“The Father Is Greater Than I”: What Did Jesus Mean?
INTRODUCTION
It is a feature of Islamic dawah polemics to quote part of John 14:28 (“the Father is greater than I”) to suggest that Jesus is not really divine. Note what we have just stated – Islamic polemicists are not quoting the entire verse, but only part of it. They are in company with groups such as the Jehovah Witnesses and way back, the Arians. Always, there is a conscious, deliberate ignoring of the full verse and the wider context in the chapter and the Gospel of John as a whole. The purpose of this paper is to examine the verse in its context and determine what Jesus meant by this.
The complete verse – John 14:28
The point to recognize is that the full verse indicates more than just what dawah activists claim: “You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” Note that the dawah propagandists always ignores that the statement does not stand alone, unlike John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” Rather, the quote from 14:28 is not a complete sentence, but rather a clause, specifically a Causal clause (adverbial clause of reason). Wallace observes that the clause structure involves a Genitive of Comparison, and states: “In this context, it is obvious that Jesus is speaking with reference to his office, not his person.” (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, p. 111). The nature of the clause as causal is clear given that the clause starts with “for”. The Greek reads as follows:
ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπον ὑμῖν· Ὑπάγω καὶ ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς. εἰ ἠγαπᾶτέ με ἐχάρητε ἄν, ὅτι πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν.
You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than me.
Note that the dawah propagandists always omit the conjunction ὅτι – hoti – “because” or “for”. Immediately, this tells us that the statement “for the Father is greater than I” looks back to what preceded it. The immediate predecessor of the clause is “because I am going to the Father”, which obviously does not stand alone, but itself looks back to the preceding statement “you would have rejoiced”. So, if we were to begin the sentence there, it would read: “you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” Therefore, the import of the sentence is that the disciples should rejoice, because Jesus is going to the Father. It follows that the focus of the sentence is not a Christological statement about the essence of deity and the relations of Father and Son, but rather on the future motion of Jesus, and specifically His destination – to leave the disciples and to go to the Father. Naturally speaking, the departure of Jesus would be cause for sorrow, but Jesus reveals that paradoxically, it would be cause for rejoicing, because He is going to the Father.
The context of the verse
The chapter is part of the Last Supper discourse, and begins with the news that Jesus is going to the Father, for the purpose of preparing dwelling-places for the disciples:
“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. 2 In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.
These statements look back to Jesus’ words at the Last Supper in the preceding chapter where He indicates the means by which He will initially return to the Father:
31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once. 33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me, and just as I said to the Jews, so now I also say to you, ‘Where I am going you cannot come.’
This refers to the departure of Judas Iscariot, to betray Jesus, and so Jesus is talking about the imminent crucifixion, which, paradoxically, involves Jesus being glorified – specifically, what lay beyond this event – His return to the Father. That is, Jesus is talking about His death and what was occur immediately afterwards. Again, the natural emotion the disciples would feel about this is grief and sorrow, but Jesus instead tells them to rejoice, since He is going – via the cross – to the Father. What would naturally be a time of pain (emotional for the disciples, physical for Jesus) and loss is actually a time for rejoicing and gain, since Jesus will go to the Father to prepare Heaven for the disciples. Therefore, His departure is especially gain for the disciples.
This is also true because of two accompanying consequences. Firstly, in 14:12 Jesus states: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.” So, the disciples will do greater works than Jesus because of His departure to the Father. We will come back to this. Secondly, in v16, Jesus promises them the reception of the Spirit: “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.” This is developed in 16:5-11:
5 But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
Note what v7 states – that it is to the advantage of the disciples that Jesus departs in order that the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, can come to them. So, the conviction of the world and the spread of the Gospel is dependent upon Jesus departing to the Father. It follows that Jesus – in His State of Humiliation, present on the Earth – cannot dispense the Spirit unless He departs to Father in Heaven to send the Spirit. This indicates that Jesus, on Earth, is necessarily self-restricted in some ways, but that this does not apply when He returns to the Father.
