"my Father is greater than I" and the Trinity

by hooberus 86 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  http://www.ccel.org/r/robertson/wordstudies/htm/JOH14.RWP.html

  14:28 {I go away, and I come} (\hupag? kai erchomai\), both
  futuristic presents (7:33; 14:3,18). {If ye loved me} (\ei
  ?gap?te me\). Second-class condition with the imperfect active of
  \agapa?\ referring to present time, implying that the disciples
  are not loving Jesus as they should. {Ye would have rejoiced}
  (\echar?te an\). Second aorist passive indicative of \chair?\
  with \an\, conclusion of second-class condition referring to past
  time, "Ye would already have rejoiced before this" at Christ's
  going to the Father (verse 12). {Greater than I} (\meiz?n
  mou\). Ablative case \mou\ after the comparative \meiz?n\ (from
  positive \megas\). The filial relation makes this necessary. 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).
• 

  hooberus

  It's easy to resort to human sources for support of practically any idea that exists. The sources you linked distort the truth of what Jesus actually said.

  Look what Jesus said in John 13:16 and John 15:20. Since greater clearly refers to position and not nature in these verses, why is it a distortion to claim the same for John 14:28?

  They also misrepresent some of the published sources they cite and quote.

  Please provide evidence for this claim.

  Some of the sources are obviously trinitarian and biased.

  Unitarians appeal to Thayer for lexical support for their beifs regarding John 14:28

  Baker Books, 1977 publisher's introduction:
  
  

  Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in explanatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy.

  
  

  Their etymologies place emphasis on the secondary definition of "greater," as found in John 14:28, but the primary definition does indeed allow for "greater by nature," something your referenced links try to hide.

  Please provide evidence for this claim.

  I'm not a JW, and I'm far from being one of their supporters, but I think it's dishonest and hypocritical for trinitarians to condemn JWs for using partial quotes to support their doctrines while doing the same sort of thing themselves.

  Please provide evidence for this claim (specific to John 14:28).
• 

  ozziepost

  JWism and Mormonism are both forms of the Arian Heresy, sorry...you can't start it again, it's still here.

  I agree, but I don't think you'll get the dubs to agree with you!
• 

  herk

  hooberus,
  

  Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." John 13:16. ... "Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. . . . " John 15:20. ... In the above verses in John the word translated "greater" clearly refers to position and not nature.

  Look what Jesus said in John 13:16 and John 15:20. Since greater clearly refers to position and not nature in these verses, why is it a distortion to claim the same for John 14:28?

  These two verses say nothing about the meaning of John 14:28. Additionally, they do not "clearly" refer "to position and not nature." In John 13, Jesus had just washed the feet of the disciples. In verse 16 he said each of them was a "servant" and he spoke of himself as their "Lord [kurios]." Your belief is that "Lord" means God by nature as well as by position. Thus you are inconsistent by saying "greater" does not mean "God by nature" when an intrinsic part of your personal belief is that "Lord" means God by nature as well as by position.

  In John 15, Jesus was discussing persecution and said that the servant/disciple "is not greater than his Lord [kurios]." In trinitarian terms, Jesus was telling the disciples, "You are not greater than the One who is your God by nature as well as by position."

  As to John 14:28, I've raised the following points in another thread you started. I'm waiting for you to address them:

  Jesus did not say at John 14:28, "My Father is greater than I with respect to position but not to nature." He simply said, "My Father is greater than I." He did not in any way qualify his statement as if in some respects his Father was not greater.

  Everything in John 14 argues against trinitarianism. If Jesus was God in the same way the Father is God, . . .
  

  • He would not have said "believe in God, believe also in me." (Verse 1)
  • He would not have said "In my Father's house" but in "our" house. (Verse 2)
  • He would not have said ""I am the way" but "I am the ultimate goal." (Verse 6)
  • He would not have said "from now on you know the Father, and have seen him." Jesus was not the Father, even as trinitarians acknowledge. He was the reflection or image of the Father, not because he was equal to the Father, but as he clearly explained: "The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father abiding in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves." (Verses 7-11) The disciples saw the Father in Jesus, not because Jesus was equal to God, but because he spoke "words" and performed "works" on God's behalf.
  • He would not have said "he who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do." He had just stated that it was his Father's "works" that proved others could see the Father when they saw him. Thus, others would see the Father in anyone who performed the "greater works" Jesus foretold. (Verse 12)
  • He would not have said "I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper." If he shared equality with God following his ascension, there would be no need to request anything from another member of the so-called "triune God." If any member of the Trinity was to be asked, and if the Holy Spirit was the "Third Person of the Trinity," and if all members shared equality, the Spirit should have been the one asked, not the Father. (Verse 16)
  • He would not have said "I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you." (Verse 20) He would not have so carelessly suggested that membership in the Trinity would be shared by his followers.
  • He would not have spoken of "the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name." (Verse 26) If the Holy Spirit was an equal member of the Trinity, he would have betrayed a lack of equality since Jesus taught that "the one being sent is lesser than the one who sends him." And why would the spirit come in the name of Jesus if his own name was equal to that of Jesus' name?
  • He would not have said "I do exactly as the Father commanded me." If he had been an equal member of the Trinity before being born as a human, he would have known due to his own equal awareness without having a need to be commanded by the Father. (Verse 31)

  There is nothing in the context that suggests Jesus' inferiority to the Father was by position only.

  herk
• 

  herk

  hooberus,

  In quoting Robertson on John 14:28, you cut and pasted the following:

  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).

