This is one of Jehovah's Witnesses' favorite cherry-picked, "showy" Bible verse that they bring up to support Jesus' alleged created and angelic nature. But does it truly speak against Jesus' actual deity? The Trinity doctrine asserts that the Son is equal to the Father in divinity but lesser in humanity. The Scripture does not mention both these things without reason, i.e., that the Son is equal to the Father, and at the same time, the Father is greater than the Son - the former due to the form of God, the latter due to the form of a servant, without any confusion. Now the lesser is subordinate to the greater. Therefore, in the form of a servant, Christ is subordinate to the Father.
The Son was indeed "lesser" than the Father as a human, and as the Messiah, as a human, lived in total dependence on the sending God. However, Scripture clearly refers to Jesus as Lord and GOD several times and attributes characteristics to Him that only the true God can possess. Therefore, according to Scripture, He possesses a divine reality with the Father, one God with Him, and is equal in this regard. This interpretation is not excluded by John 14:28, and there are two brief reasons for this:
- The Son (in contrast to the Father) became human, and as a human, can indeed call God the Father essentially superior to Him, God, whom He also worships, etc. This does not exclude that He may also be God.
- The Father is greater than the Son, not in divinity, but in fatherhood, for it is written: In Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (What kind of divine nature is that which has a greater or fuller one?) On the other hand, Jesus was the Son, and as such, was inherently obedient to the Father (although equal with Him in divinity). From this obedience, He became human (as He owed it to no one, not even to the Father), and as a human, learned obedience from a new perspective: as a creature. This is the other reason He could acknowledge that He was lesser than the Father.
The context makes clear that this is about the action between the Father and the Son within the Trinity: Jesus talks about His coming from and returning to the Father. The Father is greater since all action within the Trinity originates from Him, as He is the one who sends the Son and the Holy Spirit. The unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as well as the sending of the Son and the Holy Spirit by the Father, is emphasized especially in the entire 14th chapter of John's Gospel. Therefore, this statement: "The Father is greater than I" can only be appropriately placed based on Jesus' statement in the same chapter (v. 9) and similar ones: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." The Son's subordination to the Father, His emptying during His earthly existence, does not negate His deity. He was God in quality, manifested in the flesh, while limited in quantity as a human.
The text speaks of how the apostles should rejoice that Jesus is going to the Father, justifying it by the Father being greater than Him. Greater, not in divine nature, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and indivisible, but in His human nature. Jesus, in His human nature, was indeed lesser than the Father. So, as a human, He was indeed lesser than Him. The apostles have more reason to rejoice than mourn Jesus' departure because His resurrection glorifies His human nature. The meaning of the verse is: I spoke to you about my departure and return. You mourn the former; but if you would consider my happiness, which is bound with yours, you would rejoice in it; for the Father, to whom I am going, is greater than I, and He gives me the greater thing, the glorification, from a lowly state to a more glorious state, which will have the most joyful consequences for you as well. Christ speaks here of Himself as a human because He is talking about His departure. As the divine Word, He never left the Father's glory, and there can be no talk of the Word going to the Father. However, these words: "The Father is greater than I" are reconcilable with Jesus Christ's divine nature; for the Father is indeed greater than the Son, not in nature and dignity, but insofar as the Son is begotten of the Father.
Sects influenced by Arianism misinterpret this teaching when they relate Jesus' divinity to Jn 14:28 ("...the Father is greater than I"), as if Jesus were essentially lesser than God the Father; of lower rank; or even a created being. Yet Scripture also teaches that, in a certain sense, the Father "receives" something from the Son (e.g., Jn 16:15, 23).
There is a significant reason why Jesus (in indicating His relationship to the Father) chose to use the term meizon (meizwn) translated “greater” rather than the term kreitton (kreittwn) which means “better”. Meizon denotes a greater position, whereas kreitton denotes a better nature. The difference between these two words can be seen at John 14:12, where we read that believers will do “greater” (meizon) works than Jesus. Since we know that this verse is not implying that we will do “better” works than Jesus, it is clear from the context that Jesus used this same word to demonstrate the greatness of the Father’s position (being in heaven) as opposed to Jesus’ position (being here on earth).
A modern illustration of this type of relationship can be seen when we analyze the Watchtower’s own authority structure: A Presiding Overseer can be said to be “greater” than an elder. Yet, by saying this, one is not implying that the elder is of an inferior nature than the Overseer, but rather, that the Overseer’s jurisdiction is “greater” than the elder’s jurisdiction. In the same way, it is only in Jesus’ human nature that the Father can be said to be “greater” than He. However, this illustration cannot be used to refer to Jesus’ relationship to angels because at Hebrews 1:4 the other term (kreitton), translated “better,” is employed to demonstrate that Jesus is “better” than the angels in His very nature.