Motion and Destination in the Gospel of John
Fundamental to any interpretation of the Gospel of John is what has been termed the “Descent-Ascent Schema”. That is, Jesus descended from Heaven – from the Father – and would return thence by the Cross. So, the inter-related concepts of motion and destination previously mentioned are central to the Gospel. The Gospel begins (1:1) with the revelation that “the Word was with God” – at the Beginning (i.e. of Creation). Then, in v14, we read “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the Unique [One] from the Father, full of grace and truth.” The Greek is: “Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.”·It would be better to translate this as “And the Word came as flesh…” We immediately observe motion and destination – the Word moved from Heaven to Earth, i.e., from the Father to Humanity, and did so as flesh. In 3:13 Jesus tells Nicodemus: “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man”, and in 6:62: “Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” In 16:28, Jesus states; “I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father”.
So, Jesus has descended from Heaven – from the Father, and was returning to the Father in Heaven. Meeks writes (Wayne A. Meeks, ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’, In search of the Early Christians: Selected Essays, New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2002, p. 55): “The uniqueness of the Fourth Gospel in early Christian literature consists above all in the special patterns of language which it uses to describe Jesus Christ. Fundamental among these patterns is the description of Jesus as the one who has descended from heaven and, at the end of his mission which constitutes a krisis for the whole world, reascends to the Father.” This being the case, we should note the statement by Keener (Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003, p. 983):
Jesus would be in a more pleasant state with his Father, he says, “because the Father is greater than I” (14:28). Elsewhere he speaks of the Father’s greatness (5:36; 10:29); as Jesus is greater than those he sends (13:16; 15:20), so is the Father greater than Jesus as his sender... Those who suggest, on the basis of texts such as 14:28, that John denies Jesus’ deity read them outside the broader context of John’s theological framework. In the whole of his Gospel, John plainly affirms Jesus’ deity (1:1; 8:58; 20:28) but distinguishes Jesus from the Father (1:1b, 2)… The issue is not Jesus’ nondeity, or even his distinction from the Father (which is assumed), but his subordination to the Father, which portrays Jesus as the Father’s obedient agent and therefore appeals to those who honor the Father to honor him.
At this point we should consider 17:5: “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” This is part of the “High Priestly” prayer of Jesus, so obviously offered in the State of Humiliation – while He was on Earth, as indicated by v4: “I glorified you on earth…” So, again, we see the distinction between the Father in Heaven, the place and position of eternal glory, and Jesus on the Earth – obviously, not in the same place and position of eternal glory. Yet that same place and position of eternal glory had indeed been the experience of the pre-existent Son before Creation. Now, via the Cross, Jesus would return to that same place and position of eternal glory He had enjoyed before His descent from Heaven. This enables us to understand what Jesus meant in 14:28 about the Father being “greater” – He, unlike the Son on Earth at that point – was in a greater position – that of eternal glory. Guthrie makes a very pertinent comment on 14:28: “It is not surprising that some see in this the inferiority of the Son to the Father, but it must be recognized that Jesus is contrasting the heavenly state with the earthly.” (Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology, Leicester/Downers Grove: IVP, 1981, p. 314).
It is worth noting the comments of other scholars on 14:28. Barrett states: “Jesus will return to the glory of the Father through death… 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.” (C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John An Introduction with Commentary and notes on the Greek text, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955, Second Edition 1978, p. 468). Essentially, this confirms our point about Jesus being in the State of Humiliation on Earth but returning to His eternal glory with the Father. Carson helpfully shows an analogy between this verse and the Queen to demonstrate that Jesus is not affirming that the Father is of differing and superior essence (D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1991, p. 507):
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… 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. 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.
Carson then proceeds to suggest what the clause actually means (Ibid., p. 508):
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.
Again, this supports our interpretation of the text. Lindars also agrees about divine ontology in the verse: “It does not mean that Jesus is a lesser kind of being, not truly divine.” (Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John, Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972, 1981, 1986, p. 485). Morris states: “John is not asserting, as the Arians maintained, that Jesus was a created being. He is talking about the departure of the human Jesus from this earth to be with the Father. In the light of this Jesus sees it as a matter for rejoicing that He returns to the Father.” (Leon Morris, The Gospel According To John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971, p. 659). comments: “Jesus is on the way to the Father who will glorify him. During his mission on earth he is less than the One who sent him, but his departure signifies that the work that the Father has given him to do is completed. Now he will be glorified with that glory that he had with the Father before the world existed.” (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi), London/Dublin/Melbourne: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971, p. 655).
