Written for: Systematic Theology II
Date Written: 3/15/2009
John 14:28
and the Son of God
Ryan Watters
God’s Bible School & College
John 14:28 and the Son of God
Few
passages in Scripture have been more abused and fought
over than that found in the middle of John’s Gospel.
What do the words, “for the Father is greater than I”
really mean? Is Jesus saying, as Arius firmly asserted,
that He was less than God, and not full deity? That
view in itself resulted in one of the greatest battles
in church history. And it continues to this day with
the Jehovah’s Witnesses firmly holding to this view.
However, that has not been the view of orthodox
Christianity through the centuries. There have been two
major interpretations of this passage, which we will
look at briefly.
First, Augustine believed that Jesus was referring to
the humiliation He suffered during the incarnation. He
believed that when Jesus transcended time and space to
be born of Mary, that He surrendered His position, and
thus became subordinate to the Father in His humanity.
Proof texts for this position are found in such
passages as Philippians 2:6,7, and 8. From this view,
Jesus is speaking strictly from His humanity, and is
not referring to His essence (He is still of the same
substance as God), but is speaking of His position as a
result of the incarnation.
Second, Athanasius believed that this passage was a
reference to the economic trinity. In this view, Jesus
is simply stating what has always been from eternity.
The Son has always
been
subordinate to the Father. He also believed in the
eternal generation of the Son from the Father, which
also indicated subordination. Proof texts for this
position are found in John 1:18, and 5:26. Again, Jesus
is not saying that He is lesser in substance than the
Father, simply in position as the one being eternally
generated, and subordinated to the Father.
Of these two options, I feel that the second view is
most probable for the following reasons. First, to say
that Christ was speaking from His humanity seems to
unduly dichotomize Him. While He most certainly did
possess two natures, it seems only logical that He
operated as the single person of Christ. The
understanding of communicatio idiomatum seems to
support this.
Second, if
the doctrine of eternal generation is to be upheld,
then this understanding is nearly necessitated. For
example, John 1:18 says, “No man hath seen God at any
time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of
the Father, He hath declared him.”
What does “only begotten” mean? Orthodox theology has
historically taught that the Son is eternally generated
from the Father. This is not a choice the Father makes,
and thus the Son is not contingent upon it, but this is
the way it has always been from eternity.
The Father is looked upon as the fountainhead of the
Trinity. He is the base from which the Godhead
proceeds. And because the Son proceeds from the Father,
He is eternally subordinated to the Father as Son. Here
is where the economic trinity comes into play. While
the members of the Godhead are all of the same
substance, and as such are in no way inferior, there is
an authority structure within the Godhead. It just like
a human father and son in that they are both of the
same substance, they are both human, and as such are
equal in essence, but there is a definite authority
structure. This also seems to be supported by the
Nicene Creed, which states, “begotten of the Father
before all worlds. Begotten, not made, being of the
same substance with the Father.”
And so when we reach John 14:28, this understanding of
the economic trinity seems to dovetail quite nicely
with the doctrine of eternal generation. Further, there
is evidence in v. 31 that Jesus is referring to His
obedient submission as Son when He states, “But that
the world may know that I love the Father; and as the
Father gave me commandment, even so
I do”
(underline added).
So while both views are still within the realm of
classical Christendom, and taking a position one way or
the other does not
degrade the
other to the level of heresy, for the reasons listed
above, I side with Athanasius in his interpretation of
the passage. Bottom line, we must never forget that
Jesus is not
referring
here to His equality of essence with the Father. Jesus
is God. John supports that from the beginning of his
Gospel (John 1:1). Let us never forget that. So while
we may not be sure beyond debate what Jesus meant by
this passage, we can be sure that He was referring not
to His substance, but to His position. Either view
supports this interpretation. Let us always be sure to
carefully protect the full deity of Christ.
Reference
Rhodes,
Ron. (1993). Reasoning
from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s
Witnesses. Eugene:
Oregon. Harven House Publishers.
Waltz, David. (2008). John
14:28 and the three views of Athanasius, Augustine, and
Calvin. Articuli
Fidei.
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/11/john-1428-and-three-views-of-athanasius.html.
Watters, Ryan. (2008). Trinity
paper. Personal
communication.