Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
28. Ye have heard, &c.] Literally, Ye heard that I said to you, I am going away and I am coming unto you: comp. Joh 14:1-2 ; Joh 14:18.
because I said, I go, &c.] Omit ‘I said,’ which is wanting in all the best authorities: If ye had loved Me, ye would have rejoiced that I am going unto the Father. The construction is the same as in Joh 4:10, Joh 11:21; Joh 11:32, Joh 14:28. Their affection is not free from selfishness: they ought to rejoice at His gain rather than mourn over their own loss.
for my Father is greater than I ] Because the Father is greater than I. Therefore Christ’s going to Him is gain. This was a favourite text with the Arians, as implying the inferiority of the Son. There is a real sense in which even in the Godhead the Son is subordinate to the Father: this is involved in the Eternal Generation and in the Son’s being the Agent by whom the Father works in the creation and preservation of all things. Again, there is the sense in which the ascended and glorified Christ is ‘inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.’ Lastly, there is the sense in which Jesus on earth was inferior to His Father in Heaven. Of the three this last meaning seems to suit the context best, as shewing most clearly how His going to the Father would be a gain, and that not only to Himself but to the Apostles; for at the right hand of the Father, who is greater than Himself, He will have more power to advance His kingdom. See notes on 1Co 15:27-28; Mar 13:32, [Joh 16:19 ].
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Ye have heard … – Joh 14:2-3.
If ye loved me – The expression is not to be construed as if they had then no love to him, for they evidently had; but they had also low views of him as the Messiah; they had many Jewish prejudices, and they were slow to believe his plain and positive declarations. This is the slight and tender reproof of a friend, meaning manifestly if you had proper love for me; if you had the highest views of my character and work; if you would lay aside your Jewish prejudices, and put entire, implicit confidence in what I say.
Ye would rejoice – Instead of grieving, you would rejoice in the completion of the plan which requires me to return to heaven, that greater blessings may descend on you by the influences of the Holy Spirit.
Unto the Father – To heaven; to the immediate presence of God, from whom all the blessings of redemption are to descend.
For my Father is greater than I – The object of Jesus here is not to compare his nature with that of the Father, but his condition. Ye would rejoice that I am to leave this state of suffering and humiliation, and resume that glory which I had with the Father before the world was. You ought to rejoice at my exaltation to bliss and glory with the Father (Professor Stuart). The object of this expression is to console the disciples in view of his absence. This he does by saying that if he goes away, the Holy Spirit will descend, and great success will attend the preaching of the gospel, Joh 16:7-10. In the plan of salvation the Father is represented as giving the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the various blessings of the gospel. As the Appointer, the Giver, the Originator, he may be represented as in office superior to the Son and the Holy Spirit. The discourse has no reference, manifestly, to the nature of Christ, and cannot therefore be adduced to prove that he is not divine. Its whole connection demands that we interpret it as relating solely to the imparting of the blessings connected with redemption, in which the Son is represented all along as having been sent or given, and in this respect as sustaining a relation subordinate to the Father.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Joh 14:28-29
If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice, because I said I go unto the Father
The death of the good a reason for joy
Note the view which Christ had of His death.
I go.
1. Whence? From the world.
2. Whither? To the Father, not to destruction, eternal solitude, nor to fellowship with minor souls.
3. How? Not driven. Other men are sent to the grave; Christ freely went. The general truths of the text are these
I. THAT GENUINE LOVE REJOICES IN THE HAPPINESS OF ITS OBJECT. We find illustrations of this in
1. Creation. Love made the universe in order to diffuse happiness.
2. Christs mission. Christ came to make happy the objects of infinite love.
3. Christian labour. Happiness is the end of all church work.
II. THAT THE HAPPINESS OF MEN DEPENDS UPON FELLOWSHIP WITH THE FATHER.
1. Happiness is in love.
2. The love, to produce happiness, must be directed to the Father. His perfection delights in it; His goodness reciprocates it.
3. Love for the Father yearns for fellowship with Him. Love always craves the presence of its object.
III. THAT DEATH INTRODUCES THE GOOD INTO A SPECIALLY CLOSE FELLOWSHIP WITH THE FATHER. There were obstructions to the fellowship of the Man Christ Jesus with the Father.
1. The body with its infirmities.
2. The sinful world.
3. The influence of principalities and powers of darkness. These interfere with the fellowship of good men and God, and in addition they have what Christ had not.
(1) Worldly cares.
(2) Inward depravity.
(3) Corrupt habits.
At death, however, all these are removed, and the soul of the good man goes into the immediate presence of God. We need not, then, sorrow for the departed good. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
Joy and faith the fruit of Christs departure
I. THE DEPARTURE OF THE LORD IS A FOUNTAIN OF JOY TO THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.
1. Christs going is Christs coming. The word again is a supplement, and somewhat destroys the true flow of thought. But if you strike it out and read the sentence as being what it is, a description of one continuous process, you get the true idea. I go away, and I come to you. There is no moment of absolute absence. To the eye of sense, the going away was the reality, and the coming a metaphor. To the eye enlightened to see things as they are, the dropping away of the visible corporeal was but the inauguration of the higher and the more real.
2. Christs going is Christs exaltation. Hitherto we have been contemplating Christs departure simply in its bearing upon us, but here He unveils another aspect of it, and that in order that He may change His disciples sadness into joy.
(1). What a hint of self-sacrifice lies in this thought, that Christ bids His disciples rejoice with Him because the time is getting nearer its end, and He goes back to the Father! And what shall we say of the nature of Him to whom it was martyrdom to live, and a supreme instance of self-sacrificing humiliation to be found in fashion as a man?
(2) The context requires that for Christ to go to the Father was to share in the Fathers greatness. Why else should the disciples be bidden to rejoice in it? or why should He say anything about the greatness of the Father? The inferiority, of whatever nature it may be, to which He here alludes, falls away when He passes hence. Now these words are often quoted triumphantly, as if they were dead against the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ. But the creed which confesses that is not to be overthrown by pelting this verse at it; for this verse is part of that creed, which as fully declares the Father is greater than the Son as it declares that the Son is One with the Father. We can dimly see that the very names Father and Son imply some sort of subordination, but as that subordination is in the timeless and inward relations of Divinity, it must be supposed to exist after the Ascension, as it existed before the Incarnation; and, therefore, any such mysterious difference is not that which is referred to here. What is referred to is what dropped away from the Man Jesus Christ when He ascended up on high. As Luther has it, Here He was a poor, sad, suffering Christ; and that garb of lowliness falls from Him, like the mantle that fell from the prophet as he went up in the chariot of fire, when He passes behind the brightness of the Shekinah cloud that hides Him from their sight. Therefore we, as His followers, have to rejoice in an ascended Christ, beneath whose feet are foes, and far away from whose human personality are all the ills that flesh is heir to.
3. On both these grounds Christs ascension and departure is a source of icy.
(1) There can be no presence with us, man by man, through all the ages, and in every land, unless He, whose presence it is, participated in the absolute glory of Divinity.
(2) And surely if our dearest one was far away from us, in some lofty position, our hearts and our thoughts would ever be flung thither, and we should live more there than here. And if we love Jesus Christ, there will be no thought more sweet to us than the thought of Him, our Brother and Forerunner, who has ascended up on high; and in the midst of the glory of the throne bears us in His heart, and uses His glory for our blessing.
II. HIS DEPARTURE AND HIS ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS DEPARTURE AS THE GROUND AND FOOD OF FAITH (Joh 14:29). He knew what a crash was coming, and with exquisite tenderness He gave Himself to prepare the disciples for the storm, that, forewarned, they might be forearmed. And when my sorrows come to me, I may say about them what He says about His departure. Aye! He has told us before, that when it comes we may believe. But note
1. How Christ avows that the great aim of His utterances and of His departure is to evoke our faith. And what does He mean by faith?
(1) A grasp of the historic facts, His death, resurrection, ascension.
(2) The understanding of these as He Himself has explained them.
(3) And, therefore, as the essence of faith, a reliance upon Himself as thus revealed, sacrifice by His death, victor by His resurrection, King and interceding Priest by His ascension–a reliance upon Himself as absolute as the facts are sure, as unfaltering as His eternal sameness.
2. These facts, as interpreted by Himself, are the ground and the nourishment of our faith. How differently they looked when seen from the further side and when seen from the hither side. We trusted, said two of them, with such a sad use of the past tense, that this had been He which should have redeemed Israel. But after the facts were all unveiled, there came back the memory of His words, and they said to one another, Did He not tell us that it was all to be so? How blind we were not to understand Him!
3. Faith is the condition of the true presence of our absent Lord. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
Loves importance
1. Jesus love makes Him use the disciples love to Himself as a comfort for themselves when they are distressed about His going away.
2. He appeals to the warmest feeling in their hearts in order to raise their spirits.
3. It is well when grace has put within us principles which are springs of consolation. From our text learn
I. THAT WE SHOULD TRY TO SEE THINGS IN CHRISTS LIGHT.
1. He sees the whole of things. He says not only, I go away, but also, I come again unto you.
2. He sees through things. He does not say, I die, but He looks beyond, and says, I go unto the Father.
3. He sees the true bearing of things. The events which were about to happen were in themselves sad, but they would lead to happy results. If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice. To see facts in His light we must dwell with Him, live in Him, grow like Him, and especially love Him more and more.
II. THAT OUR LOVE SHOULD GO FORTH TOWARDS HIS PERSON. If ye loved Me. All about Him is amiable; but He Himself is altogether lovely Son 5:16). He is the source of all the benefits He bestows. Loving Him
1. We have Him, and so His benefits.
2. We prize His benefits the more.
3. We sympathize in all that He does.
4. We love His people for His sake.
5. Our love endures all sorts of rebuffs for His sake.
6. The Father loves us (Joh 14:23)
7. We are married to Him.
Love is the sure and true marriage-bond whereby the soul is united to Christ. Love to a person is the most real of emotions. Love to a person is the most influential of motives. Love to a person is, in this case, the most natural and satisfying of affections.
III. THAT OUR SORROW OUGHT NOT TO PUT OUR LOVE IN QUESTION. Yet, in the case of the disciples, our Lord justly said, If ye loved Me. He might sorrowfully say the same to us
1. When we lament inordinately the loss of creatures.
2. When we repine at His will, because of our severe afflictions.
3. When we mistrust His wisdom, because we are sore hampered and see no way of escape.
4. When we fear to die, and thus display an unwillingness to be with our Lord. Surely, if we loved Him, we should rejoice to be with Him.