The word “greater” in the Gospels
The argument of the dawah propagandists is that when Jesus refers to the Father as “greater” in John 14:28, the word indicates superiority of essence. Clearly, in the light of John 10:30, 8:58, 1:1, etc., that cannot be the case. However, let us consider what “great” and more specifically “greater” means. In English, it involves a comparison of magnitude. Sometimes this means size or scale, or extension. Examples of this include the largest island in the British Isles, Great Britain. The island is not so-called because the natives had a high opinion of themselves, but because in French, Brittany – formerly Armorica – is Bretagne, and its larger island neighbor is Le Grande Bretagne. In America, there are The Misery Islands in Massachusetts, which include Great Misery and Little Misery. In this context, “great” obviously means “bigger”, and refers to the comparative size of the islands, and not the amount of negative emotion any visitor might experience.
Another possibility is the result of expansion, notably the metropolitanization of traditional cities, such as “Greater” Los Angeles, Toronto, Berlin, Sydney, etc. An instructive case is that of London. The City of London is ancient, has its own Lord Mayor (e.g., the famous Dick Whittington) and even its own police service. During the nineteenth century, its suburbs grew in terms of population as industrialization and metropolitanization advanced. This gave birth to “Greater London”, which is now officially recognized as “The Greater London Authority”, with its own executive Mayor and the Metropolitan Police, distinct from the City of London. The meaning of “Greater” here is obviously “bigger” by virtue of expansion – it does not reflect a qualitative difference from the City of London, or any other British city.
Another meaning is that of magnitude of accomplishment, as applied to persons. For example, we talk of Alexander the Great, Alfred the Great, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great. In each case, it refers to their accomplishments in the political and especially military field – Alexander establishing a great empire, Alfred beginning the process of establishing the English nation and fighting the Vikings, Peter modernizing Russia and extending its borders at the expense of Sweden, Catherine doing much the same at the expense of Poland and the Ottoman empire. Although Alexander – and perhaps some of his followers – considered himself to be a god, the others did not so-regard themselves, and at any rate, the designation is given to these individuals by others. None of those awarding this designation considered the persons here to be different in essence from any other human beings. They simply had, and gained, more power than others, and accomplished more.
At this point we turn to the Gospels. The Greek word for “greater” in John 14:28 is μείζων meizōn. There is also the word μεῖζόν meizon, used in Matthew 12:6, 41-42, 23:17, 19. It can be either an Adjective, Adverb, or Comparative, the root word being μέγα mega – “great”. Below are some the examples:
Matthew 11:11
ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐκ ἐγήγερται ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν μείζων Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ· ὁ δὲ μικρότερος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν μείζων αὐτοῦ ἐστιν.
Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Matthew 12:6
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι τοῦ ἱεροῦ μεῖζόν ἐστιν ὧδε.
I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.
John 1:50
ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Ὅτι εἶπόν σοι ὅτι εἶδόν σε ὑποκάτω τῆς συκῆς πιστεύεις; μείζω τούτων ὄψῃ.
Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.”
John 4:12
μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰακώβ, ὃς ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τὸ φρέαρ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἔπιεν καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ θρέμματα αὐτοῦ;
Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.
John 5:20
ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ ἃ αὐτὸς ποιεῖ, καὶ μείζονα τούτων δείξει αὐτῷ ἔργα, ἵνα ὑμεῖς θαυμάζητε.
For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.
John 5:36
ἐγὼ δὲ ἔχω τὴν μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ Ἰωάννου, τὰ γὰρ ἔργα ἃ δέδωκέν μοι ὁ πατὴρ ἵνα τελειώσω αὐτά, αὐτὰ τὰ ἔργα [c]ἃ ποιῶ, μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ ὅτι ὁ πατήρ με ἀπέσταλκεν,
But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me.