The Father's position is "greater" than the incarnate Christ, since Christ's humanity is a created reality, though he is equal to the Father in his divinity. His position differed from that of the Father, not his nature. Jesus called the Father greater, not because he is not God, but because Jesus was also a man, and as a man, he was in a lower position.
According to Hebrews 2:9, Jesus was made "lower than the angels" at the Incarnation.
Matthew 11:11 states that "among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Does this mean that John has no human nature? Does this mean that those in heaven, who are greater than John, have a different nature? If John the Baptist is the greatest man who ever lived, and Jesus was merely a man, does this mean that John the Baptist was greater than Jesus, in the sense that he was of a higher nature? Does this mean that Jesus and John could not both have possessed human nature?
According to Galatians 4:4, Christ was under the Law. Therefore, as a man, he was in a lower position than the Father but did not differ from him in divine nature. This is the same explanation for why he grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52).
For comparison, a husband is the head of the family, while the wife is not. Though their positions are different, the man has greater power, while their nature is the same. Biblically, the husband enjoys a higher position and authority than his wife. But he does not differ from her in nature, and he is not superior, or higher in order than her. They share human nature, and work together in love. So it is with Jesus as well. His nature is the same as the Father's, but the Father sent Him (John 6:44), and He was in a lower position as a result of the Incarnation, and was under the Law.
According to Philippians 2:5-8, Jesus “emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men…”
This is what the Athanasian Creed says:
"...our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ."
From the time of His Incarnation, Jesus had a dual nature, taking on human nature as well. Jesus never denied that He was God. He simply acknowledged the fact that He was also human, and subjected Himself to God's laws, thereby redeeming those who were under the Law, namely the sinners (Galatians 4:4-5). Jesus was both God and man at the same time. As a man, He was in a lower position than the Father. He added to human nature (Colossians 2:9). He became man to die for men.
Since Jesus Christ is both true God and true man, two sets of statements can be made about Him: divine and human. Therefore, as a man (the man who is also God), Christ is less than the Father. But in the Trinitarian relations, there may also be a place for the Savior's statement. On the one hand, in the communication of the mystery, the revelation attributes a certain superiority to the Father (by appropriation), since He is generally called God. Furthermore: since the Father is without origin, and the Son is begotten (but not created!), there exists, in the aspect of origin (not nature and essence), a Trinitarian sequence, and thus, according to human understanding and expression, there can analogically be talk of a certain kind of subordination. Meaning
- Jesus Christ is a real man as well, so He could say and do everything like a man.
- In terms of Trinitarian origin, that is, the Son is begotten of the Father, the Son is conceptually dependent on the Father, providing a sufficient logical basis for the speech mode that the Son logically follows the Father and in this sense is subordinate to Him, and since the Father is the source of Divinity, He can be exclusively attributed (but not appropriated against the Son and the Holy Spirit) the name of God.
The statement "The Father is greater than I" must therefore be understood on the basis of the meaning of "I am going to the Father." The Son does not go to the Father because He is the Son of God, for as the Son of God, He was with the Father from eternity - thus even when He spoke these words. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God" (1:1). Rather, we say that He goes to the Father because He has a human nature. Thus, when He says, "The Father is greater than I," He does not say it in the sense of "I, as the Son of God," but as the Son of Man, for in this sense, He is not only less than the Father and the Holy Spirit but even less than the angels: "He was made a little lower than the angels" (Heb 2:9). Moreover, in some things, He was subject to humans, such as His parents (Lk 2:51). Therefore, because of His human nature, He is less than the Father, but because of His divine nature, He is equal to Him: "He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" (Phil 2:6-7).
We could also say, as Hilary of Poitiers does, that even according to the divine nature, the Father is greater than the Son, yet the Son is not less than the Father but equal to Him. For the Father is not greater than the Son in power, eternity, and greatness, but in the dignity of a giver or source, of origin. For the Father receives nothing from another, but the Son receives His nature from the Father by eternal generation. Therefore, the Father is greater because He gives; but the Son is not less but equal because He receives everything that is the Father's: "He gave Him the name that is above every name" (Phil 2:9). For the one to whom an act of existence (esse) is given is not lower than the giver.
John Chrysostom explained the statement contained in John 14:28 by saying that the Lord said this considering the disciples' opinion, who did not yet know of the resurrection, or did not think that He was equal to the Father. Therefore He basically said to them: "if you do not yet believe me on the basis that I cannot help myself, or do not expect to see me again after my cross, then believe me because I am going to the Father, who is greater than I."
