:37). (Bible Knowledge Commentary) Gerald Borchert on did not know Him - The use of ouk egnō (“did not know”; the NIV has the less acceptable “did not recognize”) introduces into the Prologue another of the great themes of the Gospel and encapsulates the seriousness of the human dilemma. Western Christians generally have lived with the concept of “knowing” as primarily related to the sphere of intellectual information (i.e., head knowledge). But they need to recognize that such a definition is a far cry from the Johannine meaning of “knowing.” Knowing is a relational idea in this Gospel. This may be illustrated from Gen 4:1, where it states (literally) that Adam “knew” his wife, and that kind of knowledge resulted in children. That knowledge obviously was not primarily intellectual! Accordingly, knowing the Logos in this Gospel is more than knowing facts about the Logos Know (1097)(ginosko) means to acquire information through some modality, as through sense perception (hearing). However ginosko involves experiential knowledge, not merely the accumulation of known facts. Knowledge possessed through the intellectual process of learning is one thing. Knowledge gained by experience, by an active relationship between the one who knows and the person or thing known, is far superior to the former. Ginosko describes the latter quality of knowledge and is what every Christ follower should desire as their personal, permanent possession regarding the Person of Christ (e.g., see ginosko in Jn 8:32, Jn 17:3, Php 3:10). By extension, ginosko was used of the intimate relationship between husband and wife (Mt 1:25 = says Joseph "knew her not" means he did not have intercourse with Mary until after the birth of Jesus) and between God and His people (Jn 17:3). Stated another way ginosko frequently implies an active relation between the one who knows and the person known.
João 1:14
Trapp - Put himself into a lousy, leprosy suit of ours, to expiate our pride and robbery, in reaching after the Deity, and to heal us of our spiritual leprosy; if he had not assumed our flesh he had not saved us. Illustration - The story is told of a little girl who cried out to her mother from her bedroom, "Mommy, I’m afraid to be in my dark room alone." Her mother replied, "It’s okay, Honey. The Lord is with you." She called back, "Yes, but I want someone with skin on." Jesus is God "with skin on." And He has come so that we never have to be afraid again. Became flesh (sarx) - "The same verb as in John 1:3. All things became through Him; He in turn became flesh. “He became that which, first became through Him.” In becoming, He did not cease to be the Eternal Word. His divine nature was not laid aside. In becoming flesh He did not part with the rational soul of man. Retaining all the essential properties of the Word, He entered into a new mode of being, not a new being. The word sarx, flesh, describes this new mode of being (cp Php 2:6-8-note). Sarx signifies human nature in and according to its corporeal manifestation.There is a Spanish phrase "chile con carne" meaning chili with meat. The Word became "God con carne", as opposed to the purely divine, and to the purely immaterial nature of the Word. He did not first become a personality on becoming flesh. The prologue throughout conceives Him as a personality from the very beginning — from eternal ages. The phrase became flesh, means more than that He assumed a human body. He assumed human nature entire, identifying Himself with the race of man, having a human body, a human soul, and a human spirit. See Jn 12:27; 11:33: 13:21; 19:30. He did not assume, for a time merely, humanity as something foreign to Himself. The incarnation was not a mere accident of His substantial being. “He became flesh, and did not clothe Himself in flesh.” Compare, on the whole passage, 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7. Flesh (4561)(sarx)
João 1:14-18
Trapp - Put himself into a lousy, leprosy suit of ours, to expiate our pride and robbery, in reaching after the Deity, and to heal us of our spiritual leprosy; if he had not assumed our flesh he had not saved us. Illustration - The story is told of a little girl who cried out to her mother from her bedroom, "Mommy, I’m afraid to be in my dark room alone." Her mother replied, "It’s okay, Honey. The Lord is with you." She called back, "Yes, but I want someone with skin on." Jesus is God "with skin on." And He has come so that we never have to be afraid again. Became flesh - "The same verb as in John 1:3. All things became through Him; He in turn became flesh. “He became that which, first became through Him.” In becoming, He did not cease to be the Eternal Word. His divine nature was not laid aside. In becoming flesh He did not part with the rational soul of man. Retaining all the essential properties of the Word, He entered into a new mode of being, not a new being. The word sarx, flesh, describes this new mode of being (cp Php 2:6-8-note). It signifies human nature in and according to its corporeal manifestation. Here, as opposed to the purely divine, and to the purely immaterial nature of the Word. He did not first become a personality on becoming flesh. The prologue throughout conceives Him as a personality from the very beginning — from eternal ages. The phrase became flesh, means more than that He assumed a human body. He assumed human nature entire, identifying Himself with the race of man, having a human body, a human soul, and a human spirit. See Jn 12:27; 11:33: 13:21; 19:30. He did not assume, for a time merely, humanity as something foreign to Himself. The incarnation was not a mere accident of His substantial being. “He became flesh, and did not clothe Himself in flesh.” Compare, on the whole passage, 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7. MacArthur quotes the fifth-century church father Cyril of Alexandria, We do not... assert that there was any change in the nature of the Word when it became flesh, or that it was transformed into an entire man, consisting of soul and body; but we say that the Word, in a manner indescribable and inconceivable, united personally... to himself flesh animated with a reasonable soul, and thus became man and was called the Son of man.... The natures which were brought together to form a true unity were different; but out of both is one Christ and one Son. We do not mean that the difference of the natures is annihilated by reason of this union; but rather that the Deity and Manhood, by their inexpressible and inexplicable concurrence into unity, have produced for us the one Lord and Son Jesus Christ. (cited in Bettenson, Documents, 47) Flesh (4561)(sarx)