John 8:53
μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ, ὅστις ἀπέθανεν; καὶ οἱ προφῆται ἀπέθανον· τίνα σεαυτὸν ποιεῖς;
Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?”
John 10:29
ὁ πατήρ μου ὃ δέδωκέν μοι πάντων μεῖζων ἐστιν, καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται ἁρπάζειν ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ πατρός.
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
John 13:16
ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐκ ἔστιν δοῦλος μείζων τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ οὐδὲ ἀπόστολος μείζων τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτόν.
Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.
John 14:12
ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει, καὶ μείζονα τούτων ποιήσει, ὅτι ἐγὼ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα πορεύομαι·
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.
John 14:28
ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπον ὑμῖν· Ὑπάγω καὶ ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς. εἰ ἠγαπᾶτέ με ἐχάρητε ἄν, ὅτι πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν.
ou heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
The first example, from Matthew 11:11 contrasts the eschatological position of John the Baptist with ‘the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven’, as France observes (R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007, pp. 428-29):
The argument of vv. 7-10 is brought to a resounding conclusion with a solemn “Amen” saying: John is the greatest of all human beings so far. In this context the focus has been on his role as a prophet, but this saying surprisingly declares him not simply the greatest of prophets but the greatest of all people (even Abraham, Moses, David?), so important is his pivotal role in the eschatological drama. After such a declaration the second half of the verse is the more striking, as it contrasts those hitherto “born of women” and the members of the kingdom of heaven. The contrast is between two eras, that of preparation, culminating in John, and that of fulfillment, the arrival of the kingdom of heaven which Jesus has now inaugurated. John had proclaimed it (3:2), but he apparently remains outside while even the less important (cf. 5:19 for “least” and “great” in the kingdom of heaven) of those whom Jesus has now welcomed into the kingdom of heaven enjoys a privilege beyond that even of John himself.
Clearly, there was no difference in human essence between John and previous prophets, as there was none between him and anyone born supernaturally under the New Covenant. It is obvious, therefore, that “greater” is a matter of position, not essence here. This is also true of Matthew 12:6, where Jesus declares His superiority to the Temple. Obviously as a living being, rather than something inanimate like the Temple, Jesus was of different essence to it, but that is not the import. The Temple was the place of sacrifice, of divine-human reconciliation, and the dwelling-place of God. To again quote France (pp. 460-461):
…why does Jesus speak in the neuter of “something greater”? Here in v. 6 this might be explained formally by the fact that the immediate point of comparison is an institution, the temple, not a person. But when a very similar formula is used again in vv. 41 and 42, the point of comparison will be individual people of the OT, Jonah and Solomon, yet the neuter is found there as well. Both here and there it is the authority of Jesus himself which is immediately at issue, but not so much Jesus in his own person as in his role, as now (in comparison with priest, prophet, and king in the OT) the true mediator between God and his people; such a role is something new. Here in v. 6, where the contrast is with the temple rather than with a person, the neuter is perhaps also intended to point beyond Jesus himself to the new principle of God’s relationship with his people which will result from Jesus’ ministry, a principle which will remain embodied in the community of his disciples even when Jesus himself is no longer present.
As with John the Baptist, the arrival of Age of Fulfilment, the New Covenant, produces a radical change. The functions of the Temple are now realized in the Person and Work of Jesus as Messiah. That is, Jesus has a greater role, a greater position.