From the beginning, human nature shows a threefold subordination to God. The first refers to the measure of goodness, in the sense that the divine nature is the essence of goodness itself, while the created nature only shares in divine goodness, as if it were subject to the rays of goodness. Secondly, human nature is subject to God in terms of God's power, since human nature, like every creature, is subject to the operation of divine ordering. Thirdly, human nature is especially subject to God through its own action, in the sense that it obeys His commands by its own will. Christ confesses this threefold subordination about Himself.
- The first (Matt 19:17): "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good, God." What does this mean? Whoever called Him a good master, and did not confess that He is God or the Son of God, learns that no single person, however holy, can be good in comparison to God. And with this, He prompted us to understand that He Himself, in His human nature, did not attain the height of divine goodness. And since in things that are great, but not in their greatness, to be great is the same as to be good, it is therefore said that the Father is greater than Christ in His human nature.
- The second subordination of Christ is understood in the sense that all that happened with Christ happened by divine disposition, so Christ was subject to the ordering of God the Father. And this is the subordination of servitude, by which every creature serves God, is subject to His ordering, because the creature serves the Creator. And in this sense, the Son of God took "the form of a servant." (Phil 2:7)
- The third subordination He attributes to Himself, saying (John 8:29): "I always do what pleases Him." And this is the subordination of obedience. Therefore, the Scripture says of Him that "became obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross." (Phil 2:8)
* * *
I spoke to you about my departure and my return. You mourn the former; but if you kept in mind my joy, which is intertwined with yours, you would rejoice in it; for the Father to whom I go is greater than me, and he grants me the greater thing, the glorification, the elevation from a humble fate to a more glorious state, which will have the most joyful consequences for you (Cyril). Christ speaks here of himself as man because he speaks of his departure. As the divine Word, he never left the glory of the Father, and there can be no talk of the Word's journey to the Father (Athanasius, Augustine, and the other fathers). However, these words: "the Father is greater than I" can also be reconciled with the divine nature of Jesus Christ; for the Father is indeed greater than the Son, not by nature and dignity, but insofar as the Son is begotten from the Father (Athanasius, Hilary, St. John Damascene).
I mentioned, above 3:18. If you loved [me], you would rejoice. True selfless love is ready to part from the loved one for their good and higher purposes. The disciples should also rejoice that the redemption is completed and that Christ enters into the glory of His Father. (Cf. John 16:6 et seq.) 'The Father is greater than I', i.e., by His divine nature, than the incarnated Redeemer, and is capable of glorifying Christ's human nature too through the exaltation earned by redemption. (Cf. John 10:29; 13:31 et seq. 17:5. Phil. 2:6-11.) With this passage, the Arian heretics wanted to prove, baselessly, that the Son is inferior to the Father.
* * *
Because Jesus said “...the Father is greater than I am,” the Jehovah’s Witnesses will say Jesus is inferior to His Father. Was that really what Christ meant? We should be careful how we think of key words in the Bible.
The key expression here is “greater.” In what sense is the Father greater than Jesus? To illustrate, it would be true to say that the President of the United States is greater than I am, but is he necessarily better? No. He is “greater” than I am by virtue of his special office as Chief Executive of the United States Government. Does this make him “better” in his person? No. He is a member of the human family just as I am, and we both have equal status when it comes to our possession of human nature. Jesus wasn’t saying that His Father was really superior to Him by nature, only that His Father’s office was greater.
It is important to remember what Christ had to do in order to become a man on earth, as described in Philippians, chapter 2, which gives an inspired explanation of what happened when Christ left His exalted position in heaven to come down to earth to be a man. Verse 6 says that Christ was existing in heaven in the form of God, and verse 7 tells us He emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men. What did Jesus do in order to come to be in the likeness of man? He emptied Himself. He divested Himself of His glory as God; He divested Himself of His prerogatives as God and placed Himself voluntarily under the tremendous restriction and limitation of being a man on this earth, carrying out the roles of mediator and messiah. Therefore, while on earth in those roles, He would obviously be dependent on His Father in heaven.
However, Jesus was not inferior to His Father, because Jesus still possessed His God-nature, and so was equal with His Father by nature, even as I am by nature equal with the President of the United States.
* * *
According to the common exposition, Christ here speaks of himself, as made man, which interpretation is drawn from the circumstances of the text, Christ being at that time, going to suffer, and die, and shortly after to rise again, and ascend into heaven, all which agree with him, as man, and according to his human nature. But the Arians can take no advantage from these words, (though with divers of the ancient Fathers, we should allow them to be spoken of Christ, as the Son of God:) the Father may be said in some manner to be greater than the Son, if we consider the order of the divine processions, that is, that the Father is the first person, and proceeds from no other; whereas the Son proceeds from the Father. If any one, says S. Chrys. will contend, that the Father is greater, inasmuch as he is the cause, from which the Son proceedeth, we will bear with him, and this way of speaking: provided he grant that the Son is not of a different substance, or nature. S. Athanasius allows the same, and takes notice, that though the Father is said to be greater, yet he is not said to be better, nor more excellent, than the Son; because they are one and the same in substance, nature, and other perfections. Wi.
