Wednesday, July 10, 2019

ICC New Testament Commentary Regarding John 14:28

ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν. To this sentence theologians devoted close attention in the fourth century, but it would be out of place in a commentary on the Fourth Gospel to review the Arian controversy. It suffices to note that the filial relationship, upon which so much stress is laid in Jn., implies of itself that the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son. There is no question here of theological subtleties about what a later age called the “subordination” of the Son, or of any distinction between His οὐσία and that of the Father. But, for Jn., the Father sent the Son (see on 3:17), and gave Him all things (see on 3:35). Cf. Mark 13:32, Php 2:6, 1 Corinthians 15:27, for other phrases which suggest that ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν is a necessary condition of the Incarnation. It is the same Person that says “I and my Father are one thing” (10:30), who speaks of Himself as “a man who hath told you the truth which I have heard from God” (8:40).1 See on 5:18, 32.


Philip Fletcher said...

I see that the KIT say one (thing) many translations omit thing. Why is thing put there is parenthesis? Does it come across a neutral or Masculine?

Edgar Foster said...

Translations omit "thing" because it's implied in the adjective, but not communicated explicitly. The word "one" in John 10:30 is an adjective that has masculine, feminine, and neuter forms. The neuter "hen" appears in 10:30; hence, the implied one "thing." Compare 1 Corinthians 3:8.