Skip to content

Web Research Findings

Study Question

What do John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I"), John 5:19 ("the Son can do nothing by himself"), Mark 13:32 (the Son does not know the day or hour), and 1 Corinthians 15:28 ("the Son himself will be made subject") teach about the relationship between the Father and the Son? Do these passages describe Jesus' eternal nature or his voluntary mission?

Sources Found

Keith E. Johnson — "Trinitarian Agency and the Eternal Subordination of the Son: An Augustinian Perspective" (Themelios, Vol. 36, Issue 1)

URL: thegospelcoalition.org Key claims: - Augustine's framework: "The divine persons act inseparably ad extra according to their relative properties ad intra." The Father generates the Son eternally; the Son eternally proceeds from the Father. This ordering does not imply ontological or functional subordination — it describes the Son's eternal mode of existence as "from the Father." - On John 5:19 ("Son can do nothing of his own accord"): Augustine interprets this through inseparable operation — the Father and Son work together, not sequentially. The Son's inability to act independently reflects his derivative existence (eternal generation), not inferiority. - Johnson argues that both EFS proponents and opponents misread Augustine. The relationship involves ordered but inseparable action. - "The distinction of Persons is constituted" by eternal generation, not by authority/submission dynamics. - Key terminology discussed: ousia (essence), substantia (substance), principium (source), taxis (ordering), inseparabilia (inseparable). Greek/Latin analysis: Discussion of Augustine's use of principium (source/origin) for the Father's role and taxis (ordering) for Trinitarian relations. Johnson notes Augustine preferred "inseparable" (inseparabilia) for divine operations rather than hierarchical terminology. Relevance: Provides the Augustinian middle ground between pure EFS and its denial. Directly addresses John 5:19 as reflecting eternal generation rather than subordination. The "inseparable operations" principle is a key interpretive framework for all four study passages. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Kevin Giles — "The Doctrine of the Trinity and Subordination" (Priscilla Papers, CBE International, July 31, 2004)

URL: cbeinternational.org Key claims: - "To eternally subordinate the Son or Spirit in work/function by necessity implies their ontological subordination." Giles rejects the modern evangelical claim of eternal functional subordination without ontological subordination, calling it "entirely novel" with "no historical antecedents." - Athanasius established the orthodox approach: the Son has "eternal divine status" but demonstrates "voluntary and temporal subordination" during incarnation. - Athanasius stressed that "what God does reveals who God is," meaning being and action cannot be separated — so eternal functional subordination would entail ontological subordination. - The Nicene Council rejected "the idea that the Son was subordinated in his being to the Father," establishing the Son is "one in being (homoousios) with the Father." - On John 14:28: Interpreted as Jesus speaking "in his state of humiliation" as the incarnate Son. - On John 4:34; 5:30 (Son being "sent"): The shaliach principle means the sent one shares the sender's authority, indicating "equal authority" rather than subordination. - On 1 Corinthians 15:28: Interpreted as the Son "freely handing back" delegated rule, suggesting "changing roles in differing epochs" rather than eternal subordination. - On Philippians 2:5-11: Established as the interpretive key — the Son "willingly and freely chose to subordinate himself for our salvation." - Claims Athanasius, Augustine, Calvin, and the creeds all rejected eternal subordination of the Son. Greek analysis: Discussion of shaliach (Jewish sending principle) applied to John's "sending" language, arguing the sent one carries the sender's full authority. Relevance: Major scholarly argument that all biblical subordination language is incarnational, not eternal. Directly addresses John 14:28, John 5:19-30, 1 Cor 15:28, and Phil 2:5-11. Claims patristic consensus against EFS. The shaliach principle for John 5:19-30 needs biblical verification. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Kristin Johnson — "Just as the Father, So the Son: The Implications of John 5:16-30" (Priscilla Papers, CBE International, January 31, 2005)