If we turn now to the Gospel of John, in 1:50 Jesus promises Nathanael that he will see greater things than Jesus’ revelation at that point. To understand this, we must know why Nathanael was so shocked at Jesus:
45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 46 Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” 48 Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” 49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” 50 Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” 51 And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”
Carson (op. cit., p. 161) observes concerning the fig tree: “occasionally in rabbinic literature its shade is associated with a place for meditation and prayer…” Lindars (op. cit. p. 118) concurs, stating: “According to the Midrash Rabba on Eccles. 5.11, some rabbis taught the Law under a fig tree (cf. SB 1.858; 11.371).” That is, Nathanael was reading the Scriptures under the tree, and meditating on a particular event therein. What event was it? Obviously, the narrative of Jacob’s dream in Genesis 28:12. The name “Jacob”, ya’aqōb, means “he seizes by the heel.” His name prophetically worked itself out in his history, in his striking a twister’s bargain with his brother over the birthright and then deceiving his father in the matter of the blessing (not to mention his dodgy dealings with Uncle Laban later on, of course). Carson observes that Esau’s comment in Genesis 27:36 on Isaac’s words in 27:35 is a punning allusion to Jacob’s name, meaning something like “he has seized me by the heel” [with the sense, we might say, “he has got the better of me (by devious means)”]. It carries with it overtones of his being something of a cheat, a twister (how else could he have grabbed hold of his brother’s heel?!), a deceiver, (op. cit., pp. 160-161):
The encomium achieves extra depth in the light of the explicit reference to the Jacob story in the following verses. Doubtless Esau despised his birthright, but in Isaac’s view that did not make Jacob innocent. Isaac informs Esau, ‘Your brother came deceitfully (LXX ‘with deceit [dolos]’) and took your blessing’, to which Esau replies, ‘Isn’t he rightly named Jacob (Heb. ya‘aqōb)? He has deceived me (ya‘aqebēnî) these two times’ (Gn. 27:35–36). But Jacob came to be called Israel, after receiving a vision of God that transformed his character (Gn. 28:10ff.; 32:24–30). Nathanael, then, was an Israelite without deceit, an ‘Israel’ and not a ‘Jacob’…
The passage in Genesis 28 follows Jacob’s flight from Esau’s wrath. The actual dream he had was of particular significance for Nathanael, pace Lindars (p. 122): “It is possible that he is making use of rabbinic exegesis at this point, which is first attested in Targum Neofiti at Gen. 28.12. Thus Gen. Rabba lxviii.18; lxix.3 take ‘on it’ and ‘above it’ of Gen. 28.12 and 13 respectively to be ‘on him’ - i.e., on Jacob. One of the explanations given for this… interpretation is that the ‘image’ of Jacob is in heaven while his body sleeps on earth, and the angels maintain contact between them.” This explains both Nathanael’s shock and Jesus’ statement about the angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man. Odeberg comments (Hugo Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells Boktryckeri-A.- B., 1929, p. 36):
On the background of these mystical interpretations of the ascent and descent of the angels on man, some light may be thrown upon the meaning of Joh. 151: the disciples of Jesus will see the angels of God ascending and descending upon the son of man i.e. they will see the connexion being brought about between the celestial appearance, the Glory, δόξα [doxa] of Christ, and his appearance in the flesh; it implies the manifestation (φανέρωσις [phanerōsis]) of his δόξα (211) on earth.
At this point, we can understand Nathanael’s shock and sudden confession of faith in Jesus as Messiah – somehow, Jesus was supernaturally aware of the subject about which Nathanael had been meditating, as evidenced by Jesus’ comment “Behold, truly an Israelite, in whom there is no deceit!” Nathanael would have been thinking about Jacob, Ya‘aqōb, the one who “deceived (ya‘aqebēnî)”, but whose Heavenly “image”, the true Israel, is the one upon whom angels ascend and descend. Hence Nathanael’s shocked response of acknowledgement of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah.
Yet Jesus promises Nathanael something “greater” – an insight into His Glory - as Lindars comments (p. 120), this applies “to the unfolding of Jesus’ glory throughout the Gospel.” Nathanael had only recognized Jesus as the Royal Messiah, but Jesus, by manifesting His glory as the celestial Son of Man of Daniel 7, will show Nathanael that He is more than just an earthly figure like David – He is indeed literally Heavenly, having come from Heaven (we can thus see the link with the Heavenly Image of Israel in Jacob’s dream). However, both revelations are, obviously, equally supernatural – it is the spiritual insight that Nathanael will gain from His experience of who Jesus really is that is “greater” in quality.
