John 14:28 – “The Father is greater than I am”
John 14:27 “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; I do not give it to you as the world does. Do not let your hearts be distressed or lacking in courage. 14:28 You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.
This saying raises two questions in particular: (a) greater in what sense? and (b) eternally greater, or only during the time of Christ’s incarnation?
A challenge to Trinitarian faith?
This text has been used since the time of Arius to deny Christ’s deity.
Indeed, to Jehovah’s Witnesses this is used as a proof text: ‘we take Jesus at his word when he said: “The Father is greater than I am.
” (John 14:28) So we do not worship Jesus, as we do not believe that he is Almighty God.’ JWs will point to the Athanasian Creed…
‘And in this Trinity none is afore, or after an other; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and co-equal.’
…and then to this verse, in order to affirm that the Father is greater than the Son.
Muslims take a similar line. Conversely, heresies such as Gnosticism and Docetism affirm Jesus’ deity, but deny his full humanity.
We can agree with Jonathan McLatchie that this text hardly supports the Muslim case, since no Muslim can believe that Jesus actually uttered these words: according to the Qu’ran, Allah is a father to no-one.
We must, as Carson points out, take full account of two strands of teaching, one that places Jesus and God on the same level (Jn 1:1, 18; 5:16–18; 10:30; 20:28) and the other which stresses Jesus obedience to and dependence upon his Father (Jn 4:34; 5:19–30; 8:29; 12:48–49). To deny one strand is the error of Arianism; to deny the other is to fall into the error of Gnosticism.
What is this teaching is meant to do?
The contributor to Hard Sayings of the Bible asks us to notice, that, in context, this teaching is meant to give joy to those who love Jesus.
Gundry helpfully links this statement with Jesus’ reference to ‘love’ and ‘joy’:
‘Love for Jesus would lead to joy over his homegoing to the Father. You rejoice in the good fortune of one you love. The Father isn’t greater than Jesus in deity any more than a human father is greater than his son in humanity. For Jesus the I AM is the Word who wasn’t only with God in the beginning. He also was God in the beginning (1:1; 8:58). The Father is greater than Jesus as a father is to a son in that Jesus carries out the will of God his Father, in that he says and does nothing but what he has heard and seen his Father say and do (5:19–23; 8:28, 38). The Father’s functional superiority doesn’t provide the reason Jesus is going to him. It provides the reason the disciples should have lovingly rejoiced at his going to the Father. For going to the greater one means sharing his greatness. Jesus will no longer have to carry out on earth the will of his Father (compare Jesus’ prayer in 17:4–5: “I glorified you on the earth by completing the work that you’ve given me to do. And now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world existed”).’
‘Greater’ in what sense?
In the present context, the question to ask is, ‘Greater in what sense?’ For Carson, the context determines that what is meant is that the Father, undiminished in his glory, is greater than the Son, in his incarnate state:
‘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 (Jn 17:5), to the place where the Father is undiminished in glory, unquestionably greater than the Son in his incarnate state.’
Lincoln agrees that the above interpretation is implied, citing Jn 13:16 in support of the idea that the Son in his incarnate state is subordinate to the Father in his glory. But he prefers to understand this verse as a virtual reiteration of Jn 14:12:
‘Because the Father is unlimited in a way that his revelation in the earthly life of the Son has not been, the departure of Jesus and the relation to the Father this establishes for the disciples open up greater possibilities for them and thus should be a cause of rejoicing.’
Dan Story:
‘The key to understanding passages such as John 14:28 is that Jesus, like the Father and the Holy Spirit, has a particular position in the triune Godhead. Jesus is called the Son of God, not as an expression of physical birth, but as an expression of His position in relationship to the Father and Holy Spirit. This in no way distracts from His equality with the Father and the Holy Spirit or with His membership in the Godhead. As man, Jesus submits to the Father and acts in accordance to the Father’s will (see John 5:19, 30; 6:38; 8:28). So when we read passages such as Mark 14:36 where Jesus submits to the Father’s will, His submission has nothing to do with His divine essence, power, or authority, only with His position as the Incarnate Son.’ (Defending Your Faith)
Geisler (Christian Apologetics):
‘The Father was greater than Jesus in office but not in nature. Jesus claimed equality with God in essence (John 5:18; 10:30); it was only in his function as Son that he was less than the Father.’
