John 14

John 14:6

The Apologists Bible Commentary

John 14

6Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.”

CommentaryJesus’ answer to Thomas - rightly called the core statement of the Gospel - is striking because not only does Jesus point to the way to the Father, Jesus asserts that He is the way to the Father. And, indeed, the only way. Jesus has just said that the Disciples know the way that He is going (v. 4), but Thomas demurs: “how do we know the way?” (v. 5). Jesus responds by a profound self-identification. The Disciples can safely place their faith in Him just as they place their faith in God (v. 1 <>) precisely because Jesus is the only way to the Father. He is the truth and the life - words charged with meaning throughout John’s Gospel (“truth” occurs 21 times; “life” 39 times).

Jesus is “full of grace and truth” (1:14) and those who abide in His word “will know the truth,” and by this truth, will be “set free” (8:32). Jesus has “life in him” (1:4), has the same quality of “life in Himself” that the Father has (5:26 <>), and equates “eternal life” to knowing the Father and knowing Him (17:3 <>).

Only One who truly embodies the Father in the deepest sense - who can later say, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father,” (v. 9) and who includes Himself in the promised indwelling of believers (v. 23) could make such a claim. Jesus implicitly points to His Incarnation and grounds His answer in it: “All truth is God’s truth, as all life is God’s life; but God’s truth and God’s life are incarnate in Jesus (Bruce <>, pp. 298-99). In a culture that extols inclusivism and rejects all absolutes except the credo: “all truth is relative,” Jesus’ words are an offense. Men can cynically ask, as Pilate did, “what is truth?” But if Jesus is, indeed, the One come from the bosom of the Father to declare Him to us, the answer is clear: He is! He did not counter Thomas’s skepticism with an argument or a quotation drawn from his memory. He responded with an authoritative assertion as the master of life.

He is the way to the Father because only he has an intimate knowledge of God unmarred by sin. He is the truth because he has the perfect power of making life one coherent experience irrespective of its ups and downs.

He is the life because he was not subject to death but made it subject to him. He did not live with death as the ultimate end of his life; he died to demonstrate the power and continuity of his life. Because he is the way, the truth, and the life, he is the only means of reaching the Father. Jesus was not exhibiting a narrow arrogance. Rather, he was making the only possible deduction from the fact that he, the unique Son, was the sole means of access to the Father. Jesus’ claim parallels the author’s pronouncement: “No one has ever seen God, but God the only Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known” (John 1:18). Jesus is the only authorized revelation of God in human form and he is the only authorized representative of humanity to God. (EBC <>) Grammatical Analysisegw eimi h odoV kai h alhqeia kai h zwh EGΤ EIMI hΚ hODOS KAI hΚ ALΚTHEIA KAI hΚ ZΤΚ I am the way and the truth and the life I am the way, and the truth, and the life… Either of these statements is profound enough to stagger any one, but here all three together overwhelm Thomas. Jesus had called himself “the life” to Martha (11:25) and “the door” to the Pharisees (10:7) and “the light of the world” (8:12). He spoke “the way of God in truth” (Mark 12:14). He is the way to God and the only way (verse 6), the personification of truth, the centre of life. Except by me… There is no use for the Christian to wince at these words of Jesus. If he is really the Incarnate Son of God (1:1, 14, 18), they are necessarily true. (RWP <>)

John 14:14

The Apologists Bible Commentary

John 14

14If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

CommentaryJesus has declared in verse 12 that those who believe in him will do the same miracles - and even greater ones - because He is going to His Father. In the position glory beside His Father, Jesus will answer prayers and “do” whatever is asked in His name (verse 13). He amplifies this statement here, saying that anything his disciples ask in His name, He will do. Naturally, this would only include those things which are asked in accordance with God’s sovereign will (cf., 1 John 5:14). The promise Jesus makes could not be clearer: He will hear the requests we make in His name - as will the Father - and whatever we pray in accordance with God’s will, He (Jesus) will do. The power of the disciples originated in prayer.

Jesus could hardly have made more emphatic the declaration that whatever they should ask in his name, he would do. The phrase “in my name,” however, is not a talisman for the command of supernatural energy. He did not wish it to be used as a magical charm like an Aladdin’s lamp. It was both a guarantee, like the endorsement on a check, and a limitation on the petition; for he would grant only such petitions as could be presented consistently with his character and purpose. In prayer we call on him to work out his purpose, not simply to gratify our whims. The answer is promised so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.