The encounter of Jesus and the Samaritan woman in John 4:12 begins with Him asking her for a drink, which surprises her, as “Jews have no dealings with Samaritans”, only for Him to state (v10): “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” This leads her to reply: “11 The woman said to him, “Sir, you have nothing to draw water with, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.” It is important at this point to note that she was not aware of who Jesus was, nor of His supernatural powers or standing as Messiah (or as the Samaritans termed him, the Taheb, who was not of Davidic ancestry, but rather a prophet like Moses – a teacher or lawgiver, who brought about the resurrection of the dead, among other matters). Clearly, therefore, she did not mean to ask if Jesus was “greater” in essence than Jacob. Rather, her comment refers to the well itself (Lindars, p. 182):
The thought that Jesus might know of a superior source of fresh water has occurred to the woman, but it is an affront to her Samaritan pride in possession of the patriarch’s well. If G. A. Smith is correct in saying that she used it because of the superiority of its water, no difficulty is caused by the fact that many other sources of supply are available in the vicinity, for she knows that none is better. So, for Jesus to claim that he has a better source, is to claim that he is a greater man than Jacob himself.
That is, in her mind, Jesus could only be “greater” than Jacob if He could show her a superior well – perhaps deeper, able to quench the thirst not only of Jacob himself, but also his family and cattle. Barrett (p. 234) essentially concurs with Lindars but emphasizes Jacob’s position as a Patriarch: “That Jacob himself drank of the well lends it distinction - even he needed no better water; that his cattle did so indicates the copiousness of the supply, also that Jacob’s well provided no more than material water, appropriate only to the animal life of man.” Clearly, Jacob as one of the Patriarchs could only be “greater” than someone who is not, but again, this indicates position, not essence. Of course, we know that Jesus, in terms of His divine nature, was indeed of greater essence than Jacob, but the woman did not know that, nor did it influence her question.
The next verse to consider is John 5:20: “For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.” It is best to put this into context – Jesus is responding to objections that He healed on the Sabbath, and His claim to unique divine paternity and thus deity: “7 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working 18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” The verse in question is part of Jesus’ response:
19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.
Jesus denies that the Son can act independently of the Father. Obviously, ordinary human beings can and do act independently of the Father – they sin, for example. However, the unity of essence between Father and Son precludes such independent action, as Carson (p. 251) comments:
The Greek text of verses 19–23 is structured around four gar (‘for’ or ‘because’) statements. The first introduces the last clause of v. 19. The thought runs like this: It is impossible for the Son to take independent, self-determined action that would set him over against the Father as another God, for all the Son does is both coincident with and coextensive with all that the Father does. ‘Perfect Sonship involves perfect identity of will and action with the Father’ (Westcott, 1. 189). It follows that separate, self-determined action would be a denial of his sonship. But if this last clause of v. 19 takes the impossibility of the Son operating independently and grounds it in the perfection of Jesus’ sonship, it also constitutes another oblique claim to deity; for the only one who could conceivably do whatever the Father does must be as great as the Father, as divine as the Father.
On that basis, we proceed to v20 – that the Father shows the Son “all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.” Morris comments (pp. 313-314):
Thus the Father shows (again the tense is present denoting continuous action) the Son all the things He does. This carries the implication that the Son does the things He is shown. Jesus’ actions do not proceed from merely human motivation. He acts only in accordance with the divine revelation. Thus He looks forward to doing greater works, for He will be shown greater works. The result will be that His hearers will be astonished. The following verses show that these “greater works” are the Son’s activities in giving life and in judging.
There is thus an identity of action between Father and Son – the latter acts completely in accordance with the will of the former. Beasley-Murray (George Beasley-Murray, John, Waco: Word, 1987, p. 76) comments: “The “seeing” of the Son in v 19 has its counterpart in the “showing” by the Father in v 20. It is an image of the perpetual communion of the Son with the Father in his day-by-day life (not in his pre-existence). The source of that communion, and its illumination and direction, is the Father’s love for the Son.” Barrett (p. 259) aptly comments: “The activity of Jesus is not merely a reflection of God's activity but a complete reflection, since the Father shows the Son all that he does.” Lindars (p. 222) comments on the “greater” works: “These greater works will be described in the next two verses. They will cause men to marvel, because what they have so far seen is only a faint shadow of the full scale of the eschatological task which Jesus will perform when he is glorified; cf. verse 28.”