5. When we complain concerning those who have been taken from us to be with Him. Ought we not to rejoice that Jesus in them sees of the travail of His soul, and has His prayer (Joh 17:24) answered.
IV. THAT OUR LOVE SHOULD MAKE US REJOICE AT OUR LORDS EXALTATION, THOUGH IT BE OUR PERSONAL LOSS.
1. It was apparently the disciples loss for their Lord to go to the Father; and we may think certain dispensations to be our loss
(1) When we are tried by soul desertion, while Christ is magnified in our esteem.
(2) When we are afflicted, and He is glorified, by our sorrows.
(3) When we are eclipsed, and in the result the gospel is spread.
(4) When we are deprived of privileges for the good of others.
(5) When we sink lower and lower in our own esteem, but the kingdom of God comes with power.
2. It was greatly to our Lords gain to go to His Father. Thus He
(1) Left the field of suffering forever.
(2) Reassumed the glory which He had laid aside.
(3) Received the glory awarded by the Father.
(4) Became enthroned for His Church and cause.
Conclusion:
1. It will be well for us to look more to our love than to our joy, and to expect our joy through our love.
2. It will be well for us to know that smallness of love may dim the understanding, and that growth in it may make us both wiser and happier.
3. In all things our Lord must be first. Yes, even in those most spiritual delights, about which it may seem allowable to bane strong personal desires. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
For My Father is greater than I
Christs equality with and subordination to God
It is contended that our Lord here abandoned any pretension to be a person internal to the essential life of God. But this saying can have no such force if its application be restricted, as the Latin Fathers do restrict it to our Lords manhood. But even if our Lord is here speaking, as the Greeks generally maintain, of His essential Deity, His words express very exactly a truth recognized and required by the Catholic doctrine. The subordination of the everlasting Son to the everlasting Father is strictly compatible with the Sons absolute Divinity; it is abundantly implied in our Lords language: and it is an integral element of the ancient doctrine which steadily represents the Father as alone unoriginate, the Fount of Deity, in the eternal life of the ever-blessed Trinity. But surely an admission on the part of One in whom men saw nothing more than a fellow creature, that the everlasting God was greater than Himself, would fail to satisfy a thoughtful listener that no claim to Divinity was advanced by the Speaker. Such an admission presupposes some assertion to which it stands in the relation of a necessary qualification. If any good man of our acquaintance should announce that God was greater than himself, should we not hold him to be guilty of something worse than a stupid truism? And should we not peremptorily remind him that the life of man is related to the life of God, not as the less to the greater, but as the created to the Uncreated, and that it is an impertinent irreverence to admit superiority of rank, when the real truth can only be expressed by an assertion of radical difference of natures? And assuredly a sane and honest man, who had been accused of associating Himself with the Supreme Being, could not content himself with admitting that God was greater than himself. Knowing himself to be only human, would he not insist again and again with passionate fervour upon the incommunicable glory of the great Creator? (Canon Liddon.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 28. I go away] To the Father by my death:
And come again unto you.] By my resurrection.
Ye would rejoice] Because, as the Messiah, I am going to receive a kingdom, and power, and glory, for ever. Therefore as my friends ye should rejoice in my elevation, though for a while it may put you to the pain of being separated from me: besides, I am going that I may send you the Holy Spirit, which shall fill you with the fulness of God: on your own account, therefore, ye should have rejoiced and not mourned.
My Father is greater than I.] In Joh 14:24, Christ tells his disciples that the Father had sent him: i.e. in his quality of Messiah, he was sent by the Father to instruct, and to save mankind. Now, as the sender is greater than the sent, Joh 13:16, so in this sense is the Father greater than the Son; and in this sense was the passage understood by Origen, Jerome, Novatian, and Vigilius, who read the text thus: The Father, , who sent me, is greater than I. It certainly requires very little argument, and no sophistry, to reconcile this saying with the most orthodox notion of the Godhead of Christ; as he is repeatedly speaking of his Divine and of his human nature. Of the former he says, I and the Father are one, Joh 10:30; and of the latter he states, with the same truth, The Father is greater than I.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you; they had heard our Saviour saying so, Joh 14:3. It is of the nature of true love, to rejoice in the good of the object beloved, as much as in its own, nay, before its own.
Saith our Saviour,
if ye loved me, that is, as ye ought to love me, (for our Lord had before owned that they did love him, giving it as a reason why he rather revealed himself and manifested himself to them, than to the world, Joh 14:23), you would not have been so unreasonably disturbed at my telling you that I shall leave you; because I not only told you that I would come again to you, but because I told you that I was going to my Father, Joh 14:2; from whom though I was never separated, as I am God over all blessed for ever, yet my human nature was yet never glorified with him; so that I shall be there much happier than here; being highly exalted, and having a name given me above every name, Phi 2:9.
For my Father is greater than I; not greater in essence, (as the Arians and Socinians would have it), he had many times before asserted the contrary; but greater,
1. Either as to the order amongst the Divine Persons; because the Father begat, the Son is begotten; the Father is he from whom the Son proceeded by eternal generation: in which sense, divers of the ancients, amongst whom Athanasius, Cyril, and Augustine, and some modern interpreters, understand it. Or:
2. As Mediator sent from the Father, so he is greater than I. Or:
3. In respect of my present state, while I am here in the form of a servant; and in my state of humiliation:
which seemeth to be the best interpretation, if we consider the words before, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father; for the true reason of that joy must have been, because Christ in his glorious state of exaltation would be much more happy than he had been in his state of humiliation, while he was exposed to the scoffs, reproaches, and injuries of men, the temptations of Satan, &c.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
28. If ye loved me, ye wouldrejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father, for my Father isgreater than IThese words, which Arians and Sociniansperpetually quote as triumphant evidence against the proper Divinityof Christ, really yield no intelligible sense on their principles.Were a holy man on his deathbed, beholding his friends intears at the prospect of losing him, to say, “Ye ought rather tojoy than weep for me, and would if ye really loved me, “thespeech would be quite natural. But if they should ask him, whyjoy at his departure was more suitable than sorrow, would they notstart back with astonishment, if not horror, were he to reply,”Because my Father is greater than I?” Does not thisstrange speech from Christ’s lips, then, presuppose such teachingon His part as would make it extremely difficult for them to think Hecould gain anything by departing to the Father, and make it necessaryfor Him to say expressly that there was a sense in which He coulddo so? Thus, this startling explanation seems plainly intended tocorrect such misapprehensions as might arise from the emphatic andreiterated teaching of His proper equality with the Fatherasif so Exalted a Person were incapable of any accession by transitionfrom this dismal scene to a cloudless heaven and the very bosom ofthe Fatherand by assuring them that this was not the case,to make them forget their own sorrow in His approaching joy.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Ye have heard how I said unto you,…. Christ had not only told his disciples that he should depart from them in a little time, but also that he should return again to them, and comfort them with his presence, and receive them to himself, to be with him in his Father’s house for ever: and this he again suggests,
I go away, and come again unto you; so that they had not so much reason to be troubled and afraid, as they were: had he only said to them that he should go away, without giving any hint of his coming again, they might well have been uneasy; what made the friends of the Apostle Paul so sorrowful at his departure, was most of all, because he had signified to them they should see his face no more; but Christ assured his disciples that in a little time they should see him again, to their unspeakable joy and comfort:
if ye loved me, adds he,
ye would rejoice; not but that the disciples did truly love Christ, and their concern for the loss of his bodily presence is a proof of it; nor was their love unknown to him, nor does he call it in question, only corrects it, or rather uses means to increase it, to draw it forth aright, that it might move and run in a proper channel; they loved him, and therefore were unwilling to part with him, but this was not a pure expression of love to him, it showed too much a regard to themselves, than to the object loved; whereas had they considered things aright, since it was to his greater advantage to remove, they should rather have discovered a willingness to it, and have rejoiced at it; this would have shown pure love and unbiased affection to him: two reasons our Lord gives why they should have rejoiced at his departure; one is,
because, says he,
I said, I go unto the Father; who was not only his, but their Father also; at whose right hand he was to sit, an honour which no mere creature ever had; where he was to be glorified and exalted above all created beings; and besides, his glorification would secure and bring on theirs; as sure as he lived in glory, so sure should they; yea, they should immediately sit down in heavenly places in him, as their head and representative, and therefore had good reason to rejoice at his going away: the other is,
for my Father is greater than I: not with respect to the divine nature, which is common to them both, and in which they are both one; and the Son is equal to the Father, having the self-same essence, perfections, and glory: nor with respect to personality, the Son is equally a divine person, as the Father is, though the one is usually called the first, the other the second person; yet this priority is not of nature, which is the same in both; nor of time, for the one did not exist before the other; nor of causality, for the Father is not the cause of the Son’s existence; nor of dignity, for the one has not any excellency which is wanting in the other; but of order and manner of operation: these words are to be understood, either with regard to the human nature, in which he was going to the Father, this was prepared for him by the Father, and strengthened and supported by him, and in which he was made a little lower than the angels, and consequently must be in it inferior to his Father; or with regard to his office as Mediator, in which he was the Father’s servant, was set up and sent forth by him, acted under him, and in obedience to him, and was now returning to give an account of his work and service; or rather with regard to his present state, which was a state of humiliation: he was attended with many griefs and sorrows, and exposed to many enemies, and about to undergo an accursed death; whereas his Father was in the most perfect happiness and glory, and so in this sense “greater”. That is, more blessed and glorious than he; for this is not a comparison of natures, or of persons, but of states and conditions: now he was going to the Father to partake of the same happiness and glory with him, to be glorified with himself, with the same glory he had with him before the foundation of the world; wherefore on this account, his disciples ought to have rejoiced, and not have mourned.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Christ’s Consolatory Discourse. |
| |
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. 29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. 30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. 31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.
Christ here gives his disciples another reason why their hearts should not be troubled for his going away; and that is, because his heart was not. And here he tells them what it was that enabled him to endure the cross and despise the shame, that they might look unto him, and run with patience. He comforted himself,
I. That, though he went away, he should come again: “You have heard how I have said, and now I say it again, I go away, and come again.” Note, What we have heard of the doctrine of Christ, especially concerning his second coming, we have need to be told again and again. When we are under the power of any transport of passion, grief, or fear, or care, we forget that Christ will come again. See Phil. iv. 5. Christ encouraged himself with this, in his sufferings and death, that he should come again, and the same should comfort us in our departure at death; we go away to come again; the leave we take of our friends at that parting is only a good night, not a final farewell. See 1Th 4:13; 1Th 4:14.
