Does John 14:28 imply Jesus is not equal to God? Passage Text and Immediate Context “You heard Me say, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28) The sentence sits inside Jesus’ Farewell Discourse (John 13–17). Moments earlier He has affirmed full mutual knowledge with the Father (14:7-11) and promised the disciples, “Whatever you ask in My Name, I will do it” (14:13), a prerogative reserved for deity in the Hebrew Scriptures (Isaiah 42:8). The “greater” remark therefore functions within, not against, Johannine claims of Christ’s divinity. Historic Trinitarian Framework Classical Christianity distinguishes between: 1. Ontological (or “immanent”) Trinity — Father, Son, and Spirit share the same eternal, uncreated essence (John 1:1; Colossians 2:9). 2. Economic Trinity — the Persons voluntarily assume ordered roles in creation and redemption (1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 1:3-14). John 14:28 belongs to the economic sphere. The Father sends (14:24), the Son is sent (5:23), the Spirit is “another Paraclete” (14:16). Hierarchy of mission does not imply inequality of essence, just as a general is not ontologically superior to a colonel though higher in function. Scriptural Witness to the Deity of Christ in John’s Gospel • “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (1:1) • “Before Abraham was born, I am.” (8:58) • “I and the Father are one.” (10:30) • Thomas’ confession, “My Lord and my God!” (20:28) — accepted by Jesus. Any reading of 14:28 that denies Christ’s deity contradicts the evangelist’s unbroken testimony. Canonical Corroboration Beyond John Phil 2:6-11 (pre-existence, equality, self-emptying, exaltation); Colossians 1:15-20 (Creator, sustainer, fullness of God); Hebrews 1:3-8 (exact representation, addressed as “O God”). These affirmations appear in documents written within 20-35 years of the Resurrection (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 creed dated A.D. 30-35 by Habermas), long before later theological developments. Incarnation and Kenosis: Why Jesus Could Say “Greater” In the incarnation the Son “emptied Himself” (Philippians 2:7), accepting limitations of human nature, social humiliation, and obedience unto death. While on earth He is “lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2:9) yet worshiped by them (Hebrews 1:6). Thus: • Pre-incarnation: equality of glory (John 17:5). • Incarnation: voluntary subordination (14:28). • Post-resurrection/ascension: resumed glory (Acts 2:33-36). “Going to the Father” restores the honor suspended for the sake of redemption; therefore the disciples should rejoice. Patristic Affirmation and Creedal Consensus Athanasius, Contra Arianos 1.58: “The Son’s abasement is the cause of His saying, ‘The Father is greater,’ yet in respect of His Godhead the Son is equal to the Father.” The Nicene Creed (A.D. 325), drafted to answer misuse of verses like 14:28, calls Christ “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father.” Early Manuscript Reliability and Textual Certainty John 14:28 is attested by Bodmer Papyrus II (𝔓66, c. A.D. 175), Bodmer XIV-XV (𝔓75, c. A.D. 200), Codex Vaticanus (B, 4th cent.), Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ, 4th cent.). No variant alters “ὁ πατήρ μου μείζων μού ἐστιν.” Hence the passage is textually secure; debates concern interpretation, not wording. Archaeological and Historical Corroboration of Early High Christology The Alexamenos Graffito (late 1st/early 2nd cent.) mocks Christians for worshiping the crucified Jesus, indicating that Gentile observers already viewed Him as divine. The Pliny–Trajan correspondence (c. A.D. 112) notes Christians “sing hymns to Christ as to a god.” These data align with NT claims, long predating ecclesiastical councils. Philosophical and Logical Coherence of Equality within Order Being and function are distinct categories. A husband and wife share full human nature yet Scripture assigns the husband “headship” (Ephesians 5:23). Functional hierarchy without ontological hierarchy is intelligible and mirrors divine reality. If we reject this category distinction, we would collapse all differences of role into differences of essence, contradicting daily experience. Answering Common Objections 1. “Greater” must mean “superior in nature.” — Not in the text. Jesus speaks while voluntarily limited (Luke 2:52) and moments from returning to glory (John 17:5). 2. “Why would Jesus pray to the Father if equal?” — In His incarnate role He models dependence (Hebrews 5:7-8) while sharing divine identity (Mark 2:5-12). 3. “John 20:17, ‘My God.’” — Post-resurrection Jesus still maintains filial relation; relational terms do not negate shared essence (Hebrews 1:8). Practical and Soteriological Implications If Jesus were a lesser being, His sacrifice could not atone for the sins of the world (Psalm 49:7-8; Hebrews 10:4). Only the infinite God-Man bridges the gulf between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5). John 14:28, far from diminishing Christ, highlights the triumphant completion of His redemptive mission and the disciples’ future joy. Conclusion John 14:28 reflects the incarnate Son’s temporary, voluntary subordination within the salvation plan, not a denial of His deity. The wider biblical, linguistic, historical, and philosophical evidence converges: Jesus is eternally equal in essence with the Father, yet in the economy of redemption could rightly say, “the Father is greater than I.” |
    |