The disciples’ obedience to him will be the test of their love (EBC <>). Grammatical Analysisean ti aithste me en tw nomati mou egw poihsw EAN TI AITÊSTE ME EN TW NOMATI MOU EGW POIÊSW Whatever you should ask me in my name, I myself will do it. The use of me (me) here is supported by Aleph B 33 Vulgate Syriac Peshitta. Just this phrase does not occur elsewhere in John and seems awkward, but see 16:23. If it is genuine, as seems likely, here is direct prayer to Jesus taught as we see it practiced by Stephen in Acts 7:59; and in Revelation 22:20 (RWP <>). Other Views ConsideredJehovah’s Witnesses objection: In Appendix E of Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended <>, Greg Stafford argues that the word “me” should not be included in this verse, and hence, it does not reflect Jesus’ request that we pray to Him. Response: James Stewart <> offers the following response: The issue in this appendix is should ‘Me’ be included in John 14:14 after the word ‘ask’. If ‘Me’ is to be included in this verse, it teaches that we can pray to Jesus. It is very important to a Jehovah’s Witness that Jesus is not prayed to. If Jesus is prayed to, it becomes evidence that Christ is God in the same sense as the Father is God. For the Jehovah’s Witness, ‘Me’ has to be excluded from the text, or they are wrong about Jesus.

The Jehovah’s Witness has a vested interest to discount the evidence for the inclusion of ‘Me’ to be included in John 14:14. On the other hand, if ‘Me’ is included or not included, both are compatible with the Historic Christian Faith.

If ‘Me’ is not included, it would just be parallel to John 14:13 and somewhat to John 15:16 and 16:23-24. There is a very helpful tool for making decisions on textual variants in D.A. Black’s book called New Testament Textual Criticism A Concise Guide, 1994, Baker Book House, Appendix 3: A Worksheet For New Testament Criticism. I will be following it step by step. I. Preliminaries A. Biblical reference: John 14:14 B. Greek text as found in UBS4: EAN TI ME EN TW ONOMATI MOU EGW POIHSW.

C. Literal Rendering: Whatever you should ask me in my name, I myself will do it. D. NRSV Rendering: If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it. E. NKJV Rendering: If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. F. Delineation of problem: Should the variant ‘Me’ be in the text?

Let’s look at the external and internal evidence: Since we both agree that the entire verse belongs in the text, I will not discuss this issue. 1. List any alternative readings. 2. Label each alternative as to the kind of variation is involved (e.g., omission, addition, transposition of words, substitution). 3. Translate the alternatives so as to bring out the differences in meaning that each conveys. Alternate Readings Kind of Variation Translation 1. Verse with ‘Me’ 2. Verse without ‘Me’ 3. Verse with ’the Father’ Addition Omission Substitution Whatever you should ask me in my name, I will do it.

Whatever you should ask in my name, I will do it. Whatever you should ask the Father in my name, I will do it. II. External Evidence A. Accumulation of Evidence. 1. List readings. 2. Record the evidence for each from UBS4 Evidence 1. Addition ‘Me’ 2.

Omission ‘Me’ 3. Substitution ’the Father’ P66 P75vid Aleph B W D Q 060 f13 28 35 33 579 700 892 1006 1342 1184 1514 Byzpt [EH] l1841/2 l514 l547 l672 l6731/2 l813 l8901/2 itc.f vg syrp.h A D L Y 180 597 (1010) 1071 1241 1243 1292 1424 1505 Byzpt [G Q] Lect ita, aur, d, e, q, r1 vgmss copsa, pbo, bo, ach2, fay eth slav Cyrillem Victorinus-Rome Augustine2/3 249 397 (itff2) Augustine1/3 B. Distribution of Evidence. Segregate the support for each reading into the various text types. Readings Byzantine Alexandrian Western Others 1. Addition ‘Me’ 2.

Omission 3. Substitution D Byzpt 28 [E H] 33 579 892 1006 1342 1184 1514 1547 1672 1673 1813 1890 f13 A Y 180 597 1010 1011 1071 1241 1243 1292 1424 1505 Lect Byzpt G Q Cyril P66 p75vid Aleph B W L Itc vg syrph 060 D it vgmss cop eth Slav Augustine Victorinus-Rome 0249 itff2 Augustine Q C.