II. That he went to his Father: “If you loved me, as by your sorrow you say you do, you would rejoice instead of mourning, because, though I leave you, yet I said, I go unto the Father, not only mine, but yours, which will be my advancement and your advantage; for my Father is greater than I.” Observe here, 1. It is matter of joy to Christ’s disciples that he is gone to the Father, to take possession for orphans, and make intercession for transgressors. His departure had a bright side as well as a dark side. Therefore he sent this message after his resurrection (ch. xx. 17), I ascend to my Father and your Father, as most comfortable. 2. The reason of this is, because the Father is greater than he, which, if it be a proper proof of that for which it is alleged (as no doubt it is), must be understood thus, that his state with his Father would be much more excellent and glorious than his present state; his returning to his Father (so Dr. Hammond) would be the advancing of him to a much higher condition than that which he was now in. Or thus, His going to the Father himself, and bringing all his followers to him there, was the ultimate end of his undertaking, and therefore greater than the means. Thus Christ raises the thoughts and expectations of his disciples to something greater than that in which now they thought all their happiness bound up. The kingdom of the Father, wherein he shall be all in all, will be greater than the mediatorial kingdom. 3. The disciples of Christ should show that they love him by their rejoicing in the glories of his exaltation, rather than by lamenting the sorrows of his humiliation, and rejoicing that he is gone to his Father, where he would be, and where we shall be shortly with him. Many that love Christ, let their love run out in a wrong channel; they think if they love him they must be continually in pain because of him; whereas those that love him should dwell at ease in him, should rejoice in Christ Jesus.
III. That his going away, compared with the prophecies which went before of it, would be a means of confirming the faith of his disciples (v. 29): “I have told you before it come to pass that I must die and rise again, and ascend to the Father, and send the Comforter, that, when it is come to pass, you might believe.” See this reason, Joh 13:19; Joh 16:4. Christ told his disciples of his death, though he knew it would both puzzle them and grieve them, because it would afterwards redound to the confirmation of their faith in two things:– 1. That he who foretold these things had a divine prescience, and knew beforehand what day would bring forth. When St. Paul was going to Jerusalem, he knew not the things that did abide him there, but Christ did. 2. That the things foretold were according to the divine purpose and designation, not sudden resolves, but the counterparts of an eternal counsel. Let them therefore not be troubled at that which would be for the confirmation of their faith, and so would redound to their real benefit; for the trial of our faith is very precious, though it cost us present heaviness, through manifold temptations, 1 Pet. i. 6.
IV. That he was sure of a victory over Satan, with whom he knew he was to have a struggle in his departure (v. 30): “Henceforth I will not talk much with you, having not much to say, but what may be adjourned to the pouring out of the Spirit.” He had a great deal of good talk with them after this (ch. xv. and xvi.), but, in comparison with what he had said, it was not much. His time was now short, and he therefore spoke largely to them now, because the opportunity would soon be over. Note, We should always endeavour to talk to the purpose, because perhaps we may not have time to talk much. We know not how soon our breath may be stopped, and therefore should be always breathing something that is good. When we come to be sick and die, perhaps we may not be capable of talking much to those about us; and therefore what good counsel we have to give them, let us give it while we are in health. One reason why he would not talk much with them was because he had now other work to apply himself to: The prince of this world comes. He called the devil the prince of this world, ch. xii. 31. The disciples dreamed of their Master being the prince of this world, and they worldly princes under him. But Christ tells them that the prince of this world was his enemy, and so were the princes of this world, that were actuated and ruled by him, 1 Cor. ii. 8. But he has nothing in me. Observe here, 1. The prospect Christ had of an approaching conflict, not only with men, but with the powers of darkness. The devil had set upon him with his temptations (Matt. iv.), had offered him the kingdoms of this world, if he would hold them as tributary to him, with an eye to which Christ calls him, in disdain, the prince of this world. Then the devil departed from him for a season; “But now,” says Christ, “I see him rallying again, preparing to make a furious onset, and so to gain by terrors that which he could not gain by allurements;” to frighten from his undertaking, when he could not entice from it. Note, The foresight of a temptation gives us great advantage in our resistance of it; for, being fore-warned, we should be fore-armed. While we are here, we may see Satan continually coming against us, and ought therefore to be always upon our guard. 2. The assurance he had of good success in the conflict: He hath nothing in me, ouk echei ouden—He hath nothing at all. (1.) There was no guilt in Christ to give authority to the prince of this world in his terrors. The devil is said to have the power of death (Heb. ii. 14); the Jews called him the angel of death, as an executioner. Now Christ having done no evil, Satan had no legal power against him, and therefore, though he prevailed to crucify him, he could not prevail to terrify him; though he hurried him to death, yet not to despair. When Satan comes to disquiet us, he has something in us to perplex us with, for we have all sinned; but, when he would disturb Christ, he found no occasion against him. (2.) There was no corruption in Christ, to give advantage to the prince of this world in his temptations. He could not crush his undertaking by drawing him to sin, because there was nothing sinful in him, nothing irregular for his temptations to fasten upon, no tinder for him to strike fire into; such was the spotless purity of his nature that he was above the possibility of sinning. The more Satan’s interest in us is crushed and decays, the more comfortably may we expect sufferings and death.
V. That his departure was in compliance with, and obedience to, his Father. Satan could not force his life from him, and yet he would die: that the world may know that I love the Father, v. 31. We may take this,
1. As confirming what he had often said, that his undertaking, as Mediator, was a demonstration to the world, (1.) Of his compliance with the Father; hereby it appeared that he loved the Father. As it was an evidence of his love to man that he died for his salvation, so it was of his love to God that he died for his glory and the accomplishing of his purposes. Let the world know that between the Father and the Son there is not love lost. As the Father loved the Son, and gave all things into his hands; so the Son loved the Father, and gave his spirit into his hand. (2.) Of his obedience to his Father: “As the Father gave me commandment, even so I did–did the thing commanded me in the manner commanded.” Note, The best evidence of our love to the Father is our doing as he hath given us commandment. As Christ loved the Father, and obeyed him, even to the death, so we must love Christ, and obey him. Christ’s eye to the Father’s commandment, obliging him to suffer and die, bore him up with cheerfulness, and overcame the reluctancies of nature; this took off the offence of the cross, that what he did was by order from the Father. The command of God is sufficient to bear us out in that which is most disputed by others, and therefore should be sufficient to bear us up in that which is most difficult to ourselves: This is the will of him that made me, that sent me.
2. As concluding what he had now said; having brought it to this, here he leaves it: that the world may know that I love the Father. You shall see how cheerfully I can meet the appointed cross: “Arise, let us go hence to the garden;” so some; or, to Jerusalem. When we talk of troubles at a distance, it is easy to say, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest; but when it comes to the pinch, when an unavoidable cross lies in the way of duty, then to say, “Arise, let us go to meet it,” instead of going out of our way to miss it, this lets the world know that we love the Father. If this discourse was at the close of the passover-supper, it should seem that at these words he arose from the table, and retired into the drawing-room, where he might the more freely carry on the discourse with his disciples in the following chapters, and pray with them. Dr. Goodwin’s remark upon this is, that Christ mentioning the great motive of his sufferings, his Father’s commandment, was in all haste to go forth to suffer and die, was afraid of slipping the time of Judas’s meeting him: Arise, says he, let us go hence but he looks upon the glass, as it were, sees it not quite out, and therefore sits down again, and preaches another sermon. Now, (1.) In these words he gives his disciples an encouragement to follow him. He does not say, I must go; but, Let us go. He calls them out to no hardships but what he himself goes before them in as their leader. They had promised they would not desert him: “Come,” says he, “let us go then; let us see how you will make the words good.” (2.) He gives them an example, teaching them at all times, especially in suffering times, to sit loose to all things here below, and often to think and speak of leaving them. Though we sit easy, and in the midst of the delights of an agreeable conversation, yet we must not think of being here always: Arise, let us go hence. If it was at the close of the paschal and eucharistical supper, it teaches us that the solemnities of our communion with God are not to be constant in this world. When we sit down under Christ’s shadow with delight, and say, It is good to be here; yet we must think of rising and going hence; going down from the mount.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
I go away, and I come ( ), both futuristic presents (John 7:33; John 14:3; John 14:18).
If ye loved me ( ). Second-class condition with the imperfect active of referring to present time, implying that the disciples are not loving Jesus as they should.
Ye would have rejoiced ( ). Second aorist passive indicative of with , conclusion of second-class condition referring to past time, “Ye would already have rejoiced before this” at Christ’s going to the Father (verse 12).
Greater than I ( ). Ablative case after the comparative (from positive ). The filial relation makes this necessary. Not a distinction in nature or essence (cf. 10:30), but in rank in the Trinity. No Arianism or Unitarianism here. The very explanation here is proof of the deity of the Son (Dods).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
I said. Omit, and read, ye would have rejoiced because I go unto the Father.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1 ) “Ye have heard how I said unto you,” (akousate hoti ego eipon humin) “You all heard that I told you,” with concern and compassion, Joh 14:1.
2) “I go away, and come again unto you.” (hupago kai erchomai pros humas) “I go and I come again to you all,” of my own will and accord, Joh 14:2-3; As also foretold Deu 30:3; Psa 2:1-9; as also later prophesied Act 1:9,11; and by Paul, 1Th 4:16-18; Heb 10:36-37.
3) “If ye loved me, ye would rejoice,” (ei egapate me echarete an) “If you all loved me you would have rejoiced,” or had joy and gladness, if you loved me as you should because I am going away, going back home to my Father, from whom I have been gone more than 30 years, for your sake, 2Co 8:9.
4) “Because I said, I go unto the Father:” (hoti poreuomai pros ton patera) “Because I am going to the Father,” to my Father and your Father, Joh 20:17; A thing that should make you glad.
5) “For my Father is greater than I.” (hoti ho pater mezion mou estin) “Because my Father is greater than I am,” greater at that moment, in glory and happiness. For Jesus had forfeited the glory He once had for a life of humiliation, shame, and a redemptive death, Joh 17:1; Joh 17:4-5; Heb 1:3; Heb 1:10.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
28. If you loved me you would rejoice. The disciples unquestionably loved Christ, but not as they ought to have done; for some carnal affection was mixed with their love, so that they could not endure to be separated from him; but if they had loved him spiritually, there was nothing which they would have had more deeply at heart, than his return to the Father.