  However, Robertson was an inconsistent scholar. He also wrote:

  As it is, John asserts that in the Pre-incarnate state the Logos was God, though the Father was greater than the Son (John 14:28). The Logos became flesh (1:14), and not the Father. But the Incarnate Logos was really "God only Begotten in the bosom of the Father" (1:18 correct text).--A. T. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977) pp. 67-68. (Underlining mine.)

  I think all trinitarians are a bit confused. They say that John 14:28 teaches that the Father is greater than the Son only by position, yet a basic teaching of the Trinity is that the three Persons existed from eternity, and are co-equal in power and substance. If the Father is Almighty and the Son is Almighty and the Holy Ghost is Almighty, how is it possible for one or another to be less in position or rank than Almighty?

  herk
• 

  herk

  hooberus,

  Regarding my statement that the two articles you linked "misrepresent some of the published sources they cite and quote," you raised the challenge:

  Please provide evidence for this claim.

  The articles are lengthy, and you just threw them out there as if they supplied all the answers in this debate. I could just as easily have mentioned some books and articles that you ought to read which provide an opposing point of view. "Nice work if you can get it!" You don't have to lift a finger while you let the other guy do all the wading through material. You just sit there and wait for him to respond to each point.

  I'm not going to waste my time by re-reading both articles. But I will show you at least one instance of where they misrepresent the original authors who are cited or quoted:

  Grimm-Thayer, alone among modern lexicons, defines MEIZÔN 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 that paragraph and what follows, the writer of the article takes on the role of a mind reader and tries to persuade us that "nature" in the minds of Grimm and Thayer does not really mean "nature."

  I could give other examples if I wanted to spend the time at it, but overall I thought both articles were extremely biased and made strenuous efforts to complicate something the Bible makes very simple.

  herk
• 

  herk

  hooberus,

  Unitarians appeal to Thayer for lexical support for their beifs regarding John 14:28

  Trinitarians also turn to Thayer. So what's your point? Somehow you lost me on this one.

  herk
• 

  hooberus

  These two verses say nothing about the meaning of John 14:28

  These verses can help us to understand the meaning of John 14:28 since the same word "greater" is used by the same author.
  

  Additionally, they do not "clearly" refer "to position and not nature."

  I think that it is clear that in John 13:16, and 15:20 postional greatness is the meaning. If still you wish to believe that in the illustrartions in John 13:16 and 15:20 that "greater" also refers to nature then that is your position (though I believe that most people would disagree with you as to Jesus' meaning of "greater" in these verses).

  In John 13, Jesus had just washed the feet of the disciples. In verse 16 he said each of them was a "servant" and he spoke of himself as their "Lord [kurios]." Your belief is that "Lord" means God by nature as well as by position. Thus you are inconsistent by saying "greater" does not mean "God by nature" when an intrinsic part of your personal belief is that "Lord" means God by nature as well as by position.

  In John 15, Jesus was discussing persecution and said that the servant/disciple "is not greater than his Lord [kurios]." In trinitarian terms, Jesus was telling the disciples, "You are not greater than the One who is your God by nature as well as by position."

  Trinitarians do not believe that kurios (lord) always refers to God, but that it can depending on context (for example when an Old testament passage having YHWH in view is quoted in the New Testament and kurios ( Lord ) is used instead of YHWH). Even Unitarins such as the WT agree that kurios has a variety of meanings depending on context (this is why the WT translated kurios as "Jehovah" at times and as simply "lord" in other places.)

  Regarding "Lord" kurios in John 13:16 and 15:20: I think that everone agrees that in the illustration "Lord" kurios refers to a human master, having the same nature as his servant.
• 

  hooberus

  Jesus did not say at John 14:28, "My Father is greater than I with respect to position but not to nature." He simply said, "My Father is greater than I." He did not in any way qualify his statement as if in some respects his Father was not greater.

  Likewise, Jesus did not say in other places that "greater" deals "with respect to position but not to nature," however, the fact remains that postion is clearly in view in these verses, as and likewise that nature is probably not in view. No qualifying statement in the other verses which use "greater" certainly does not mean that greater refers to nature as well as position, likewise no additional qualifying statement in John 14:28 certainly does not meant that greater refers to nature as well as position.
• 

  hooberus

  In addition to the biblical use of greater (such as Luke 22; John 13:16; 15;20 ), most extra biblical sorces seem to agree that meizon "greater" has the primary meaning of position. http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn14_28.htm `oti`o pathr meizwn mou estin

  hOTI hO PATÊR MEIZÔN MOU ESTIN

  for the Father is greater than I.

  MEIZÔN

  • 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 MEIZÔN 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 MEIZÔN 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 (1). 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 (2).

  Moulton and Milligan list dozens of extra-Biblical Koine texts, all of which support the "greater in rank or position" definition of MEIZÔN. For example, "MEIZÔN 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 MEIZÔN.