Evaluation of Evidence. Arrange the readings in descending order of probability with the “ better attested” reading at the top. Explain why each reading is assigned its particular position. Readings Rationale 1.Me 2.- 3.the Father Adequately supported by the oldest and best manuscripts; Has the greatest number of text-type distribution; Supported in widely separated geographical areas Not supported by the oldest and best manuscripts; supported in widely separated geographical areas; somewhat supported with text-type distribution Not the oldest and best manuscripts; only one text-type; not much geographical distribution III. Internal Evidence A. Transcriptional Probabilities. Test each of the variants in the light of known types of scribal errors. Readings Possible Error in Transcription 1.

Me 2. - 3. the Father Addition Omission, Elimination of apparent discrepancies (16:23), Harmonization of parallel passages- 14:13, 15:16. 16:23 Substitution, Elimination of apparent discrepancies (16:23), Harmonization of parallel passages- 14:13, 15:16, 16:23 B. Intrinsic Probabilities. Examine each variant from the standpoint of the author’s style, vocabulary, and theology. Readings Author’s Style Vocabulary Theology 1. Me 2.- 3. the Father In 14:15, the verse starts out with, “ If you love me,…” This has a certain symmetry to it. Compare to 14:14, “ Whatever you ask me…’ Parallel to 14:13 and somewhat with 16:23 Parallel to 14:13 and somewhat with 16:23 Same Same Same Same high Christology John 1:1, 18, and 20:28 Also, verse 13 states that Jesus answers prayer. Same Same C. Evaluation.

Arrange the variants in descending order of preference on the basis of internal evidence. Readings Rationale 1. Me 2. - 3. the Father a. It best explains the origin of the other two variants-see conclusion b. It is the most difficult reading c. Accords with the author’s style, vocabulary, and theology. d. It is the less harmonious reading with parallel passages a. It is the shorter reading but probably to make the reading less difficult. b.

It harmonizes with the parallel passages a. Longer reading in order to make the reading less difficult. b. It harmonizes with the parallel passages IV. Summary and Conclusion Give an overall summary evaluating all areas of investigation and stating your conclusion with regard to the textual problem. Reading one is not an addition. Concerning the external evidence, it is the oldest attested reading from the best manuscripts. The distribution of manuscript text-type and geography is very good. Concerning the internal evidence, it explains why the other two variants harmonizes with parallel passages and lessens the difficulty.

The difficulty is prayer to Jesus. It accords with the author’s style (verse 15), vocabulary, and theology. And as Metzger states in his textual commentary on page 208, “…seems to be appropriate in view of its correlation with EGW later in the verse.” Reading two is an omission. As to external evidence, it has some attestation but not close to reading one. It does have good geographical distribution but not text-type. As for the internal evidence, elimination of apparent discrepancies and harmonization of parallel passages would best explain the omission. This is why it is the shorter reading. It smoothes out the difficulty by omitting one word.

Reading three is a substitution. As for external evidence, it does not have much manuscript support at all. As for internal evidence, it is the same as for reading two. P.W. Comfort was quoted in Mr. Stafford’s appendix from an article he wrote for NTS entitled “The Greek Text of the Gospel of John According to the Early Papyri.” Mr. Stafford refers to Comfort’s article in an effort to undermine Codex B, but the authority he cites found over 40 places to suggest revisions, but not where Mr. Stafford wants it.

As Philip W. Comfort states in Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament on page 207 under concluding observations, “ 14:14 change ask anything to ask me anything…” I completely agree. Mr. Stafford attempts to refute three arguments given by Bruce Metzger for the inclusion of ‘Me’ in the first edition of his textual commentary. There were actually four arguments given by Metzger. The one Mr. Stafford neglected was TON PATERA substituted for ‘Me’. Argument one: “ Parallel texts in the book of Psalms…” Metzger listed three verses in the Psalms as parallels to John 14:14.

In the second edition of Metzger’s textual commentary (1994), this argument is omitted. Argument two: “…early manuscript support…” Mr. Stafford states on page 584, “ One might consider giving the nod to me as far as external evidence is concerned.” Notice how he downplays the external evidence. This is not surprising. He has to do this because he can’t have Jesus prayed to. Ray Franz had the same problem when he was working on the subject of Chronology in the Aid to Bible Understanding.

He stated on page 26, “ Thus, in preparing the material for the Aid book, much of the time and space was spent in trying to weaken the credibility of the archeological and historical evidence that would make erroneous our 607 B.C.E. date and give a different starting point for our calculations and therefore an ending date different from 1914…The arguments I presented were honest ones, but I know that their intent was to uphold a date for which there was no historical support.” As can be seen from the worksheets above, the external evidence is very good. The evidence goes way beyond a “ nod.