For the Father is greater than I. This passage has been tortured in various ways. The Aryans, in order to prove that Christ is some sort of inferior God, argued that he is less than the Father The orthodox Fathers, to remove all ground for such a calumny, said that this must have referred to his human nature; but as the Aryans wickedly abused this testimony, so the reply given by the Fathers to their objection was neither correct nor appropriate; for Christ does not now speak either of his human nature, or of his eternal Divinity, but, accommodating himself to our weakness, places himself between God and us; and, indeed, as it has not been granted to us to reach the height of God, Christ descended to us, that he might raise us to it. You ought to have rejoiced, he says, because I return to the Father; for this is the ultimate object at which you ought to aim. By these words he does not show in what respect he differs in himself from the Father, but why he descended to us; and that was that he might unite us to God; for until we have reached that point, we are, as it were, in the middle of the course. We too imagine to ourselves but a half-Christ, and a mutilated Christ, if he do not lead us to God.
There is a similar passage in the writings of Paul, where he says that Christ
will deliver up the Kingdom to God his Father, that God may be all in all, (1Co 15:24.)
Christ certainly reigns, not only in human nature, but as he is God manifested in the flesh. In what manner, therefore, will he lay aside the kingdom? It is, because the Divinity which is now beheld in Christ’s face alone, will then be openly visible in him. The only point of difference is, that Paul there describes the highest perfection of the Divine brightness, the rays of which began to shine from the time when Christ ascended to heaven. To make the matter more clear, we must use still greater plainness of speech. Christ does not here make a comparison between the Divinity of the Father and his own, nor between his own human nature and the Divine essence of the Father, but rather between his present state and the heavenly glory, to which he would soon afterwards be received; as if he had said, “You wish to detain me in the world, but it is better that I should ascend to heaven.” Let us therefore learn to behold Christ humbled in the flesh, so that he may conduct us to the fountain of a blessed immortality; for he was not appointed to be our guide, merely to raise us to the sphere of the moon or of the sun, but to make us one with God the Father.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(28) Ye have heard how I said unto you.Better, Ye heard how I said unto you. (See Joh. 14:19-20.)
If ye loved me, ye would rejoice.True love seeks anothers good and not its own. Their sorrow at His departure was at its root selfish, as all sorrow for those who depart to be with God is, however little we think so. His departure would be the return to the glory of the Fathers throne, and was matter for joy and not for sorrow. For them also it was expedient. (Comp. Notes on Joh. 16:6-7.)
For my Father is greater than I.These words have naturally formed the subject of controversy in every period of the Churchs history, between those who deny and those who accept the truth that the Son is very God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before all worlds. And, as in all controversies, statements have been made on either side which cannot be supported by the words themselves. On the part of those who assert the divine nature, it has been contended that the Father is greater than the Son only as regards the human nature of the Son; but this is not here thought of. In this passage, as in others of the New Testament, it is plainly asserted that in the divine nature there is a subordination of the Son to the Father. (See, e.g., Joh. 14:16; Joh. 17:5; 1Co. 3:23; 1Co. 11:3; 1Co. 15:27-28; Php. 2:9; Php. 2:11; and especially Note on Joh. 5:19 et seq.) On the part of those who deny the divinity of our Lord, it has been contended that this text asserts the inferiority of His nature to that of the Father, whereas the words could only have been uttered by one who meant in them to assert His own divine essence. If we try to imagine a man saying, God is greater than I, we feel at once that He who really said them claimed for Himself that He was truly God.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
28. Ye would rejoice Sorrowful as was his departure, love to him should inspire joy for his sake that it was to be accomplished. For he should thereby go unto the Father. His glorified person, ascending to the right hand of God, would be in glory and in bliss ineffable; would be, in human form, the very living person, real and confessed, of God himself. Beyond the unbeliefs and gainsayings of men, beyond the temptations and hostilities of Satan, he would stand upon the mount of God, angels, and principalities, and powers being subject unto him. For his sake, therefore, if they loved him, they would rejoice in his ascending glory.
Father is greater than I God, original and essential, is, by office and originality, greater than the Incarnate. And the Incarnate, in ascending to him, ascends to his great Superior. He mounts to his Father’s home. And yet, this very assertion, that the Father is greater than I, indicates, in some respect, a divine equality. What man would say, God is greater than myself?
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Joh 14:28. For my Father is greater than I. That is, “than I am, considered in my mediatorial capacity.”Thesewords afforded a strong argument for the proper Divinity of our Lord; for had he been a mere man, or even a creature of the highest order, the comparison would have been foolish and impertinent.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 14:28 . Instead of being terrified and alarmed, you should rejoice , that I, etc. , . . . (Joh 14:18 ) prepares for this.
. ] intended by Jesus to be understood in its ideal sense, of true, complete love, which consists simply and solely in entire self-surrender to Him, so that all other interests are subordinated to it.
] Statement of the reason for the joy which they would have felt ( ): since my Father is greater , as generally, so particularly, more powerful (comp. Joh 14:12 ; Joh 8:53 ; Joh 10:29 ; 1Jn 4:4 ) than I; since I, consequently, through my departure to Him, shall be elevated in the higher fellowship with Him, to far greater power and efficiency for my aims, for victory over the world, etc. Comp. Melanchthon. In this gain, which is awaiting me, how should not he rejoice who loves me? Others find the motive to joy indicated by Christ in the glory and blessedness which awaits Him with the Father. So Cyril ( ), and several, including Tholuck, Olshausen, Kling, Kstlin, Maier, Hilgenfeld, Hengstenberg, Baeumlein, comp. Godet. But thus the motive would lie only in the departure to the Father generally (with which the attainment of the was necessarily associated), not to the Father’s superior greatness of being , irrespective of the fact, that on this view the reference which Jesus would be giving to the love of the disciples would contain something selfish. Others render: the occasion of joy lies in the more powerful protection which the would assure to the disciples, beyond what He, during His presence on earth, was able to do (Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, and several others, including Kuinoel, Lcke, De Wette). But this does not apply to the condition of love to the person of Jesus , for the above explanation changes it rather into love towards His work . Others , as Luther, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Lampe, mingle together in the determination of the cause of joy, the interest of Christ and of the disciples; comp. Calvin: “quia haec ultima est meta, ad quam tendere vos oportet.”
The of the Father (formerly the point of controversy with the Arians, see Suicer, Thes . II. p. 1368) does not rest in the pre-eminence of the unbegotten over the begotten (Athanasius, Faustinus, Gregory Nazianzus, Hilarius, Euth. Zigabenus, and many others, including again also Olshausen), for which special expedient the text offers no occasion whatever, nor again in the temporal humiliation of Christ (Cyril, Augustine, Ammonius, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, Aretius, and many others, including De Wette, Tholuck, and Luthardt), since God is also greater than the exalted Christ (see Joh 14:16 , , Joh 17:5 ; 1Co 15:27-28 ; Phi 2:9-11 ; 1Co 3:23 ; 1Co 11:3 , and generally throughout the N. T.), as He was also greater than the pre-existent Logos (Joh 1:1-3 ); but in the absolute monotheism of Jesus (Joh 17:3 ), and of the whole N. T. (see on Rom 9:5 ), according to which the Son, although of divine essence, [157] and with the Father (Joh 1:1 ; Phi 2:6 ; Col 1:15-18 , et al. ), nevertheless was, and is, and remains subordinated to the Father, the immutably Highest One, since the Son, as Organ, as Commissioner of the Father, as Intercessor with Him, etc., has received His whole power, even in the kingly office, from the Father (Joh 17:5 ), and, after the complete accomplishment of the work committed to Him, will restore it to the Father (1Co 15:28 ). The remark of Hengstenberg is incorrect: Only such a pre-eminence of greatness on the part of the Father can be intended, as came to an end with the departure of Christ to the Father.
[157] This forms the previous assumption of the declaration, which otherwise would be without meaning and relevancy. Comp. on Joh 10:30 . In truth, from the mouth of an ordinary human being it would be an utterance of folly.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (29) And now I have told you before it come to pass, that when it is come to pass ye might believe. (30) Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. (31) But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even Son 1 do. Arise, let us go hence.
I should not think it necessary to pause over what our Lord hath said in relation to himself and the Father, had it not been sometimes perverted, and applied in a way, in which Christ never intended the expression. When Jesus saith, My Father is greater than I; he could not mean in respect to his divine nature: for the One glorious Essence of Jehovah is possessed in common with the whole Persons of the Godhead; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: and the whole are equally great and glorious. Neither in the Personal nature of the Godhead could the words be meant. For both the Father and the Son are here also equal. And although the Father be called by the Church, and by way of distinction from the Son and the Holy Ghost, the first in point of order; yet this is never understood, neither is it ever meant, by way of precedency. God the Father had not being before the Son and Holy Ghost: neither though called Father in a way of distinction, is it meant to intimate as if he was the cause of the Son’s being; both being in their nature and essence eternal. Equal in the eternity of Being, in dignity, power, and glory: and the whole Three Persons possessing in common every attribute which constitutes the Godhead. So that under these distinctions of Person and character in relation to the Godhead, Jesus could not have reference when speaking of the superiority of his Father. But in respect to his Covenant Office, as God-Man-Mediator; no question for a moment can be entertained, but what the Son of God hath condescended to act in a subordinate character. Hence he is called Jehovah’s servant: and the Surety of his Church and People. And in all the departments of those offices, everything manifested that his Father was greater than he. For while Christ was subjected to all the indignities and sorrows of his Mediator nature and character, God the Father lost nothing of his original honor and felicity. The comparison therefore, is not made in relation to the nature of both in the Godhead, for that must be unalterable and impossible to admit of increase or lessening. But the whole refers to the office-character which each Person entered into, and engaged for, in the Covenant. And here Jesus might truly say, as he did in this verse; My Father is greater than I!