URL: cbeinternational.org Key claims: - When Jewish leaders accused Jesus of "making himself equal to God" (John 5:18), Jesus did not deny equality but clarified that His equality derived from the Father's gift, not independent grasping. - "The Son can do nothing by himself" (v.19) affirms rather than refutes equality: "Jesus is not refuting the claim that he is equal to the Father; he is refuting the claim that he made himself equal to the Father, as if he were independent of him." - Cites B.B. Warfield's interpretation of "son" (huios) as implying "likeness" — sonship in first-century Judaism implied equality, which is why religious leaders were offended. - The Greek ison (equal) in John 5:18 means "equal, the same." - Functional equality: "Jesus' equality in function with the Father is what demonstrates the equality of his divine status." - Proposes an interdependence model: "mutual dependence and submission empower rather than subordinate" — the Son depends on the Father for provision, the Father depends on the Son for extending His provision globally. - "The Son is not inferior to the Father, nor is the Father superior to the Son." - Their "oneness is not achieved through hierarchy, but, according to Christ, it can only be achieved through love." Greek analysis: ison (equal) in John 5:18; huios (son) as implying likeness/equality in Jewish context. Relevance: Directly exegetes John 5:16-30, arguing the "Son can do nothing by himself" statement proves equality rather than subordination. The full pericope argument (vv. 22-23 on equal honor and all judgment) is critical for the study. The claim that v.19 refutes independent action rather than equality needs verification from the Greek text. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Jon Harris — "The Father Is Greater Than I: What Did Jesus Mean?" (Pfander Center)

URL: pfandercenter.org Key claims: - Meizon (greater) in John 14:28 refers to positional superiority, not ontological inferiority. Jesus contrasts his earthly state of humiliation with the Father's celestial position. - The verse functions as a causal clause introduced by hoti (because): "the statement does not stand alone" but explains why disciples should rejoice at Jesus' departure. Focus is on Jesus' destination and motion, not his essence. - Cites Daniel Wallace: the Genitive of Comparison construction shows "Jesus is speaking with reference to his office, not his person." - Examines meizon across John's Gospel: Matthew 11:11 (John Baptist vs kingdom members — same human essence, different positions), John 5:20 ("greater works" = eschatological scope, not power), John 14:12 (disciples perform "greater works" through post-Ascension mission extension). Each instance demonstrates "greater" indicates functional role or scale, never essential difference. - D.A. Carson's analogy: "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is greater than I" does not suggest differing human essence — only differences in "wealth, authority, majesty." - Barrett: Jesus contrasts "heavenly state with the earthly," emphasizing the Son's "humiliation" during incarnation. - Keener: Distinguishes Jesus from the Father (admitted in John 1:1b) while affirming deity throughout John's Gospel. Greek analysis: Detailed analysis of meizon (μείζων) as comparative adjective indicating position/rank, distinguished from kreitton (κρείττων) in Hebrews 1:4 which indicates superiority in nature/essence. Wallace's Genitive of Comparison argument for office over person. Relevance: Central to interpreting John 14:28. The meizon vs kreitton distinction is the core linguistic argument. The Johannine usage survey (5:20, 14:12, Matt 11:11) provides pattern evidence. Carson, Barrett, and Keener citations are major commentary voices. All claims need verification from the Greek text. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Dr. Georgy Mathew Alexios — "How is the Father Greater than Jesus?" (Pointer to Eternity, August 12, 2020)

URL: pointertoeternity.com Key claims: - The Father surpasses Jesus in office and function, not in nature or essence. - Meizon (greater) = positional superiority; kreitton (better) = superiority in nature/essence. Jesus deliberately chose "greater" rather than "better." - Hebrews 1:4 uses kreitton for Jesus' superiority over angels — showing nature-level superiority. John 14:28 uses meizon — showing position-level distinction. - "The word 'greater' points to the Father's greater position (in heaven), and not a greater nature." Greek analysis: Same meizon/kreitton distinction. Hebrews 1:4 as contrastive proof text. Relevance: Reinforces the meizon/kreitton argument from a different source. The Hebrews 1:4 comparison is useful cross-reference material. Needs verification that this distinction holds across all NT usage. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Wyatt Graham — "Does 1 Corinthians 15:28 Teach the Son's Eternal Subordination?" (June 6, 2019)

