阅读本文大约需要： 12 分钟
I’ve sometimes told students who say they want to do a Ph.D. in systematic theology, that one doctorate won’t do—they’ll need at least five: one or two in New Testament, at least one in Old Testament, a couple in church history, one in philosophy, and then they can do one in systematics……D.A.Carson接受M. Horton的采访记录。福音联盟文档：https://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/2010_Horton_interview.pdf
14:28. Jesus is still dealing with what is troubling his disciples and firing their fear, viz. his repeatedly announced departure (You heard me say; cf. vv 2–4, 12, 18–19, 21, 23). But now he goes over to the offensive, however mildly: their failure to understand, their failure to trust him, is also a failure of love. If they truly loved him (and the clear implication is that they do not), they would be glad that he is going to the Father. After all, his departure ensures that he will take them to be with him forever (vv. 1–3): that alone should have been a cause for joy. Genuine love for Jesus would have found another cause for joy: the Father is greater than I. （这里是圣经注释的常规，分析经文的背景。）
（这段话指责现代阿民念主义者对这句话的滥用）At a popular level, this clause is often cited, out of context, by modern Arians who renew the controversy from the early centuries that is connected with the name of Arius (on which cf. Pollard; Wiles, pp. 122–125). The problem is how to put together that strand of Johannine (and New Testament) witness that places Jesus on a level with God (1:1, 18; 5:16–18; 10:30; 20:28), with that strand that emphatically insists upon Jesus’ obedience to his Father and on his dependence upon his Father (4:34; 5:19–30; 8:29; 12:48–49), not to mention John’s description of the origin and purpose of the Son’s mediation in creation, revelation and redemption as being in the Father’s will (1:3–4, 14, 18; 3:17; 5:21–27). （卡森指出，这句话被滥用的主要问题在于，约翰的基督论认为基督具有完全的神性，但在4:34等处，又提到耶稣的顺服和依靠父神。从圣经神学上，这当然是需要解释的问题，也是容易引起误用的地方。圣经注释不可能只是引用一下信经就完事，必然要分析数据，给出合理的结论。）It cannot be right to depreciate the truth of one strand by appeal to the other.（否认任何偏颇的解释，无论阿民念还是诺斯替主义都不对） Arians deploy the latter strand to deny the former: Jesus is less than fully God. Gnostics deploy the former to depreciate the latter: Jesus may in some sense be divine, but he is not fully human. In each passage the immediate context resolves most of the difficulties (cf. notes on the passages listed). In the clause before us, the Father is greater than I cannot be taken to mean that Jesus is not God, or that he is a lesser God: the historical context of Jewish monotheism forbids the latter, and the immediate literary context renders the former irrelevant. （这句话绝不表示基督次于神——这里可以看出，卡森并不教导次子论）If the writer of this commentary were to say, ‘Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is greater than I’, no-one would take this to mean that she is more of a human being than I. The greater than category cannot legitimately be presumed to refer to ontology, apart from the controls imposed by context. The Queen is greater than I in wealth, authority, majesty, influence, renown and doubtless many more ways: only the surrounding discussion could clarify just what type of greatness may be in view. （卡森给出例证。看得出来，他曾在英国留学，拿了博士。）
What, then, does for the Father is greater than I mean in this context? （开始根据上下文数据以及希腊文法知识分析和解释。）Some have attached these words to those immediately preceding: ‘I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.’ This is syntactically reasonable, but the precise logic inherent in for (hoti, ‘because’) is obscure. Presumably it would mean that Jesus is going back to the one who commissioned him, under the assumption that Jesus has all but completed his task, for the one who sent him is greater than the one who is sent (cf. 13:16). The connection is not tight, and it bears little on the rest of the verse.
It is better to take for the Father is greater than I to refer not to the immediately preceding clause, but to the main clause: ‘If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I’. Some then take the intrinsic logic like this: ‘you would be glad for everything is under control’. Doubtless the disciples would have lost some of their fear and anxiety if they had really believed that everything was under control, but it is very doubtful if the clause for the Father is greater than I can be reduced to nothing more than a generalized statement about the sovereignty of God. The comparison, after all, is between Jesus and his Father (‘greater than I’), yet in v. 1 the assumption is that the disciples believe in God better than they believe in Jesus, making this kind of exhortation rather strange. Isn’t God sovereign, and are not things under control, whether or not Jesus goes back to the Father? And how does this have any bearing on the conditional clause ‘If you loved me, you would be glad …’? （教牧方面的注解）
The only interpretation that makes adequate sense of the context connects for the Father is greater than I with the main verb (as does the preceding option), but understands the logic of the for or because rather differently: If Jesus’ disciples truly loved him, they would be glad that he is returning to his Father, for he is returning to the sphere where he belongs, to the glory he had with the Father before the world began (17:5), to the place where the Father is undiminished in glory, unquestionably greater than the Son in his incarnate state. To this point the disciples have responded emotionally entirely according to their perception of their own gain or loss. If they had loved Jesus, they would have perceived that his departure to his own ‘home’ was his gain and rejoiced with him at the prospect. As it is, their grief is an index of their self-centredness.（教牧方面的注解）
（神学方面的额外洞见）Theologically, two further points must be drawn. First, the failure of these first disciples, sad to say, has often been repeated in the history of the church, where Christians have been far more alert to their own griefs and sorrows than to the things that bring their Master joy. Second, although the interpretation of v. 28 advanced here turns on the distinction between the Father in his glory and the Son in his incarnation, nevertheless this verse also attests to the pattern of functional subordination of the Son to the Father, already alluded to, that extends backward into eternity past (cf. Barrett Essays, pp. 19–36: Carson, pp. 146–160). ‘The Father is fons divinitatis [“the divine fountainhead”] in which the being of the Son has its source; the Father is God sending and commanding, the Son is God sent and obedient. John’s thought here is focused on the humiliation of the Son in his earthly life, a humiliation which now, in his death, reached both its climax and its end’ (Barrett, p. 468). （最后这段话是Barrett说的，在橡树的文章中，一并算作卡森头上。我可以呵呵吗？也许我们的猎巫行动应当追认Barrett为异端。）
当卡森谈到天父的荣耀与子在道成肉身，活在地上服事时的区别时，并不是教导次子论。当他谈到子在道成肉身时，在功能上从属于父（functional subordination of the Son to the Father …… that extends backward into eternity past）时，只是没有明确提到“加尔文认为，我们只能在位格意义上说子是永恒受生的，但不能在本质意义上如此说”的后半句话而已，因为这里是圣经注释，不是在撰写系统神学专注。但他给出了参考文献，包括他自己立场的参考和Barrett的专著，至少在定他教导“次子论”异端之前，有必要参考一下。
Carson, D. A. (1991). The Gospel according to John (pp. 506–508). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans.
if you are ever moved to support this ministry or my family…