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Ver. 28. My Father is greater than I ] To wit, as I have voluntarily submitted myself to the office of a mediator. Lo, here this Sun of righteousness is gone back ten degrees in the dial below his Father. “Thou hast made him little less than the angels,” Psa 8:5 ; there (as man) he is gone back ten degrees below the angels. “I am a worm and no man,” Psa 22:6 ; there he is gone back ten degrees below men. “A living dog is better than a dead lion,” Ecc 9:4 ; there he is gone back ten degrees below worms. For he was not so much as a living worm, but was laid in the grave as a dead lion, there to have been meat for worms, but that it was impossible for God’s Holy One to see corruption. See how he emptied and humbled himself, , that he might exalt and fill us with his fulness, .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Joh 14:28 . On the contrary quite other feelings should possess them: joy in sympathy with Him in His glorification and in expectation of the results of His going to the Father: . “If ye loved me,” an almost playful way of reproaching their sadness. There was no doubt of their love, but it was an unintelligent love. They failed to consider the great joy that awaited Him in His going to the Father. This going to the Father was cause for rejoicing, [ is not well authenticated and should be deleted] , “because the Father is greater than I”; and can therefore fulfil all the loving purposes of Christ to His disciples. “The life which He has begun with them and for them will be raised to a higher level.” They had seen the life He had lived and were disturbed because it was coming to an end: but it was coming to an end because absorbed in the greater life He would have with the Father. The theological import of the words is discussed by Westcott, who cites patristic opinions and refers to Bull and Pearson. In all that Jesus did, it was the Father’s will He carried out, and with powers communicated by the Father: the Father is the Originator and End of all His work in the world. Throughout the ministry of Jesus the Father is represented as “greater” than the Son. That it should require to be explicitly affirmed, as here, is the strongest evidence that He was Divine.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
John
JOY AND FAITH, THE FRUITS OF CHRIST’S DEPARTURE
Joh 14:28 – Joh 14:29
Our Lord here casts a glance backward on the course of His previous words, and gathers together the substance and purpose of these. He brings out the intention of His warnings and the true effect of the departure, concerning which He had given them notice, as being twofold. In the first verse of my text His words about that going away, and the going away itself, are represented as the source of joy, which is an advance on the peace that He had just previously been promising. In the second of our verses these two things-His words, and the facts which they revealed-are represented as being the very ground and nourishment of faith.
So, then, we have these two thoughts to look at now, the departed Lord, the fountain of joy to all who love Him; the departed Lord, the ground and food of faith.
I. The departure of the Lord is a fountain of joy to those who love Him.
The first is that with which we have already become familiar in previous sermons on this chapter-viz., its bearing upon the disciples; and in that respect it is declared that Christ’s going is Christ’s coming.
But then we have a new aspect, one on which, in His sublime self-repression, He very seldom touches-viz., its bearing upon Himself; and in that aspect we are taught here to regard our Lord’s going as ministering to His exaltation and joy, and therefore as being a source of joy to all His lovers.
So, then, we have these thoughts, Christ’s going is Christ’s coming, and Christ’s going is Christ’s exaltation, and for both reasons that departure ought to minister to His friends’ gladness. Let us look at these three things for a little while.
First of all, there comes a renewed utterance of that great thought which runs through the whole chapter, that the departure of Jesus Christ is in reality the coming of Christ. The word ‘again’ is a supplement, and somewhat restricts and destroys the true flow of thought and meaning of the words. For if we read, as our Authorised Version does, ‘I go away and come again unto you,’ we are inevitably led to think of a coming, separated by a considerable distance of time from the departure, and for most of us that which is suggested is the final coming and return, in bodily form, of the Lord Jesus.
Now great and glorious as that hope is, it is too far away to be in itself a sufficient comfort to the mourning disciples, and too remote to be for us, if taken alone, a sufficient ground of joy and of rest. But if you strike out the intrusive word ‘again,’ and read the sentence as being what it is, a description of one continuous process, of which the parts are so closely connected as to be all but contemporaneous, you get the true idea. ‘I go away, and I come to you.’ There is no gap, the thing runs on without a break. There is no moment of absolute absence; there are not two motions, one from us and the other back again towards us, but all is one. The ‘going’ is the ‘coming’; the solemn series of events which began on Calvary, and ended on Olivet, to the eye of sense were successive stages in the departure of Jesus Christ. But looked at with a deeper understanding of their true meaning, they are successive stages in His approach towards us. His death, His resurrection, His ascension, were not steps in the cessation of His presence, but they were simply steps in the transition from a lower to a higher kind of that presence. He changed the limitations and externalities of a mere bodily, local nearness for the realities of a spiritual presence. To the eye of sense, the ‘going away’ was the reality, and the ‘coming’ a metaphor. To the eye enlightened to see things as they are, the dropping away of the visible corporeal was but the inauguration of the higher and the more real. And we need to reverse our notions of what is real and what is figurative in Christ’s presence, and to feel that that form of His presence which we may all have to-day is far more real than the form which ceased when the Shekinah cloud ‘received Him out of their sight,’ before we can penetrate to the depth of His words, or grasp the whole fullness of blessing and of consolation which lie in them here. In a very deep and real sense, ‘He therefore departed from us for a season that we might receive Him for ever.’
The real presence of Jesus Christ to-day, and through the long ages with every waiting heart, is the very keynote to the solemn music of these chapters. And again I press upon you, and upon myself, the question, Do we believe it? Do we live in the faith of it? Does it fill the same place in the perspective of our Christian creed as it does in the revelation of the Scripture, or have we refined it and watered it down, until it comes to be little more than merely the continuous influence of the record of His past, just as any great and sovereign spirit that has influenced mankind may still ‘rule the nations from his urn’? Or do we take Him at His word, and believe that He meant what He said, in something far other than a violent figure for the continuance of His influence and of the inspiration drawn from Him, ‘Lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world’? ‘Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend up into heaven? that is, to bring Christ down from above, the Word,’ the Incarnate Word, ‘is nigh thee, in thy heart,’ if thou lovest and trustest Him.
Then, again, the other aspect of our Lord’s coming, which is emphasised here, is that in which it is regarded as affecting Himself. Christ’s going is Christ’s exaltation.
Now observe that, in the first clause of our verse, there is simply specified the fact of departure, without any reference to the ‘whither’; because all that was wanted was to contrast the going and the coming. But, in the second clause, in which the emphasis rests not so much upon the fact of departure as upon the goal to which He went, we read: ‘I go to the Father.’ Hitherto we have been contemplating Christ’s departure simply in its bearing upon us, but here, with exquisite tenderness, He unveils another aspect of it, and that in order that He may change His disciples’ sadness into joy; and says to them, ‘If ye were not so absorbed in yourselves, you would have a thought to spare about Me, and you would feel that you should be glad because I am about to be exalted.’
Very, very seldom does He open such a glimpse into His heart, and it is all the more tender and impressive when He does. What a hint of the continual self-sacrifice of the human life of Jesus Christ lies in this thought, that He bids His disciples rejoice with Him, because the time is getting nearer its end, and He goes back to the Father! And what shall we say of the nature of Him to whom it was martyrdom to live, and a supreme instance of self-sacrificing humiliation to be ‘found in fashion as a man’?
He tells His followers here that a reason for their joy in His departure is to be found in this fact, that He goes to the Father, who is greater than Himself.
Now mark, with regard to that remarkable utterance, that the whole course of thought in the context requires, as it seems to me, that we should suppose that for Christ to ‘go to the Father’ was to share in the Father’s greatness. Why else should the disciples be bidden to rejoice in it? or why should He say anything at all about the greatness of the Father? If so, then this follows, that the greatness to which He here alludes is such as He enters by His ascension. Or, in other words, that the inferiority, of whatever nature it may be, to which He here alludes, falls away when He passes hence.
Now these words are often quoted triumphantly, as if they were dead against what I venture to call the orthodox and Scriptural doctrine of the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. And it may be worth while to remark that that doctrine accepts this saying as fully as it does Christ’s other word, ‘I and My Father are one,’ I venture to think that it is the only construction of Scripture phraseology which does full justice to all the elements. But be that as it may, I wish to remind you that the creed which confesses the unity of the Godhead and the divinity of Jesus Christ is not to be overthrown by pelting this verse at it; for this verse is part of that creed, which as fully declares that the Father is greater than the Son, as it declares that the Son is One with the Father. You may be satisfied with it or no, but as a matter of simple honesty it must be recognised that the creed of the Catholic Church does combine both the elements of these representations.
Now we can only speak in this matter as Scripture guides us. The depths of Deity are far too deep to be sounded by our plummets, and he is a bold man who ventures to say that he knows what is impossible in reference to the divine nature. He needs to have gone all round God, and down to the depths, and up to the heights of a bottomless and summitless infinitude, before he has a right to say that. But let me remind you that we can dimly see that the very names ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ do imply some sort of subordination, but that that subordination, inasmuch as it is in the timeless and inward relations of divinity, must be supposed to exist after the ascension, as it existed before the incarnation; and, therefore, any such mysterious difference is not that which is referred to here. What is referred to is what dropped away from the Man Jesus Christ, when He ascended up on high. As Luther has it, in his strong, simple way, in one of his sermons, ‘Here He was a poor, sad, suffering Christ’; and that garb of lowliness falls from Him, like the mantle that fell from the prophet as he went up in the chariot of fire, when He passes behind the brightness of the Shekinah cloud that hides Him from our sight. That in which the Father was greater than He, in so far as our present purpose is concerned, was that which He left behind when He ascended, even the pain, the suffering, the sorrow, the restrictions, the humiliation, that made so much of the burden of His life. Therefore we, as His followers, have to rejoice in an ascended Christ, beneath whose feet are foes, and far away from whose human personality are all the ills that flesh is heir to. ‘If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father; for My Father is greater than I.’
So then the third thought, in this first part of our subject, is that on both these grounds Christ’s ascension and departure are a source of joy. The two aspects of His departure, as affecting Him and as affecting us, are inseparably welded together. There can be no presence with us, man by man, through all the ages, and in every land, unless He, whose presence it is, participates in the absolute glory of divinity. For to be with you and me and all our suffering brethren, through the centuries and over the world, involves something more than belongs to mere humanity. Therefore, the two sources of gladness are confluent-Christ’s ascension as affecting us is inseparably woven in with Christ’s ascension as affecting Himself.
Love will delight to dwell upon that thought of its exalted Lover. We may fairly apply the simplicity of human relationships and affections to the elucidation of what ought to be our affection to Him, our Lord. And surely if our dearest one were far away from us, in some lofty position, our hearts and our thoughts would ever be going thither, and we should live more there than here, where we are ‘cribbed, cabined, and confined.’ And if we love Jesus Christ with any depth of earnestness and fervour of affection, there will be no thought more sweet to us, and none which will more naturally flow into our hearts, whenever they are for a moment at leisure, than this, the thought of Him, our Brother and Forerunner, who has ascended up on high; and in the midst of the glory of the throne bears us in His heart, and uses His glory for our blessing. Love will spring to where the beloved is; and if we be Christians in any deep and real sense, our hearts will have risen with Christ, and we shall be sitting with Him at the right hand of God. My brother, measure your Christianity, and the reality of your love to Jesus Christ, by this-is it to you natural, and a joy, to turn to Him, and ever to make present to your mind the glories in which He loves and lives, and intercedes, and reigns, for you? ‘If ye love Me, ye will rejoice, because I go unto the Father.’