The “greater” works are thus those of eschatological Resurrection and Judgment. It is true that in the Old Testament, we see resurrections performed by divine mandate through Elijah and Elisha, and in the New Testament later by the Apostles, but there is a qualitative difference between what is envisaged in v25 here - “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” All resurrections in the Bible, save that of Jesus, were temporary revivifications – the person was simply restored to his/her natural life, and eventually the grave would re-claim that individual. However, the Resurrection of Jesus was different – He had a resurrection body, being the first fruits of the General Resurrection, and so the tomb would never re-claim its victim. Note that it is not the Father, but the Son whose voice would cause the General Resurrection.
This should be linked to v21: “For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will”. None of the resurrections performed by the Prophets or Apostles could have been realized apart from the will and power of God, however much the divine servants involved could have wished for such inherent power. Yet Jesus, as the Son, will give eternal life to whomsoever He (not the Father) wills, and by His own inherent power. Of course, there is no cleavage between the will and power of the Father and the Son, by virtue of their possessing the same essence.
In one sense, there is not gradation between Jesus miraculously healing someone, and later resurrecting the dead for the Judgment – divine power in miracles is obviously common to both. However, both Jesus and the works He will perform at the End of the Age will be a different position than during the healing in John 5:8-9 – obviously, Jesus will face no opposition – He will be the Divine Judge, and the miracle of Resurrection He will perform will be eternal in nature. In that sense, the works Jesus will perform will greater. However, in terms of divine power in miracle, it will be the same. The power that caused the invalid to walk is the same as resurrects people.
In John 5:36, Jesus declares that His testimony is greater than that of John the Baptist. What did He mean by this? The reference is the second clause in the verse indicate an answer: “For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me.” In one sense, this could refer to the fact that the ministry of Jesus, unlike that of John, was accompanied by miracles (10:41: “John did no sign, but everything that John said about this man was true”). However, that is only part of the meaning. Unlike John, Jesus is the Messiah, and indeed, the Son, looking back to what Jesus says earlier in the chapter. Carson writes (pp. 261-262):
These ‘works’ include all of Jesus’ ministry, including the ‘signs’… which point to the climactic work, the work of redemption achieved in the cross and exaltation of the Lamb of God. Anyone who has followed John’s Gospel this far will know that these works are not some mere demonstration that Jesus is a notable human being, perhaps a prophet, following the conclusion of Nicodemus (3:2). The argument in this verse turns on the exposition of the Father/Son relationship found in 5:19–30. All that Jesus does is nothing more and nothing less than what the Father gives him to do. The works he does are thus peculiarly divine: they are the works of God. Once this Father/Son relationship is grasped, everything Jesus does simultaneously attests who he is and who the Father is.
Morris comments (p. 328):
The works which He does are no ordinary works. They are “the works which none other did” (15:24). They are the Father's works, and, indeed, it is the Father abiding in Him who does them (14:10). These works bear upon them the hallmark of their divine origin. They show that Jesus is not of human origin, but that the Father has sent Hm (for “sent” see on 3: 7). Jesus' words have particular force, set as they are in the context of the healing of the lame man.
John’s testimony did not have the force that the witness of Jesus enjoys, since it was not miraculously validated by the Father in the same way. After all, John himself saw the descent of the Spirit upon us and recognized what position He held (1:30ff):
30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” 32 And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”
Again, it comes down to position and role. The reference in John 8:53 resembles the encounter with the Samaritan woman: “Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” Although in v58 Jesus effectively answers this by pointing out that there is indeed a difference of essence between Him and Abraham – i.e., He is YHWH – that obviously was not in the minds of His questioners/accusers. The actual “question” is really a rebuke – “who do you think you are!” Or, to use another colloquialism, “You’re giving yourself airs!” It looks back to the accusations in verse 51-52: “51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” 52 The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’” The initial answer Jesus gives indicates that He understood the nature of their question as an accusation that He was giving Himself airs – v54 “Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’” Jesus denies giving Himself airs – rather, the Father has appointed Him to the position He now has as Messiah. However, this is not actually pertinent to our point. What matters is the force of the accusation against Jesus – that He made Himself to be “greater” than Abraham, the Patriarch, and also the prophets. It is as if someone in the UK were to rebuke a person by saying: “who do you think you are – the King?” The point is, the accusers of Jesus make is that Jesus – whom they believe to be nothing more than human – cannot be in a higher position than the Patriarch.