Mr. Stafford then tries to make it seem as if textual critics are in a state of flux as to the science of textual criticism. He states on page 584, “ However, if one wishes to research the issues involved he will find that scholars are not at all agreed as to which methodology should be followed for collating the witnesses into text-type readings descending (allegedly) from this or that prototype, that either is extant or that exists in theory, at least.” Mr. Stafford then quotes Bart Ehrman pointing out a mistake made by Frederick Wisse. This is a subtle way to downplay the opinions of the experts. Of course, there are going to be disagreements between scholars. Of course, there will be mistakes made by scholars. This is how science progresses.

But, when one reads the textbooks and articles, there is more agreement than disagreement. Notice what Bart Ehrman states on page 23 of his article quoted by Mr. Stafford, “ Textual scholars are generally agreed on the three advantages of determining textual groups…Finally, most scholars agree…” This is the first page of his article. On page 45 (the last page of his article), he states, “ The past half-century has obviously witnessed important methodological advances in our methods of analyzing and classifying the documentary evidence of the NT.” This does not sound like textual critics are in a state of flux. Kurt and Barbara Aland in their The Text of the New Testament on pages 275-276 gave “ Twelve Basic Rules for Textual Criticism.” I quote Rules 2, 3, and 4 on page 275: “ 2-Only the reading which best satisfies the requirements of both external and internal criteria can be original. 3-Criticism of the text must always begin from the evidence of the manuscript tradition and only afterward turn to a consideration of internal criteria. 4-internal criteria (the context of the passage, its style and vocabulary, the theological environment of the author, etc.) can never be the sole basis for the critical decision, especially when they stand in opposition to the external evidence. Argument three, “…the correlation with EGW in the same verse.” Also, Mr.

Stafford states on page585, “ Regarding the correlation between ego and me in John 14:14, it is not a necessary correlation.” Right, and Metzger never said it was necessary. Metzger stated that ME, “…seems to be appropriate in view of its correlation with EGW later in the verse.” Metzger is right.

It fits the context because ‘ME’ belongs. The second paragraph on page 585 is Mr. Stafford’s internal evidence for why ‘ME’ does not belong in the text. I want to refer you to the above worksheets on internal evidence. The evidence points to ‘ME’ to be included in the text. Now, let’s look at 14:13, 14, 15:16, and 16:23. Verse 14:13 states, “ And whatever you should ask in my name, this I will do in order that the Father might be glorified in the Son.” Notice in this verse that the Son answers the prayer. Also, it doesn’t state whether to ask the Son or the Father.

Verses 13 and 14 teach that Jesus answers the prayer. Notice also the symmetry between verse 14 and verse 15: Verse 14-Whatever you should ask me… Verse 15-If you would love me… In verses 15:16 and 16:23, there is the same theme about prayer. Except this time, it is the Father that answers the prayer. Neither of these texts contradicts 14:13-14. They simply state that the Father answers prayer and that the Son answers prayer. In 16:23, the first half of the verse does not refer to prayer. It is stating that after the resurrection, the disciples will not need further information from him. The NWT reflects this understanding, “ And in that day you will ask me no question at all.” Mr.

Stafford now leaves John 14:14 and makes a short comment on Acts 7:59. He can’t have Stephen praying to Jesus, so he stated that means ‘appeal’. He claims this ‘appeal’ is the same ‘appeal’ Paul gave to Caesar in Acts 25: 11-12, 21. The same Greek word is used. There are several problems with this argument. One, he is committing an etymological fallacy. A word does not have just one basic meaning. It has a range of meanings.

Here are a few of the meanings: call, name, appeal, and prayer. Two, his presupposition that Jesus can’t be prayed to causes him to equivocate on the meaning of this word. By his line of reasoning whenever this word is used in reference to the Father, I can say that the Father is just being appealed to just like appealing to Caesar. Words have components of meaning. The key is the context of how the word is used. This word is used 30 times in the New Testament. It has an everyday secular use, and a sacred religious use. Moulton and Milligan in The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament page 239 states, “ The middle usage “ invoke,” “ call upon,” as in Acts 7:59, is frequent in the magic papyri…” And in BAGD page 294, it states, “ b. of calling on a divinity…Acts 7:59.” See also H.