Calvin:
‘Christ is here not drawing a comparison between the divinity of the Father and of himself, nor between his own human nature and the divine essence of the Father, but rather between his present state and his heavenly glory to which he was shortly to be received.’
Thomas Brooks:
‘As God, he saith, “I and my Father are one;” but…in respect of the form of a servant, his assumed humanity, he saith, John 14:28, “My Father is greater than I”.’ (Complete Works, Vol 5)
Ryle:
‘It was specially spoken of the time of his incarnation and humiliation. When the Word was “made flesh” He took on him “the form of a servant.” This was temporary inferiority. (Phil. 2:7.)’
Kruse agrees that, in context, Jesus is probably not teaching trinitarian or christological doctrine:
‘It is probably better to interpret this text in the light of the general statement that a messenger is not greater than the one who sends him (Jn 13:16). It was the Father who sent the Son into the world, and the Son who willingly obeyed. It was the Son who, as the incarnate Jesus, died on the cross, and it was the Father who raised him from the dead. As the sent one, Jesus could say the Father who sent him was greater than he was, but later he would ask to be restored to the full glory he had with the Father before the world began (Jn17:5). For this he was returning to the Father, and in this he hoped his disciples might rejoice with him.’
Morris agrees that this statement is to be understood in the light of our Lord’s incarnate state:
‘The reference, however, is not to Christ’s essential Being, but rather to his incarnate state. The incarnation involved the acceptance of a certain subordination as is insisted throughout the New Testament. The saying must be understood in the light of “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30).’
Gleason Archer (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties) concurs:
‘Our Lord Jesus Christ was speaking here, not in His divine nature as God the Son, but in His human nature, as the Son of Man.’
Kevin Giles (Doctrine of the Trinity):
‘This is a difficult text to be sure because it stands in stark contrast to John’s teaching that the Son reveals the Father and the Father and the Son are one. The best solution would seem to be that given by Ambrose, Augustine, Calvin and many others that Jesus here speaks as the incarnate Son in his state of humiliation.’
Some ontological differentiation?
The contributor to HSB acknowledges the interpretation just outlined, and says that it would do justice to the context. Since the Son has left the glory that was his by right, and has humbled himself in becoming a human being (and so is, in that sense, ‘less than’ his Father), then his followers should be glad that he is about to return to his Father, and to his full power and glory. But this verse is, it is suggested, a rather awkard way of expressing this.
According to the interpretation favoured by HSB, Jesus may be expressing a certain order and organisation within the Godhead. So, for the disciples to have the Son with the Father would be advantageous to them. This would be consistent with the ancient view the family, in which a father and son, though the same in being (adult males) nevertheless have an authority differential. According to this view, Jesus is returning to the highest authority, and his disciples cannot but be joyful that he will represent them there. We have here, then, an important consequence of Jesus’ ascension.
Other interpreters agree that this saying expresses something about the eternal order (taxis) within the Godhead. Kostenberger, for example:
‘Jesus stresses his subordination to the Father, which, as the NT makes clear, is not merely part of his incarnate ministry but rooted in his eternal sonship.’ (Holman Apologetics Commentary)
J. Kenneth Grider thinks that this saying contributes to our understanding of a certain order within the Trinity:
‘The three are of equal dignity, majesty, glory, power, eternity. Each has all the divine attributes. But the Father has a priority in eternally generating the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The fact that the incarnated Son obeys the Father, along with the biblical portrayal of the Holy Spirit as peculiarly characterized by personal self-effacement, also points to a priority of the Father. Whereas Jesus said that he and the Father are one (John 10:30), he also said, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). He declared, “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak” (John 12:49).’
(Basics of the Faith, ed. Carl Henry, ch. 6)
Conclusion
Although I realise that questions about relations within the Trinity are difficult and contested, I lean towards the view that some ordering of these relations exists in the ontological, as well as the economic, aspects of the Godhead.