II. And now I can deal with the second verse of our text very briefly. For our purpose it is less important than the former one. In it we find our Lord setting forth, secondly, His departure and His announcement of His departure as the ground and food of faith.
So He does still, about a great many other things, and tells us beforehand of what is sure to come to us, that when we are caught in the midst of the tempest we may not bate one jot of heart or hope.
Why should I complain Of want or distress, Temptation or pain? He told me no less.’
And when my sorrows come to me, I may say about them what He says about His departure-He has told us before, that when it comes we may believe.
But note how, in these final words of my text, Christ avows that the great aim of His utterances and of His departure is to evoke our faith. And what does He mean by faith? He means, first of all, a grasp of the historic facts-His death, His resurrection, His ascension. He means, next, the understanding of these as He Himself has explained them-a death of sacrifice, a resurrection of victory over death and the grave, and an ascension to rule and guide His Church and the world, and to send His divine Spirit into men’s hearts if they will receive it. And He means, therefore, as the essence of the faith that He would produce in all our hearts-a reliance upon Himself as thus revealed, Sacrifice by His death, Victor by His resurrection, King and interceding Priest by His ascension-a reliance upon Himself as absolute as the facts are sure, as unfaltering as is His eternal sameness. The faith that grasps the Christ, dead, risen, ascended, as its all in all, for time and for eternity, is the faith which by all His work, and by all His words about His work, He desires to kindle in our hearts. Has He kindled it in yours?
Then there is a second thought-viz., that these facts, as interpreted by Himself, are the ground and the nourishment of our faith. How differently they looked when seen from the further side and when seen from the hither side! Anticipated and dimly anticipated, they were all doleful and full of dismay; remembered and looked back upon, they were radiant and bright. The disciples felt, with shrinking hearts and fainting spirits, that their whole reliance upon Jesus Christ was on the point of being shattered, and that everything was going when He died. ‘We trusted,’ said two of them, with such a sad use of the past tense, ‘we trusted that this had been He which should have redeemed Israel. But we do not trust it any more, nor do we expect Him to be Israel’s Redeemer now.’ But after the facts were all unveiled, there came back the memory of His words, and they said to one another, ‘Did He not tell us that it was all to be so? How blind we were not to understand Him!’
And so ‘the Cross, the grave, the skies,’ are the foundations of our faith; and they who see Him dying, rising, ascended, henceforth will find it impossible to doubt. Feed your faith upon these great facts, and take Christ’s own explanation of them, and your faith will be strong.
Again, we learn here that faith is the condition of the true presence of our absent Lord. Faith is that on our side which corresponds to His spiritual coming to us. Whosoever trusts Him possesses Him, and He is with and in every soul that, loving Him, relies upon Him, in a closeness so close and a presence so real that heaven itself does not bring the spirit of the believer and the Spirit of the Lord nearer one another, though it takes away the bodily film that sometimes seems to part their lives.
We, too, may and should be glad when we lift our eyes to that Throne where our Brother reigns. We too, may be glad that He is there, because His being there is the reason why He can be here; and we, too, may feed our faith upon Him, and so bring Him in very deed to dwell in our hearts. If we would have Christ within us, let us trust Him dying, rising, living in the heavens; and then we shall learn how, by all three apparent departures, He is drawing the closer to the souls that love and trust.
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
have heard = heard (Aor.)
come again = am coming (omit “again “). I said. All the texts omit.
greater. The Lord was not inferior as to His essential being (see verses: Joh 14:9-11; Joh 10:30), but as to His office, as sent by the Father. See 1Co 15:27. Php 1:2, Php 1:9-11.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Joh 14:28. , ye have heard) On other occasions His wont is to say, , I have said; but this which He has said, concerning His departure, His disciples eagerly had attended to, and that, too, with sorrow.-, , I go away, and come unto you) In relation to the world He saith, I came and depart [I leave the world], ch. Joh 16:28 : , and forthwith.- ) ye would rejoice, or rather, ye would have rejoiced. As to the Pluperfect, we have slightly touched upon the subject in Joh 14:2.[353] Ye would have rejoiced for My sake, as I am setting out upon a wished-for journey of departure, and for your own sakes, as love makes you capable of perceiving that My departure is advantageous even to yourselves. Love begets joy, both of itself, and also because it keeps the word of Christ, which opens out all the most joyful prospects to us.- , greater than I) Many and various were the former disputations and treatises on this passage, which Dion. Petavius has collected, Tom. ii. Theol. Dogm. l. 2, de Trin. cap. 2; G. Bullus Def. Fid. Nicn. Sect. iv.; Jo. Casp. Suicer. Thes. Part ii. coll. 1368, Reinecc. ad N. T., fol. 387. Not a few of the Greeks and Latins have answered the Arians, and laid it down, That the Father, not as God, but as the Father (not-begotten), is said to be greater than the Son, not regarded in His character as God, but as the Son, begotten of the Father; and that this fact does not do away with His unity of essence ( ) or consubstantiality with the Father. To these is to be added G. Arnold. Evang. Bottschafft, p. 697. Others affirm, that Christ is inferior to the Father in respect of His human nature;[354] which phrase of comparison has in it nothing inept; comp. 1Jn 3:20, God is greater than our heart. Jesus both had in His most holy soul, at one time, a greater feeling of His glory, at another time of His humility, and expressed that feeling accordingly in His words. Comp. note on Mar 13:32, Of that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels, etc., neither the Son, but the Father [spoken in relation to His human nature, and His humiliation]. In this passage He speaks under the feeling of His , lowliness: language such as was best adapted both to the capacity of understanding which the disciples had at the time, and to the present (existing) time and circumstances, when He was treating of His departure to the Father. Before His actual departure, He had been lower even than the angels, Heb 2:9; after His departure, He became greater than His own self [i.e. the Worker, through His disciples, of greater miracles than even He Himself had performed in the days of His flesh. He that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto My Father], Joh 14:12, and equal to the Father, ch. Joh 17:5, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was. Nor yet does He speak of His Humiliation alone, but speaks as the Son of God in the flesh, directing His aspirations (longing to go) to the Father. Greater than I; that is to say, more blessed. Comp. this term as it occurs in ch. Joh 4:12, Art Thou greater than our father Jacob? Joh 8:53, Art Thou greater than our father Abraham? 1Co 13:13, The greater of these is charity; Joh 14:5, Greater (more useful) is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues; and as to the thing itself, comp. Mar 10:18.[355] This consideration especially made the departure of Jesus out of the world to the Father a thing to be desired.
[353] See note ch. Joh 4:10. If John had meant ye would rejoice, he would have written the Imperfect, , rather than the Aorist.-E. and T.
[354] So the Nicene Creed, Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.-E. and T.
[355] Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God. He rested not in Himself, but referred Himself wholly to God, acting the part of a traveller and pilgrim on earth, not knowing Himself after the flesh (Augustine), but aiming towards the eternal good. At the same time His answer to the youth does not ignore His Godhead, but is adapted to his comprehension. He refuses the title of goodness when unaccompanied with the ascription of Godhead.-E. and T.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 14:28
Joh 14:28
Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you.-It was for the good of the disciples and of all who keep his words that Jesus should go away. The Holy Spirit would not come unless he went away, and it was as needful that the believers in Jesus should enjoy the presence and offices of the Spirit as that they should those of Jesus.
If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father:-An intelligent love of Jesus would desire that he should go unto the Father that he might send the Spirit. Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you. (Joh 16:7).
for the Father is greater than I.-His returning to the Father would be the occasion of God bestowing greater or fuller blessing in sending the Spirit. The blessings of the Spirit were greater than those of Jesus only in the sense that the Spirit completed and perfected the work begun by Jesus.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
heard: Joh 14:3, Joh 14:18, Joh 16:16-22
If: Joh 16:7, Psa 47:5-7, Psa 68:18, Psa 68:9, Luk 24:51-53, 1Pe 1:8
I go: Joh 14:12, Joh 16:16, Joh 20:17
Father: Joh 5:18, Joh 10:30, Joh 10:38, Joh 13:16, Joh 20:21, Isa 42:1, Isa 49:5-7, Isa 53:11, Mat 12:18, 1Co 11:3, 1Co 15:24-28, Phi 2:6-11, Heb 1:2, Heb 1:3, Heb 2:9-15, Heb 3:1-4, Rev 1:11, Rev 1:17, Rev 1:18
Reciprocal: Luk 24:52 – with Joh 10:29 – is greater Joh 14:4 – whither Joh 15:14 – my Joh 16:5 – I Joh 16:6 – General Joh 16:28 – I leave Joh 20:13 – why 1Co 15:28 – then
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
8
They should not rejoice over the fact of His absence, but because of what it would mean for him to be again with his Father. In other words, as a feeling of unselfishness, or “rejoicing with them that do rejoice” (Rom 12:15), they should be glad for his sake. Father is greater than I. Jesus and his Father were perfectly united in spirit and purpose, but there are many respects in which a parent is greater than his child, and Jesus recognized that truth.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
The Apologists Bible Commentary
John 14
28You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
CommentaryPerhaps more than any other, this verse has been quoted by non-Trinitarians as proof that Jesus could not be true God. In the view of those denying the Trinity, if the Father is “greater” than Jesus, Jesus must be teaching that He is ontologically inferior to the Father. A careful consideration of this verse in context, however, reveals that such a view in untenable. As Jesus approaches the Cross, He begins to speak more plainly about leaving His disciples and returning to His Father. When the disciples display a self-centered – though natural – response, Jesus reproves them: “If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father.” But why should they rejoice when Jesus goes to His Father? Is it because Jesus will be happier there? Or because He will be past His suffering on the Cross? These would be answers we might give a loved one who, upon hearing that we had a terminal illness, cried out, “But what will I do without you?” What we would certainly not say in such a circumstance is: “Rejoice for me that I’m going to God, because God is a superior being than I am.” Such a remark would provide little comfort (since obviously God is superior to any created being) and instead would bespeak an intolerable hubris – as though we were so wonderful that our loved ones would actually confuse us for God Himself!. If Jesus’ disciples understood Him to be a mere man, or a lesser divinity of some sort, as non-Trinitarians tell us, reprimanding them in this way would would seem almost a non-sequitor. “We know God is a greater being than you are, Master,” the disciples could reasonably respond, “but why should we rejoice in such an obvious truth?” The word translated “greater” (meizon) does not mean greater in the sense of a higher type of being, but rather greater in the sense of position or authority. This is the meaning cited by modern Greek lexicons, and is exampled by dozens of Biblical and extra-Biblical sources (see Grammatical Analysis, below). Jesus repeats the phrase, “A servant is not greater than his Master,” twice in this same discourse (John 13:16; 15:20). The same Greek word (meizon) occurs in each of these verses. No one would suggest that a servant is a lesser being than his Master. A Master is “greater” than a servant because he occupies a position of greater status, dignity, and authority. If we let these other examples guide us, Jesus is saying that the Father is “greater” because the Father’s position in Heaven is one of greater dignity and authority than the Son occupies on earth. This meaning, then, makes clear why the disciples should rejoice. The Son is returning to the right hand of the Father, to the glory He had with the Father before His existence on earth (John 17:5). He had voluntarily humbled Himself in coming to earth (Philippians 2:6), taking the form of a servant (doulos, the same word Jesus uses in John 13:16 and 15:20). Now Jesus was returning to the Father to regain His former glory, where He could accomplish all the wonderful things promised to the disciples in His final discourse. If the disciples had considered the import of Jesus’ words, they would have realized the exaltation that awaited the Son, and would have rejoiced. Thus, there is little contextual or lexical support for the idea that Jesus is teaching His ontological inferiority to the Father in this verse. He is speaking in the highest terms of the positional greatness of the Father – a position to which Jesus is soon to return, there to be an even greater blessing to the disciples and an assurance of their own paths to Heaven.