URL: wyattgraham.com Key claims: - 1 Cor 15:28 describes spiritual transformation of humanity, not eternal subordination of the Son: "For God to be in all at the end, evil must be absent. The dead, corruptible, sinful bodies of flesh bearing of Adam submit to God's salvific transformation." - The passage uses an Adam-Christ typological framework — Christ as "new Adam" transforms humanity from physical to spiritual beings. - Subjection (hypotasso) carries both negative (judgment) and positive (salvation/reconciliation) meanings. - Directly critiques Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem for citing this passage as evidence of eternal subordination. - Argues their interpretations fail to account for: (1) Paul's Adam-Christ contrast, (2) Psalm 8's creational and Adamic context, (3) the salvific meaning of subjection. - "Since the Son shares in the Godhead essentially, no eternal submission occurs, and the text here does not even hint at that reality." Greek analysis: Notes hypotasso has multiple valences in context (negative judgment vs positive reconciliation). Relevance: Directly addresses 1 Cor 15:28 and its use in the EFS debate. The Adam-Christ typological reading and Psalm 8 connection need biblical verification. The claim that hypotasso is salvific rather than hierarchical needs checking against Paul's usage. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Phil Gons — John Frame on 1 Corinthians 15:28 and Eternal Subordination (March 2008)

URL: philgons.com Key claims: - John Frame argues the Son's subordination is eternal, grounded in Christ's perpetual humanity: "as Jesus remains both human and divine through all eternity, he will, as human servant, always be subject to the Father in these ways." - Frame links perpetual subordination to Christ's eternal human nature. Since Christ remains both divine and human forever, and no human — even glorified — can equal God, the Son will eternally be subject to the Father regarding His humanity. - Frame references Westminster Catechisms' doctrine of Christ's humiliation. - Phil Gons identifies a critical tension: The Greek construction hotan...tote (when...then) with future tense suggests a change of state — implying the Son is not currently subordinated in the manner He will be subordinated. This temporal language suggests subordination begins at a future point, contradicting eternal subordination. - Frame does not address how Christ's eternal humanity explains the apparently temporary character of the subordination described in 1 Cor 15:28. Greek analysis: The hotan...tote construction with future tense indicating a change of state, not a continuing condition. Relevance: Presents the strongest form of the eternal subordination argument (Frame) and its internal critique (Gons). The Greek temporal construction is a key exegetical detail for 1 Cor 15:28. Both claims need verification from the Greek text. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Edward D. Andrews — "Unveiling the Mystery of Mark 13:32: The Limits of the Son's Knowledge" (Christian Publishing House, September 3, 2023)

URL: christianpublishinghouse.co Key claims: - Christ genuinely lacked knowledge of the timing during his earthly ministry. "Christ's incarnation...voluntarily limited certain divine prerogatives." - "His limitation in knowledge does not detract from Christ's divinity but rather underscores the profundity of His kenotic state." - Kenotic Theory applied: Jesus "willingly set aside some of His divine attributes during His time on earth" per Philippians 2:5-8. - Two-Natures Doctrine: "His divine nature did possess full knowledge...while His human nature did not." - Functional Subordination: The Son remains "functionally or economically subordinate" to the Father within Trinitarian relationships, distinct from inferiority in essence. - Greek: oiden (οἶδεν) = "knows" used in absolute sense; monos (μόνος) modifying "the Father" emphasizes "exclusive nature of the Father's knowledge." - Post-ascension knowledge status is left unresolved: "Scripture is silent." Greek analysis: oiden (knows) in absolute sense; monos (only/alone) as exclusive modifier. Relevance: Primary source for Mark 13:32 interpretation. Distinguishes between kenotic, two-natures, and functional subordination readings. The claim that "Scripture is silent" on post-ascension knowledge needs checking. The two-natures framework needs evaluation against the other study passages. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

BibleHub Commentary Collection — Mark 13:32

URL: biblehub.com Key claims: - Bengel: Interprets the statement relative to Christ's human nature and state of humiliation. Notes Jesus "increased in wisdom" (Luke 2:52). Suggests the knowledge was "not among His instructions, to declare." - Meyer, Alford, Calvin, Grotius, De Wette: Take the passage literally — Christ genuinely lacked this specific knowledge. Accept the statement without attempting to explain it away. - Chrysostom: "As man our Lord was ignorant of this." - Gill: "Christ, as the son of man; though he did know it as the Son of God...but as the son of man, and from his human nature he had no knowledge." - Pulpit Commentary: "Christ as man...did not so know it as to be able to reveal it to men" — like an ambassador keeping sovereign secrets. - Dr. Macknight (alternative): Proposes oiden functions like Hebrew Hiphil conjugation, meaning "make known/declare" rather than "possess knowledge." Greek analysis: Macknight's proposal that oiden can carry a causative sense ("make known") analogous to Hebrew Hiphil. This is a minority view. Relevance: Shows the range of historical commentary positions on Mark 13:32. The two-natures reading (Gill, Chrysostom) vs the literal reading (Meyer, Calvin) vs the declarative reading (Macknight) represent the main interpretive options. All need biblical verification. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Thomas Haviland-Pabst — Review of Kenosis: The Self-Emptying of Christ in Scripture and Theology (Reformed Faith & Practice, Vol. 8, Issue 1, Summer 2023)