When we come to John 10:27-29, we find Jesus making what at first glance might seem a trite statement – “27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” Obviously, God is greater than humans or demons in terms of His power. Yet that is the point for our consideration – by virtue of His position as the Cosmic Ruler, His power is greater than any adversary. Again, what is contrasted is not essence, but position. The Creator is obviously more powerful than anything in His creation. His power come with the territory of being God.
The statement in John 13:16 “Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him” clearly relates to position, rather than essence, since human masters and servants, and messengers and senders are of the common essence of humanity, though existing separately. We need not spend any time on this, as it is obvious. That brings us to John 14:12: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.” This is especially interesting, being in the same chapter and discourse as the verse this paper considers. Given all that Jesus has said about the nature of His works, how can it be true that mere humans could do greater works than the Son? Barrett comments (p. 460): “The greater works therefore are the gathering of many converts into the church through the activity of the disciples (cf. 17. 20; 20. 29), which however is effective only through the continuing power of Jesus’ word and the work of the Holy Spirit (15.26f.).” Morris (p. 646) concurs:
What Jesus means we may see in the narratives of the Acts. There are a few miracles of healing, but the emphasis is on the mighty works of conversion. 31 On the day of Pentecost alone more believers were added to the little band of believers than throughout Christ’s entire earthly life. There we see a literal fulfilment of “greater works than these shall he do”. During His lifetime the Son of God was confined in His influence to a comparatively small sector of Palestine. After His departure His followers were able to work in widely scattered places and influence much larger numbers of men. But they did it all on the basis of Christ’s return to the Father. They were in no sense acting independently of Him. On the contrary in doing their “greater works” they were but His agents.
Likewise, Lindars (p. 475): “As their works are the works of Jesus, they will be just as much the activity of God in the world as his own acts were. Moreover they will be greater. This does not, of course, mean better than those of Jesus, but more extensive, for it is through the mission of the disciples that the work of Jesus is to be extended through the world and down the ages; the phrase is an unmistakable allusion to 5.20.” Obviously, there is no gradation in the essential nature of the works of the Apostles and those of Jesus, it is simply because of the change in Jesus’ position – being exalted to Heaven – that the works can proceed on a great scale.
CONCLUSION
It can be seen from all we have surveyed that the use of part of John 14:28 – indeed, a truncated portion of the clause therein – by the dawah propagandists to prove that Jesus is inferior to the Father is wholly illegitimate. Neither the context nor the use of “greater” by Jesus (especially in the Gospel of John) allow for such an interpretation. The text simply refers to the fact that the Father – on His throne in Heaven - was in a greater position than Jesus on Earth, in the State of Humiliation. Jesus stated that He was going to the Father, who was in a greater position, and since this would lead to the Apostles receiving the Spirit, Who will enable them to do “greater” works than those of Jesu during His earthly sojourn.
It should also be noted that the chapter begins with Jesus making a statement about Himself that indicates His deity:
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” 8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
Beasley-Murray (pp. 253-254) aptly comments on this as follows:
This so-called formula of reciprocal immanence is, as Schnackenburg puts it, “a linguistic way of describing... the complete unity between Jesus and the Father” (3:69). Significantly it was earlier stated to Jewish opponents of Jesus in justification of a statement closely related to hat in v 9, namely, “1 and the Father are one” (10:30, 37-38). The reality is greater than human language can express, but that to which it points is sufficiently clear: in the depths of the being of God there exists a koinonia, a “fellowship,” between the Father and the Son that is beyond all compare, a unity whereby the speech and action of the Son are. that of the Father in him, and the Father’s speech and action come to finality in him.
We should therefore look at v28 in the light of what Jesus has stated about Himself earlier in the chapter: He is indeed God, as well as being true Man.