Cremer’s Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek and Kittel, Vol. 3 page 497. Here is a list of scriptures where signifies prayer: Gen. 12:8 (LXX), Acts 2:21, 9:14, 9:21-22, 16, 22:16, 2 Cor. 1:23, 2 Timothy 2:22, Ro. 10: 12-14, and 1 Cor. 1:2. Even the NWT translators put as an alternative translation, “ invocation; prayer” in the footnotes of the KIT page 556. ‘Appeal’ should have been put in the footnotes because this is a religious context, not secular and/or legal. In the NWT revised 1984, the translators reference Psalms 31:5, “ Into your hand I entrust my spirit.” to Acts 7:59. This is quoted in Luke 23:46. You cannot help but see a parallel between Luke 23:46 and Acts 7:59.

In Luke, Jesus entrusts his spirit into the hands of the Father. In Acts, Stephen asks Jesus to receive his spirit.

Think about it, if you are about to die, you pray! Acts 7:55 states that Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit and was given a vision of Heaven. There is no doubt that Stephen prayed. If does not mean prayer in Acts 7:59, then neither does it mean prayer anywhere else. F.F. Bruce stated it very well in his commentary on Acts page 180, “ That the request made by our Lord to the Father should so soon be repeated to Himself by Stephen is evidence of the early date of the belief in the essential Deity of Christ.”

John 14:28

The Apologists Bible Commentary

John 14

28You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

CommentaryPerhaps more than any other, this verse has been quoted by non-Trinitarians as proof that Jesus could not be true God. In the view of those denying the Trinity, if the Father is “greater” than Jesus, Jesus must be teaching that He is ontologically inferior to the Father. A careful consideration of this verse in context, however, reveals that such a view in untenable. As Jesus approaches the Cross, He begins to speak more plainly about leaving His disciples and returning to His Father. When the disciples display a self-centered - though natural - response, Jesus reproves them: “If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father.” But why should they rejoice when Jesus goes to His Father? Is it because Jesus will be happier there?

Or because He will be past His suffering on the Cross? These would be answers we might give a loved one who, upon hearing that we had a terminal illness, cried out, “But what will I do without you?” What we would certainly not say in such a circumstance is: “Rejoice for me that I’m going to God, because God is a superior being than I am.” Such a remark would provide little comfort (since obviously God is superior to any created being) and instead would bespeak an intolerable hubris - as though we were so wonderful that our loved ones would actually confuse us for God Himself!.

If Jesus’ disciples understood Him to be a mere man, or a lesser divinity of some sort, as non-Trinitarians tell us, reprimanding them in this way would would seem almost a non-sequitor. “We know God is a greater being than you are, Master,” the disciples could reasonably respond, “but why should we rejoice in such an obvious truth?” The word translated “greater” (meizon) does not mean greater in the sense of a higher type of being, but rather greater in the sense of position or authority. This is the meaning cited by modern Greek lexicons, and is exampled by dozens of Biblical and extra-Biblical sources (see Grammatical Analysis, below). Jesus repeats the phrase, “A servant is not greater than his Master,” twice in this same discourse (John 13:16; 15:20). The same Greek word (meizon) occurs in each of these verses. No one would suggest that a servant is a lesser being than his Master. A Master is “greater” than a servant because he occupies a position of greater status, dignity, and authority.

If we let these other examples guide us, Jesus is saying that the Father is “greater” because the Father’s position in Heaven is one of greater dignity and authority than the Son occupies on earth. This meaning, then, makes clear why the disciples should rejoice.