URL: journal.rts.edu Book reviewed: Kenosis: The Self-Emptying of Christ in Scripture and Theology, edited by Paul T. Nimmo and Keith L. Johnson (Eerdmans, 2022) Key claims: - John M.G. Barclay argues divine power operates fundamentally differently from human power: "Christ did not relinquish his divine power; rather, he expressed this power in the weakness of his humanity." - Beverly Roberts Gaventa concludes similarly from Romans parallels: "God's power is shown in Christ's salvific work." - Unifying theme: "God's power is uniquely expressed in the humility of Christ." - Sound kenotic theology maintains that "the transcendent God submitted to human becoming" without altering his deity. - Kenosis derives from Greek κενόω (kenoo) in Philippians 2:7, typically rendered "emptied." Greek analysis: kenoo (emptied) in Phil 2:7; the debate over what was emptied (attributes vs. prerogatives vs. glory vs. position). Relevance: Provides the scholarly landscape on kenosis as interpretive key for the "subordination" passages. Barclay's claim that divine power was expressed through weakness rather than relinquished is a key position. Needs biblical verification against Phil 2:5-11 and the study passages. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Mike Riccardi — "The Recent Trinitarian Debate" (The Master's Seminary Blog, June 15, 2016)

URL: blog.tms.edu Key claims: - EFS proponents argue the Son's submission extends eternally. Calling the Father "Father" and the Son "Son" implies an authority-submission relationship. - Critics maintain subordination requires two wills, which would necessitate two natures — leading to tritheism or Arianism. - Both sides reject ontological subordination (inferiority in being). - Opponents argue EFS proponents conflate functional distinctions with being, since "functioning" language applies only to creation/redemption (economic Trinity), not God's eternal nature (immanent Trinity). - Riccardi adopted the non-EFS position, concluding EFS proponents "inadequately explain how their view avoids multiple wills in the Godhead." Relevance: Maps the evangelical landscape on the EFS debate. The "two wills" critique is a philosophical argument that needs evaluation. The economic/immanent Trinity distinction is central to the study question. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

JATS/ATS — Paper on Wayne Grudem's Trinitarian Subordinationism (ATS 2016)

URL: atsjats.org Key claims: Full text not accessible (PDF binary). Based on the title and context, this appears to be a critique of Grudem's EFS position presented at the Adventist Theological Society in 2016. The author surname appears to be "Hausted." Relevance: Adventist scholarly engagement with the EFS debate. Would provide denominationally specific perspective. Text unavailable for extraction. Status: Paywalled/inaccessible — note existence only

Summary of Scholarly Landscape

The scholarly debate on these "subordination passages" falls into three main camps, with significant internal variation:

Camp 1: Incarnational Subordination Only. The dominant view in historical orthodoxy, represented by Giles, K. Johnson (Themelios), and the patristic consensus (Athanasius, Augustine, Chrysostom). All four passages — John 14:28, John 5:19, Mark 13:32, and 1 Cor 15:28 — describe the incarnate Son's voluntary self-limitation during his earthly mission, not the eternal relationship within the Godhead. Philippians 2:5-11 is the interpretive key: the Son "emptied himself" voluntarily, and all statements of limitation, subordination, and ignorance belong to this kenotic state. The Nicene homoousios (one in being) settles the ontological question; the functional question is purely economic (related to salvation history). Scholars in this camp argue that eternal functional subordination necessarily implies ontological subordination because being and action are inseparable in God.

Camp 2: Eternal Functional Subordination (EFS/ERAS). Represented by Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, and (with important qualifications) John Frame. These scholars affirm full ontological equality but argue the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father in role, function, and authority. The Father-Son names themselves imply an eternal authority-submission structure. Frame grounds this in Christ's permanent humanity — since the Son remains human forever, his human subordination is also permanent. This camp reads 1 Cor 15:28 as describing an eternal reality (or at least a permanent eschatological one). Critics identify two major problems: (1) the "two wills" objection — if the Son eternally submits, this implies a will distinct from the Father's, threatening divine simplicity; (2) Phil Gons' observation that the Greek hotan...tote construction in 1 Cor 15:28 implies a future change of state, contradicting the "eternal" claim.