Grammatical Analysis`oti`o pathr meizwn mou estin hOTI hO PATR MEIZN MOU ESTIN for the Father is greater than I. MEIZN Greater…of rank and dignity (BADG ) Pertaining to having a higher status in comparison to something else – ‘better, greater, superior to.’ (Louw & Nida ) Greater…in the sense of position not essence (Rogers & Rogers ). Not a distinction in nature or essence (cf. 10:30), but in rank in the Trinity. No Arianism or Unitarianism here. The very explanation here is proof of the deity of the Son [Dods] (RWP ). Grimm-Thayer , alone among modern lexicons, defines MEIZN in such a way as to suggest ontology may be in view: “is used of those who surpass others … in nature and power, as God: Jn. 10:29, 14:28; Heb. 6:13; 1 Jn. 4:4; add, Jn. 4:12; 8:53” (emphasis added). The question arises whether “nature” in this definition is meant to signify nature of being, as it is used in Trinitarian formulas, or whether it may have a lesser sense – in which case, Grimm-Thayer could then be taken to be in agreement with the other lexicons. We would first note that in none of the verses cited by Grimm-Thayer does MEIZN require the meaning “greater in nature;” on each occasion, the meaning “greater in power, authority, or character” yields a perfectly acceptable interpretation. We may also recall that Thayer translated the Grimm Greek-Latin lexicon into English. The word Thayer translated as “nature” is the Latin natura. Definition of meizon in Grimm’s Lexicon Graeco-Latinum in Libros Novi Testamenti’ citing John 14:28: “meizones dic. qui alios superant vel natura et poteste, ut deus” It is unlikely that Grimm intended natura to mean “greater in ontological nature.” Natura is defined by Lewis & Short as “natural constitution, property, disposition, inclination, temper, or character.” Had Grimm intended an ontological meaning, he would probably have used somewhat stronger language, as he does elsewhere when speaking of the Divine Nature (). To be absolutely clear, he could have used essentia, the Latin term for “nature of being, essence” used commonly in the historic Trinitarian creeds when speaking of the Divine Nature shared by Father and Son (). Moulton and Milligan list dozens of extra-Biblical Koine texts, all of which support the “greater in rank or position” definition of MEIZN. For example, “MEIZN is used in the sense of ‘senior’ in ostracon receipts…(A.D. 128 [and] A.D. 147)…. The word is applied to one in authority, an official…(A.D. 270-275)…. ‘Occupying a position of highest … rank and honour’ – of a Roman Senator…(c. A.D. 150).” Not one example of ontological greatness is provided. Thus, the lexical evidence is quite substantial that the meaning “greater in rank or position” is the correct meaning of MEIZN.
Other Views ConsideredJehovah’s Witnesses The Watchtower and its defenders – notably Greg Stafford – have offered several arguments in favor of their view that Jesus is ontologically inferior to the Father. objection: The Bible’s position is clear. Not only is Almighty God, Jehovah, a personality separate from Jesus but He is at all times his superior. Jesus is always presented as separate and lesser, a humble servant of God. This is why the Bible plainly says that “the head of the Christ is God” in the same way that “the head of every man is Christ.” (1 Corinthians 11:3) And this is why Jesus himself said: “The Father is greater than I.” – John 14:28, RS Catholic edition (SYBT , p. 20). Response: We should first emphasize that Trinitarians agree that the Father is “a personality separate from Jesus” and that He is “at all time his superior.” The difference is that by “superior” Trinitarians mean “superior in rank or position,” while the Watchtower means “superior in terms of essential being.” As we have seen in the Commentary and Grammatical Analysis, above, the contextual and lexical evidence points strongly to the meaning “superior in rank and position.” Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:3, we note that if the Watchtower views God the Father as ontologically superior to Christ “in the same way” that Christ is ontologically superior to every man, it must also accept that “in the same way” a husband is ontologically superior to his wife. Once again we see that context argues for a positional superiority – for according to Paul, God’s plan is one of order. The order is in terms of authority, not essential being. The husband is “head” of his wife in terms of spiritual authority, just as God the Father is “head” of Christ in the same manner. objection: Ron Rhodes attempts to discredit this statement’s power by stating that Jesus was simply referring to his “human nature.” Indeed, he refers to the Athanasian Creed which says that Christ is “equal to the Father as touching his Godhood and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood.” If this were the case (that Christ was simply referring to his human nature in John 14:28) then what was the point of him telling this to his disciples? In other words, was it not rather obvious that Jehovah, the God of heaven, was greater than a man? (Stafford , p. 192). Response: Rhodes does not exactly say that Jesus was “simply referring to ‘his human nature.'” He says the following: “Jesus is not speaking about His nature or His essential being (Christ had earlier said, ‘I and the Father are one’ in this regard [John 10:30]), but rather about His lowly position in the incarnation” (Rhodes , p. 146). Rhodes says that Jesus is not referring to essential nature, but rather to “His lowly position.” While the incarnation includes the Son’s human nature, it also includes laying aside His divine prerogatives and assuming the role or position of a “slave” (Philippians 2:6). The distinction Rhodes draws is precisely the same as the one presented in the Commentary and Grammatical Analysis, above. The contextual and lexical evidence strongly supports Rhodes’ argument. Mr. Stafford’s rhetorical question, “was it not rather obvious that Jehovah, the God of heaven, was greater than a man?” is rather odd, considering that Mr. Stafford (adhering to Watchtower theology) believes that Jesus was a mere man when on earth. Since Mr. Stafford would say that not only does Jesus have a human nature, but that this nature is Jesus’ only nature, we may well ask him the question he poses to us: “If…Christ was simply referring to his human nature…then what was the point of him telling this to his disciples?” Mr. Stafford, perhaps, sees this verse as including Jesus’ pre-human existence, but just as he points out that nowhere in the context does Jesus limit His words to His human nature, he must also recognize that nowhere in this context is Christ’s pre-existence in view, either. And even if it were, the question still remains, what was the point of Jesus telling His disciples that the pre-existent Son was ontologically inferior to the Father? Was it not rather obvious that Jehovah, the God of heaven, was greater than a god, a created being? objection: Was it not rather obvious that Jehovah, the God of heaven, was greater than a man? This is undoubtedly one reason why individuals such as Irenaeus, Justin, and Origen applied John 14:28 to the Logos (the pre-human Jesus), and not to the “Christ of history” (IBID , p. 192). Response: Again, Rhodes is not arguing solely on the basis of Christ’s human nature, but also (and primarily) that His position is inferior to the Father’s. I would also point out that while I have argued – as has Rhodes – that Christ is speaking specifically about His inferior position while on earth, the orthodox understanding of the Trinity acknowledges an eternal relationship of Father and Son in the Godhead in which the Father is always superior to the Son in terms of rank, position, and authority. Thus, even if we understand Christ to be speaking of Himself as the “eternal Logos” in this verse, saying that the Father is greater than He is does not detract from the Trinity in any way. Mr. Stafford’s source for what Irenaeus, Justin, and Origen wrote is Phillip Schaff’s History of Christianity. Schaff does not provide references for his comments about these early church fathers. If my computer search of Irenaeus is correct, his only reference to John 14:28 is in Against Heresies (II.28.8). But in this passage, Irenaeus is speaking specifically about the knowledge that the Father alone possesses, and says immediately after quoting John 14:28: “Therefore the Lord teaches that the Father is greater in knowledge than the Son.” Thus, while Irenaeus is applying the Son’s words to the eternal Logos, he is not necessarily using them to advocate the ontological superiority of the Son. Regardless of his use of John 14:28, the Christology of Irenaeus is essentially orthodox (cf., Against Heresies, II.30.9; IV.20.4; Book III.21.1; etc.). Schaff concludes: “All this plainly shows that Irenaeus is much nearer the Nicene dogma of the substantial identity of the Son with the Father than Justin and the Alexandrians (Schaff , p. 554). It is true that Justin Martyr and Origen do teach an extreme subordination of the Son to the Father, yet both also are quite clear that the Father and the Son share the same nature (cf., Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho 128; and Origen, Commentary on John 2:2:16; 2:10:76; 19:2:6). This is no doubt why Schaff states: “[Justin] is therefore neither Arian nor Athanasian; but his whole theological tendency is towards the orthodox system, and had he lived later, he would have subscribed the Nicene Creed. The same may be said of Tertullian and Origin” (IBID , p. 550). Thus, whether the fathers associated John 14:28 with the “eternal Logos,” or with the “Christ of history,” they did not understand this verse to teach an ontological inferiority of the Son. Instead, they understood that while the Son may be subordinated in terms of role or position, He nevertheless shared the same ontological nature with His Father. Only the Arians of the 4th Century put John 14:28 into service as a proof-text for Christ as a lesser divine being or mere man (cf., Eusebius of Caesarea, Letter to Euphration, 2.5; Eunomius, quoted by Gregory Nazianzus, Theological Orations III[XXXIX].18; Palladius, in a debate with Ambrose, Acts of Council 360.40; etc.; John 14:28 is “much used by the Arians from the beginning” [Hanson , p. 103]). See Were Early Christians Trinitarians? for more detailed information on the teachings of the early church fathers. objection: Rhodes also tries to weaken the force of the Greek word translated “greater” (meizon)…. Rhodes gives meizon the meaning of “greater in regards to position,” while he states that kreitton would mean “better in terms of nature.” With the understanding Rhodes gives to the meaning of these two Greek words in mind, let us now consider the definitions offered in the Grimm-Thayer lexicon. We read on page 395 that meizon “is used of those who surpass others – either in nature and power, as God” (emphasis added). John 14:28 is then cited as an example of this definition…. So, then, according to the above lexicons Jesus, at John 14:28, affirmed that the Father was greater “in nature and power.” Of course, entries in lexicons do not prove anything, except that other scholars recognize this as a legitimate meaning for meizon, while Rhodes gives the impression that such a meaning is not acceptable at all….Rhodes, following Martin’s lead, has stripped meizon of any notion of a difference in nature and added the concept of a difference in nature to kreitton, when the reverse is likely true, all in order to protect his theology!” (IBID , pp. 192-194). Response: Mr. Stafford is presenting a rather limited consideration of the lexical evidence available. As demonstrated in the Grammatical Analysis, above, the lexical evidence favors Rhodes’ argument regarding meizon. Mr. Stafford suggests that the entry in Grimm-Thayer demonstrates that other scholars hold a view similar to his own, while Rhodes