The Son is returning to the right hand of the Father, to the glory He had with the Father before His existence on earth (John 17:5). He had voluntarily humbled Himself in coming to earth (Philippians 2:6), taking the form of a servant (doulos, the same word Jesus uses in John 13:16 and 15:20). Now Jesus was returning to the Father to regain His former glory, where He could accomplish all the wonderful things promised to the disciples in His final discourse. If the disciples had considered the import of Jesus’ words, they would have realized the exaltation that awaited the Son, and would have rejoiced. Thus, there is little contextual or lexical support for the idea that Jesus is teaching His ontological inferiority to the Father in this verse. He is speaking in the highest terms of the positional greatness of the Father - a position to which Jesus is soon to return, there to be an even greater blessing to the disciples and an assurance of their own paths to Heaven. Grammatical Analysisotio pathr meizwn mou estin hOTI hO PATΚR MEIZΤN MOU ESTIN for the Father is greater than I. MEIZΤN · Greater…of rank and dignity (BADG <>) · Pertaining to having a higher status in comparison to something else - ‘better, greater, superior to.’ (Louw & Nida <>) · Greater…in the sense of position not essence (Rogers & Rogers <>). · Not a distinction in nature or essence (cf. 10:30), but in rank in the Trinity. No Arianism or Unitarianism here. The very explanation here is proof of the deity of the Son [Dods] (RWP <>). Grimm-Thayer <>, alone among modern lexicons, defines MEIZΤN in such a way as to suggest ontology may be in view: “is used of those who surpass others … in nature and power, as God: Jn. 10:29, 14:28; Heb. 6:13; 1 Jn. 4:4; add, Jn. 4:12; 8:53” (emphasis added). The question arises whether “nature” in this definition is meant to signify nature of being, as it is used in Trinitarian formulas, or whether it may have a lesser sense - in which case, Grimm-Thayer could then be taken to be in agreement with the other lexicons.

We would first note that in none of the verses cited by Grimm-Thayer does MEIZΤN require the meaning “greater in nature;” on each occasion, the meaning “greater in power, authority, or character” yields a perfectly acceptable interpretation. We may also recall that Thayer translated the Grimm Greek-Latin lexicon into English.

The word Thayer translated as “nature” is the Latin natura. Definition of meizon in Grimm’s Lexicon Graeco-Latinum in Libros Novi Testamenti’ citing John 14:28: “meizones dic. qui alios superant vel natura et poteste, ut deus” It is unlikely that Grimm intended natura to mean “greater in ontological nature.” Natura is defined by Lewis & Short <> as “natural constitution, property, disposition, inclination, temper, or character.” Had Grimm intended an ontological meaning, he would probably have used somewhat stronger language, as he does elsewhere when speaking of the Divine Nature (<>). To be absolutely clear, he could have used essentia, the Latin term for “nature of being, essence” used commonly in the historic Trinitarian creeds when speaking of the Divine Nature shared by Father and Son (<>). Moulton and Milligan <> list dozens of extra-Biblical Koine texts, all of which support the “greater in rank or position” definition of MEIZΤN. For example, “MEIZΤN is used in the sense of ‘senior’ in ostracon receipts…(A.D. 128 [and] A.D. 147)…. The word is applied to one in authority, an official…(A.D. 270-275)…. ‘Occupying a position of highest … rank and honour’ - of a Roman Senator…(c.

A.D. 150).” Not one example of ontological greatness is provided. Thus, the lexical evidence is quite substantial that the meaning “greater in rank or position” is the correct meaning of MEIZΤN. Other Views ConsideredJehovah’s Witnesses The Watchtower and its defenders - notably Greg Stafford - have offered several arguments in favor of their view that Jesus is ontologically inferior to the Father. objection: The Bible’s position is clear. Not only is Almighty God, Jehovah, a personality separate from Jesus but He is at all times his superior. Jesus is always presented as separate and lesser, a humble servant of God. This is why the Bible plainly says that “the head of the Christ is God” in the same way that “the head of every man is Christ.” (1 Corinthians 11:3) And this is why Jesus himself said: “The Father is greater than I.” - John 14:28, RS Catholic edition (SYBT <>, p. 20). Response: We should first emphasize that Trinitarians agree that the Father is “a personality separate from Jesus” and that He is “at all time his superior.” The difference is that by “superior” Trinitarians mean “superior in rank or position,” while the Watchtower means “superior in terms of essential being.” As we have seen in the Commentary and Grammatical Analysis, above, the contextual and lexical evidence points strongly to the meaning “superior in rank and position.” Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:3, we note that if the Watchtower views God the Father as ontologically superior to Christ “in the same way” that Christ is ontologically superior to every man, it must also accept that “in the same way” a husband is ontologically superior to his wife. Once again we see that context argues for a positional superiority - for according to Paul, God’s plan is one of order.

The order is in terms of authority, not essential being. The husband is “head” of his wife in terms of spiritual authority, just as God the Father is “head” of Christ in the same manner. objection: Ron Rhodes attempts to discredit this statement’s power by stating that Jesus was simply referring to his “human nature.” Indeed, he refers to the Athanasian Creed which says that Christ is “equal to the Father as touching his Godhood and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood.” If this were the case (that Christ was simply referring to his human nature in John 14:28) then what was the point of him telling this to his disciples?