Camp 3: Augustinian Middle Ground. Represented by K.E. Johnson's reading of Augustine. The Son's eternal generation from the Father creates a real ordering (taxis) within the Trinity — the Son is eternally "from" the Father — but this ordering is neither hierarchical subordination nor mere economic arrangement. The divine persons act inseparably (ad extra) according to their relative properties (ad intra). John 5:19 reflects the Son's derivative existence (he is "from" the Father), not inferiority. This position avoids the extremes of both camps by grounding distinction in eternal generation rather than authority structures.

On the specific linguistic questions, there is strong scholarly agreement that meizon (greater) in John 14:28 indicates positional/functional superiority rather than ontological superiority, supported by Wallace's Genitive of Comparison analysis and the contrast with kreitton (better in nature) used in Hebrews 1:4. On Mark 13:32, the majority of commentators (both ancient and modern) attribute the ignorance to Christ's human nature or incarnate state, though a minority propose the declarative/causative reading of oiden ("make known" rather than "know"). On 1 Cor 15:28, the eschatological context and Adam-Christ typology are widely recognized, but scholars disagree sharply on whether the "subjection" is a temporary mediatorial act or a permanent reality.

Research Directives for Downstream Agents

  1. Harris/Alexios claim that meizon (John 14:28) indicates position, not essence — verify by running Greek parser on John 14:28 and checking all NT uses of meizon vs kreitton. Does the meizon/kreitton distinction hold consistently across NT usage? Check Hebrews 1:4 for kreitton.

  2. K. Johnson (Themelios) claims Augustine interprets John 5:19 through "inseparable operations" — verify by examining the full pericope John 5:19-30 in Greek. Do vv. 22-23 (all judgment to Son, equal honor) support inseparable operations or delegation? Is the claim that the Son's inability to act independently reflects eternal generation rather than subordination consistent with the text?

  3. K. Johnson (Priscilla Papers) claims John 5:19 refutes independent action, not equality — verify from Greek text whether "the Son can do nothing by himself" (ou dynatai ho huios poiein aph' heautou ouden) grammatically supports the "refuting independence, not denying ability" reading.

  4. Giles claims the shaliach principle makes "sent" language equal-authority language — verify whether John's "sending" vocabulary (pempo, apostello) in John 5:19-30 actually supports the Jewish sending principle claim.

  5. Graham claims 1 Cor 15:28 is about humanity's transformation (Adam-Christ typology), not the Son's subordination — verify the full context of 1 Cor 15:24-28 in Greek. Check hypotasso usage in Paul. Is the Adam-Christ parallel (vv. 21-22, 45-49) the controlling context for v.28?

  6. Gons identifies the Greek hotan...tote construction in 1 Cor 15:28 as indicating a change of state — verify the Greek construction. Does this temporal language genuinely indicate future change rather than continuation?

  7. Multiple sources claim Philippians 2:5-11 is the interpretive key for all subordination passages — verify by parsing Phil 2:6-8 in Greek. What does morphe theou (form of God) mean? What did Christ "empty" (kenoo) himself of? Does the text specify what was relinquished?

  8. Frame claims Christ's permanent humanity grounds permanent subordination — verify from 1 Cor 15:28 whether the Greek text supports or contradicts permanent vs temporary subordination. Check John 17:5 for pre-incarnation glory language.

  9. Macknight's minority view that oiden in Mark 13:32 means "make known" (causative) — verify whether oiden (from oida) can carry a causative sense in Greek. Check other NT uses of oida/oiden.

  10. John 17:5 as evidence of pre-incarnation divine glory — verify the Greek of John 17:5: does para soi (with you) + eichon (I had) indicate personal pre-existence with shared glory? How does this relate to the kenosis claim?

  11. John 10:17-18 as evidence of voluntary submission — verify the Greek: does exousia (authority/power) to lay down and take up life indicate divine prerogative? How does "this commandment I received from my Father" interact with the voluntary nature of the submission?

  12. The "two wills" critique of EFS (Riccardi) — this is a philosophical argument, but verify whether the biblical text portrays the Father and Son as having one will or distinct wills. Check John 5:30 ("I seek not my own will but the will of the Father who sent me") and John 6:38 ("I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me").