The enemies of the divinity of Christ here triumph, and think they have the confession of Christ himself, that he is less than the Father. But if they would distinguish the two natures of Christ, their arguments would all fall to the ground. Jesus Christ, as man, and a creature, is inferior to his Father, the Creator; but, as God, he is, in every respect, equal to him. S. Basil, S. Aug. &c.
Others, likewise, answer it thus: Following the confused opinion of the world, and even of the apostles themselves, who as yet only considered Christ as a prophet, and as a man, eminent in virtue and sanctity, he was less than the Father. S. Chrys. Leont. Theophyl. Euthym.
And likewise the title of Father, (as we generally use the word) is greater, and much more honourable, that that of Son; and in this respect, Christ is inferior to his Father. S. Athanas. S. Hilar. S. Epiph. S. Greg. Nazianz. and S. Cyril.
But this appellation, though really true, does not destroy the equality of the persons, because Christ has declared, in numerous other places, that he is equal to the Father; that he is in the Father; and that he and the Father are one. The apostles ought to have rejoiced that Christ was going to the Father, who was superior to him, considering him in his human nature; because, then, would the Son shew forth his honour and glory to be equal to the Father's, in heaven. This would have been a mark of a pure, solid, and disinterested love, which ought to have inspired the apostles, if they truly loved their divine Master. Calmet.
Protestants assume to themselves the liberty of making the Bible only, the exclusive rule of faith, yet refuse this privilege to others. Thus Luther insisted, that his catechism should be taught, and followed. Calvin burnt Servetus for explaining his faith, by his own interpretation of the Bible, particularly of these words, the Father is greater than I. The Church of England compels every clergyman to swear to the Thirty-nine Articles, and has inflicted the severest penalties on such as interpreted the Bible according to the principles of Socinus; and on Catholics, who understand the words of Jesus Christ, This is my body: this is my blood, in the literal and obvious sense of the words. As long as each individual is at liberty to expound Scripture by the private spirit, it is a great injustice to compel any one, by penal laws, to yield his judgment to any authority, that is not less fallible than his own.
* * *
John 14:28 is to be understood in light of passages such as Philippians 2:6-8, which show us that Christ in John 14:28 was speaking strictly in terms of his office as Messiah, which entailed a giving up, not of the Divine Nature, but of certain prerogatives of glory and Deity which are enjoyed by the Father. Christ subjected Himself to the Father in order to undertake His role as the Incarnate Son and Mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5). Similarly, one might say that "the President of the United States is a greater man than I am," but this would not mean he was necessarily a better man. In any event, he is still a man like us. Since Jesus is still God, even while "humbling" Himself (Phil 2:8), Scripture also indicates that the Father is, in a sense, "subject" to the Son:
JOHN 16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew {it} unto you.
JOHN 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give {it} you.
When the Father is called the "head" of the Son (1 Cor 11:3), this also does not entail any lessening of the equality between the Son and the Father. The Bible also talks about wives being subject to their husbands (1 Pet 3:1,5), even while the two are equals (Gal 3:28, Eph 5:21-22), and indeed, "one flesh" (Mt 19:5-6). Likewise, one Person of the Godhead can be in subjection to another Person and remain God in essence and substance (Phil 2:6-8). Luke 2:51 says that Jesus was "subject" to Mary and Joseph. Yet no orthodox Christian of any stripe would hold that Jesus was lesser in essence than His earthly parents! The same Greek word for "subject" in Luke 2:51 (hupotasso) is used in 1 Cor 15:28, and in 1 Pet 2:18 below. Besides, submissiveness and servanthood is not presented as a sign of weakness in Scripture. Quite the contrary:
1 PETER 2:18 Servants, {be} subject to {your} masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
MATTHEW 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
The word for "greatest" here is meizon, the same word used in John 14:28. Thus, any notion that submissiveness is a lessening of equality is absolutely unscriptural.
Likewise, in 1 Cor 15:28, the subjection spoken of is that of the Son as incarnate, not the Son as Son in essence. While this verse tells us that God will be "all in all," Colossians 3:11 tells us that ". . . Christ {is} all, and in all." Thus, Jesus' office as Messiah and Mediator will cease in time, but not His Godhood, since Scripture teaches that He will be "all in all" just as His Father is.