In other words, was it not rather obvious that Jehovah, the God of heaven, was greater than a man? (Stafford <>, p. 192). Response: Rhodes does not exactly say that Jesus was “simply referring to ‘his human nature.’” He says the following: “Jesus is not speaking about His nature or His essential being (Christ had earlier said, ‘I and the Father are one’ in this regard [John 10:30]), but rather about His lowly position in the incarnation” (Rhodes <>, p. 146). Rhodes says that Jesus is not referring to essential nature, but rather to “His lowly position.” While the incarnation includes the Son’s human nature, it also includes laying aside His divine prerogatives and assuming the role or position of a “slave” (Philippians 2:6). The distinction Rhodes draws is precisely the same as the one presented in the Commentary and Grammatical Analysis, above. The contextual and lexical evidence strongly supports Rhodes’ argument. Mr.

Stafford’s rhetorical question, “was it not rather obvious that Jehovah, the God of heaven, was greater than a man?” is rather odd, considering that Mr. Stafford (adhering to Watchtower theology) believes that Jesus was a mere man when on earth.

Since Mr. Stafford would say that not only does Jesus have a human nature, but that this nature is Jesus’ only nature, we may well ask him the question he poses to us: “If…Christ was simply referring to his human nature…then what was the point of him telling this to his disciples?” Mr. Stafford, perhaps, sees this verse as including Jesus’ pre-human existence, but just as he points out that nowhere in the context does Jesus limit His words to His human nature, he must also recognize that nowhere in this context is Christ’s pre-existence in view, either. And even if it were, the question still remains, what was the point of Jesus telling His disciples that the pre-existent Son was ontologically inferior to the Father? Was it not rather obvious that Jehovah, the God of heaven, was greater than a god, a created being? objection: Was it not rather obvious that Jehovah, the God of heaven, was greater than a man? This is undoubtedly one reason why individuals such as Irenaeus, Justin, and Origen applied John 14:28 to the Logos (the pre-human Jesus), and not to the “Christ of history” (IBID <>, p. 192).

Response: Again, Rhodes is not arguing solely on the basis of Christ’s human nature, but also (and primarily) that His position is inferior to the Father’s. I would also point out that while I have argued - as has Rhodes - that Christ is speaking specifically about His inferior position while on earth, the orthodox understanding of the Trinity acknowledges an eternal relationship of Father and Son in the Godhead in which the Father is always superior to the Son in terms of rank, position, and authority.

Thus, even if we understand Christ to be speaking of Himself as the “eternal Logos” in this verse, saying that the Father is greater than He is does not detract from the Trinity in any way. Mr. Stafford’s source for what Irenaeus, Justin, and Origen wrote is Phillip Schaff’s History of Christianity. Schaff does not provide references for his comments about these early church fathers. If my computer search of Irenaeus is correct, his only reference to John 14:28 is in Against Heresies (II.28.8). But in this passage, Irenaeus is speaking specifically about the knowledge that the Father alone possesses, and says immediately after quoting John 14:28: “Therefore the Lord teaches that the Father is greater in knowledge than the Son.” Thus, while Irenaeus is applying the Son’s words to the eternal Logos, he is not necessarily using them to advocate the ontological superiority of the Son.

Regardless of his use of John 14:28, the Christology <> of Irenaeus is essentially orthodox (cf., Against Heresies, II.30.9; IV.20.4; Book III.21.1; etc.). Schaff concludes: “All this plainly shows that Irenaeus is much nearer the Nicene dogma of the substantial identity of the Son with the Father than Justin and the Alexandrians (Schaff <>, p. 554).

It is true that Justin Martyr and Origen do teach an extreme subordination of the Son to the Father, yet both also are quite clear that the Father and the Son share the same nature (cf., Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho 128; and Origen, Commentary on John 2:2:16; 2:10:76; 19:2:6). This is no doubt why Schaff states: “[Justin] is therefore neither Arian nor Athanasian; but his whole theological tendency is towards the orthodox system, and had he lived later, he would have subscribed the Nicene Creed. The same may be said of Tertullian and Origin” (IBID <>, p. 550). Thus, whether the fathers associated John 14:28 with the “eternal Logos,” or with the “Christ of history,” they did not understand this verse to teach an ontological inferiority of the Son. Instead, they understood that while the Son may be subordinated in terms of role or position, He nevertheless shared the same ontological nature with His Father. Only the Arians of the 4th Century put John 14:28 into service as a proof-text for Christ as a lesser divine being or mere man (cf., Eusebius of Caesarea, Letter to Euphration, 2.5; Eunomius, quoted by Gregory Nazianzus, Theological Orations III[XXXIX].18; Palladius, in a debate with Ambrose, Acts of Council 360.40; etc.; John 14:28 is “much used by the Arians from the beginning” [Hanson <>, p. 103]).