denies such a meaning is even possible. Actually, Rhodes does not deny such a meaning is possible, he simply maintains that meizon means “greater in rank or position” – a view for which for which there is ample evidence. Despite the wealth of contrary evidence, Mr. Stafford bases his view of John 14:28 on Grimm-Thayer alone. But it is not at all clear that Grimm intended to offer a view congenial to Mr. Stafford’s. As we have seen, Mr. Stafford may be reading more into Thayer’s translation of natura than Grimm intended. Thayer, of course, may have believed that meizon connoted “greater in essence or nature of being,” since he was no doubt aware how “nature” would be understood by his readers, and he seems to have had Unitarian leanings. But if his exemplar did not intend this meaning, it further isolates Thayer’s definition from the other major lexical works. Thayer may also have simply rendered natura into English with the most reasonable translation, without regard to the theological implications apologists such as Mr. Stafford would derive from it. As the preponderance of lexical evidence suggests, Rhodes has not “stripped meizon of any notion of a difference in nature.” Rhodes is on very solid ground, here: Meizon means greater in rank or position, not essential nature. True, Mr. Stafford has Grimm-Thayer to support his view to a very limited extent, but since he consults BAGD with respect to kreitton in this very discussion, and since he lists Louw & Nida in his Bibliography, one can only conclude that Mr. Stafford is stacking the deck – offering his readers only the one small piece of evidence which supports his view and remaining silent about the substantial evidence that refutes it. To paraphrase Mr. Stafford: It is he, not Ron Rhodes, who has added the concept of difference in nature to meizon, when the reverse is likely true, all in order to protect his theology! _________________________________ Notes 1. See, for example, theiotes (natura divina); alethinos (verum naturam et indolem); fusis (sanctitus divinae naturae propria). He is even clearer with theotes (deitas, status, quo aliquis est deus). Thayer’s additional comments make the distinction between “essence” and “quality” obvious. 2. The common Trinitarian formula in the western Church was: “Una Subtantia (or Essentia), Tres Personae.” Hilary specifically equates essentia and substantia (Liber de Synodis). Ambrose may have used natura in a theological sense, but with Augusine (De Trinitas, VII, 6) and Aquinas (Summa Theologica I, 39:3), the term essentia had become the preferred term defining the essential nature of God. Indeed, Augustine came to prefer it even to substantia. Thus, had Grimm wanted to ensure that his readers would understand meizon to mean greater in an ontological sense, he could have written vel essentia et potestate instead of vel natura et potestate.
Fuente: The Apologists Bible Commentary
Joh 14:28. Ye heard that I said unto you, I go away and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced that I go unto the Father, because the Father is greater than I. But the disciples were not only to have peace: true love would fill their hearts with joy. The going away of Jesus is really a going unto the Father, a re-establishment in all the glory of the Fathers immediate presence. The last clause of the verse contains simply the general teaching of the Gospel, of the whole Bible, and of all the greatest theologians of the Church, that the Son, while of the same nature as the Father, is subordinate to Him, inferior (for essence is not spoken of) economically, as Mediator. While, however, the departure of Jesus was thus a return to the glory of the Fathers presence, and good for Him, we must not suppose that it is on that account that the disciples are to rejoice. If ye loved me is not an appeal to their personal interest in Himself: it appeals rather to their interest in His work and purpose; it is a statement of the fact that ripened Christian perception, when they stand in the love spoken of in Joh 14:21; Joh 14:23-24, will lead them to see that the departure of Jesus to His Father was an arrangement fraught with far higher blessings, both to His believing people and to the world, than His remaining among them would have been. The love which is the condition of higher revelations will teach them that the departure preliminary to these is not a matter of sorrow but of joy.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
That the disciples of Christ might neither be overset with fears, not overwhelmed with grief, he tells them that they ought to entertain the news of his departure rather with joy and exultation, than with sorrow and dejection: If ye loved me, ye would rejoice because I go to the Father. True love to Christ will make us rejoice in his advancement and exaltation, although it be to our own disadvantage. These words My Father is greater than I, must be understood with reference to his human nature, as mediator; for so he was the Father’s servant, and the Father, as God, was greater than he, as man.
Again the Father may be said to be greater than Christ in regard of his paternity, as being the fountain of the deity the Father is of himself, but the Son is begotten of the Father: but being of the same substance with the Father, he is consequently God, as the Father is God: for the inequality arises not from the essence, but from the order and manner of subsistence.
Thus the Father was greater than he: greater and greater is he that gives, than he that receives, but, as to his essence, they are both one God, and so equal.
Three ways the Father was greater than Christ;
1. With respect to his human nature. Who can doubt but a dependent creature is inferior to that Almighty Being that made him?
2. With respect to the eternal generation of his divine person; as he was begotten of the Father, who is therefore called the fountain of the deity.
3. With respect to his office as Mediator, for thus he was the Father’s servant. O wonderful condescension! that the eternal word, who, as such, was equal with the Father, should, in compassion to us, accept a station, and sustain a character, in which the Father was greater than he!
Now though under each of these considerations, God the Father is greater than the Son, yet none of them are inconsistent with the Son’s being God by nature.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Joh 14:28-31. If ye loved me With a wise and rational affection, it would allay your sorrows in the mean time, and howsoever you might have a mournful sense of your own loss; you would rejoice on my account, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father Whose servant I am, as Mediator; is, in this respect, greater than I Consequently, it must be my honour and happiness to be in a state of greater nearness to him than the present world will admit. These words, as Dr. Macknight justly remarks, afford a strong argument for the proper divinity of our Lord. For had he been a mere man, or even a mere creature of the highest order, the comparison would have been foolish and impertinent. And now I have told you before it come to pass, &c. I have foretold my sufferings and death, in order that, when they happen, your faith, instead of being shaken, may be confirmed. Hereafter I will not talk much with you I shall not have much opportunity to talk with you after this; for the prince of this world cometh To make his grand assault. The devil will stir up wicked men to kill me; but he hath nothing in me No right, no claim, no power. There is no guilt in me to give him power over me; no corruption to take part with his temptation. Be assured, therefore, that I shall undergo the punishment of death, not because I deserve it; but that the world may know On the most substantial evidence; that I love the Father I suffer Satan thus to assault me, and I undergo death, to show the world how much I love the Father: for it is the Fathers will that I should thus act; and as the Father gave me commandment Or, commission; (see Joh 10:18;) even so I do Because I can refuse no act of obedience to him, (how painful or expensive soever it may be,) whereby his glory may be advanced. Arise, &c. And therefore, that we may be prepared for this hour of trial that is coming upon us, let us go hence And retire to a place where we may more conveniently give ourselves to prayer, and where I may be ready, when my cruel enemies shall come to apprehend me, to yield myself into their hands, and to submit to what my Father has appointed for me.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 28
If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, &c. The meaning seems to be, that they would rejoice in his approaching reunion with the Father, by which he would again be restored to the position of greatness and majesty, which he had left to assume the office of Mediator for man. (Comp. John 17:5.)–My Father is greater than I. Jesus Christ, as speaking and acting upon earth, in the execution of his mediatorial office, was in no sense equal with the Father. It was the Word which was God. But Jesus Christ, in whom this Word was mysteriously conjoined with human nature, always assumed the position of obedience and submission, which is plainly recognized in all his allusions to the Father, and is here distinctly declared. It true that, in one passage, (John 10:30,) he says, “I and my Father are one;” but the sense which he intended to be understood is made clear in John 17:11,22, when he prays that the same oneness which joins him, as Mediator, with the Father, may unite the disciples with him.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
14:28 {10} Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is {l} greater than I.
(10) We should in no way be sorry for the departing of Christ from us according to the flesh, but rather we should rejoice in it, seeing that all the blessing of the body depends upon the glorifying of the head.
(l) This is spoken in that Christ is mediator, for in this regard the Father is greater than he, in as much as the person to whom request is made is greater than he that makes the request.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Jesus’ impending departure still disturbed the Eleven. He explained that their fear was also a result of failure to love Him as they should. They should have rejoiced that even though His departure meant loss for them it meant glory and joy for Him. We experience a similar conflict of emotions when a believing friend dies. We mourn our loss, but we should rejoice more that our loved one is with the Lord.
It should be obvious by now that Jesus did not mean that He was less then God or an inferior god when He said that God was greater than He was. Jehovah’s Witnesses and other Arians interpret Jesus’ words here this way. Arius was a heretic in the early church who denied Jesus’ full deity. Jesus was not speaking ontologically (i.e., dealing with essential being) since He had affirmed repeatedly that He and the Father were one ontologically (Joh 1:1-2; Joh 10:30; Joh 14:9; Joh 20:28). Rather He was speaking of the Father’s glory. Jesus had laid His heavenly glory aside in the Incarnation, but the Father had not done so and consequently enjoyed greater glory than the Son during Jesus’ earthly ministry. However now Jesus was about to return to the Father and the greater glory that He would again share with the Father. This glorification should have caused the disciples to rejoice, but they sorrowed instead because they focused on themselves too much.
This interpretation of the Father’s superiority does not negate the functional superiority of the Father over the Son within the Godhead. However, that distinction does not seem to be primary in the logic of this verse.
". . . the Son, being begotten of the Father, is ’inferior’ to Him in the sense that He that is begotten is secondary to Him who begets (see i. 14)." [Note: Tasker, p. 173.]