See Were Early Christians Trinitarians? <> for more detailed information on the teachings of the early church fathers. objection: Rhodes also tries to weaken the force of the Greek word translated “greater” (meizon)…. Rhodes gives meizon the meaning of “greater in regards to position,” while he states that kreitton would mean “better in terms of nature.” With the understanding Rhodes gives to the meaning of these two Greek words in mind, let us now consider the definitions offered in the Grimm-Thayer lexicon.

We read on page 395 that meizon “is used of those who surpass others - either in nature and power, as God” (emphasis added). John 14:28 is then cited as an example of this definition…. So, then, according to the above lexicons Jesus, at John 14:28, affirmed that the Father was greater “in nature and power.” Of course, entries in lexicons do not prove anything, except that other scholars recognize this as a legitimate meaning for meizon, while Rhodes gives the impression that such a meaning is not acceptable at all….Rhodes, following Martin’s lead, has stripped meizon of any notion of a difference in nature and added the concept of a difference in nature to kreitton, when the reverse is likely true, all in order to protect his theology!” (IBID <>, pp. 192-194). Response: Mr. Stafford is presenting a rather limited consideration of the lexical evidence available. As demonstrated in the Grammatical Analysis, above, the lexical evidence favors Rhodes’ argument regarding meizon.

Mr. Stafford suggests that the entry in Grimm-Thayer demonstrates that other scholars hold a view similar to his own, while Rhodes denies such a meaning is even possible.

Actually, Rhodes does not deny such a meaning is possible, he simply maintains that meizon means “greater in rank or position” - a view for which for which there is ample evidence. Despite the wealth of contrary evidence, Mr. Stafford bases his view of John 14:28 on Grimm-Thayer alone. But it is not at all clear that Grimm intended to offer a view congenial to Mr. Stafford’s. As we have seen, Mr. Stafford may be reading more into Thayer’s translation of natura than Grimm intended. Thayer, of course, may have believed that meizon connoted “greater in essence or nature of being,” since he was no doubt aware how “nature” would be understood by his readers, and he seems to have had Unitarian leanings.

But if his exemplar did not intend this meaning, it further isolates Thayer’s definition from the other major lexical works. Thayer may also have simply rendered natura into English with the most reasonable translation, without regard to the theological implications apologists such as Mr. Stafford would derive from it. As the preponderance of lexical evidence suggests, Rhodes has not “stripped meizon of any notion of a difference in nature.” Rhodes is on very solid ground, here: Meizon means greater in rank or position, not essential nature. True, Mr. Stafford has Grimm-Thayer to support his view to a very limited extent, but since he consults BAGD with respect to kreitton in this very discussion, and since he lists Louw & Nida in his Bibliography, one can only conclude that Mr.

Stafford is stacking the deck - offering his readers only the one small piece of evidence which supports his view and remaining silent about the substantial evidence that refutes it. To paraphrase Mr.

Stafford: It is he, not Ron Rhodes, who has added the concept of difference in nature to meizon, when the reverse is likely true, all in order to protect his theology! _________________________________ Notes 1. See, for example, theiotes (natura divina); alethinos (verum naturam et indolem); fusis (sanctitus divinae naturae propria). He is even clearer with theotes (deitas, status, quo aliquis est deus). Thayer’s additional comments make the distinction between “essence” and “quality” obvious. 2. The common Trinitarian formula in the western Church was: “Una Subtantia (or Essentia), Tres Personae.” Hilary specifically equates essentia and substantia (Liber de Synodis). Ambrose may have used natura in a theological sense, but with Augusine (De Trinitas, VII, 6) and Aquinas (Summa Theologica I, 39:3), the term essentia had become the preferred term defining the essential nature of God.

Indeed, Augustine came to prefer it even to substantia. Thus, had Grimm wanted to ensure that his readers would understand meizon to mean greater in an ontological sense, he could have written vel essentia et potestate instead of vel natura et potestate.