John 14:28Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

What joy and what consolation could this have brought them? What do these words mean? The apostles still knew nothing about the resurrection and did not even have a proper understanding of Christ.

Indeed, how could they have had this understanding when they did not even know that He would rise? But they recognized the Father as great.

Therefore Christ says: If you fear for Me as though I were unable to defend Myself, and if you do not hope that after the Cross I will see you again, still, once you heard that I go to the Father, you should have rejoiced. For I go to One greater, who can destroy all calamities.

Thus I draw consolation for you from the Father, whom you recognize as great.

Since the Lord saw that the apostles did not fully trust in His Resurrection, and did not even know what it was, they were deeply grieved and troubled at the thought of separation from Him. He condescends to their weakness and says:

I told you that I am going away and will come again, yet you still grieve. You do not trust Me that, although I die, I will not leave you in your sorrows.

Now, having heard that I am going to My Father, whom you consider great and greater than I, you should rejoice that I am departing to Him who is greater than I and able to destroy every calamity.

Do you see the sequence of thought? "My Father is greater than I" was said by Him for the consolation of the disciples. They grieved because Christ supposedly could not defend them.

True, in Holy Scripture, concerning the Incarnation of the Word of God, which was accomplished for our salvation, much is said in such a way that the Father is understood, or even most clearly shown, to be greater than the Son. For the mediator between God and men was the man Jesus Christ.

Men erred by examining and studying Scripture with too little care. They tried to transfer what is said of Christ as man to His essence, which was eternal before His Incarnation and remains eternal. They also say that the Son is less than the Father, because the Lord Himself says: “My Father is greater than I.”

But the truth shows that, according to the same measure, the Son is less than Himself. How did He not become less than Himself, who “emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant”? Yet He took the form of a servant without losing the form of God, in which He was equal to the Father.

The form of a servant was taken in such a way that the form of God was not lost. In both the form of a servant and the form of God, He was the same only-begotten Son of God the Father. In the form of God He was equal to the Father. In the form of a servant He was the man Jesus Christ, mediator between God and men.

Who, then, will not understand that in the form of God He is greater than Himself, and in the form of a servant He is less than Himself? Therefore Scripture does not speak in vain of both things: of the Son equal to the Father, and of the Father greater than the Son.

For one is certainly understood with respect to the form of God, the other with respect to the form of a servant. This rule for resolving the question through Holy Scripture is set before us in one chapter of the Apostle Paul’s Epistle. There we are especially urged to remember this distinction clearly.

He says: “Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men and being found in appearance as a man” (Phil 2:6-7).

Thus the Son of God is equal by nature to God the Father, but in His “appearance” He is less. In the form of a servant, which He took, the Son is less than the Father. In the form of God, in which He remained even before taking the form of a servant, the Son is equal to the Father.

In the form of God He is the Word, through whom all things came to be. In the form of a servant He “was born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law” (Gal 4:4-5). Likewise, in the form of God He created man. In the form of a servant He was made man.

If the Father had created man entirely without the Son, it would not have been said: “Let Us make man according to Our image and according to Our likeness” (Gen 1:26). Therefore, since the form of God took the form of a servant, the Son of God is both God and man.

He is God because of the receiving Godhead, and He is man because of the received humanity. Yet neither is changed or transformed into the other by this assumption. The Godhead did not become a creature by changing, so as to cease being Godhead. Nor did the creature become Godhead, so as to cease being creature.

“If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I said: I go to the Father, for My Father is greater than I.” That is: “It was necessary for Me to go to the Father, because while you see Me as you do, and because you see Me in this way, you consider Me less than the Father. Being absorbed by the creature and the appearance that I assumed, you do not realize that I am equal to the Father.”

Some things in Scripture are set forth so as to indicate the unity and equality of the essence of the Father and the Son. Such are: “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30), and, “Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Phil 2:6), and others of the same kind.

But there are also those which show that the Son is less because of His form of a servant. This means because of His taking upon Himself the creature and mutable human nature. Of this it is said: “For My Father is greater than I.”

The evil one also deceives and suggests calling the Father greater than the Son. “Look,” he says, “it is written: My Father is greater than I, while you call Him equal to the Father.” I agree with you. But not only this must be acknowledged, but also the other, because both are written.

Why do you acknowledge the one and refuse to accept the other? For both may be read in Scripture. In one place it is said: “My Father is greater than I.” I accept this not from you, but from the Gospel. Yet you too must acknowledge with the Apostle that the Son is equal to God the Father.

Join both together, and both can be harmonized. For He who speaks through the Evangelist in the Gospel is the very same who speaks through the Apostle in the Epistle. He cannot contradict Himself. But you refuse to allow harmony in Scripture, because you yourself love discord.

But in the Gospel it is said: “The Father is greater than I.” And from the Gospel I prove that the Son and the Father are equal: “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30). How then are both to be harmonized?

As the Apostle says: “Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant.” Behold, I prove why the Father is greater. You, then, prove wherein He is unequal. For we read both things in Scripture.

He is less than the Father insofar as He is the Son of Man. He is equal to the Father insofar as He is the Son of God, because the Word was God. The Son is the mediator, God and man. As God He is equal to the Father. As man He is less than Him.

Equal in the form of God, less in the form of a servant.

Brethren, we have heard the words of the Lord, who said to His disciples: “Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. You have heard that I said to you: I go away, and I will come to you. If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I” (cf. Jn 14:27-28).

Their heart could be troubled and afraid because He was leaving them, though He intended to return. It was as though, during that time, the wolf might attack the flock in the Shepherd’s absence. But God did not abandon those from whom He departed as man.

For the one and the same Christ is man and God. Therefore He departed as man and remained with them as God. He departed because, as man, He was in one place. He remained because, as God, He was everywhere.

Why, then, was the heart troubled and afraid, if He withdrew from their eyes without leaving their hearts? Yet God, who is not confined by any place, does depart from hearts. But He departs from those who themselves withdraw from Him by their morals, not by their feet.

He comes to those who turn to Him not by sight, but by faith, and who come to Him in soul, not in flesh. But so that they might understand that He said this with respect to His being man, He added: “I go away, and I will come to you. If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:27-28).

In that human nature, in which the Son is not equal to the Father, He was going to go to the Father. From Him He was going to come to judge the living and the dead. But in that divine nature, in which He, as Only-begotten, is equal to Him who begot Him, He never departed from the Father.

Together with Him He is everywhere and wholly equal in the Godhead, which is not confined by any place. For He, as the Apostle says, “being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” How could a nature be the result of grasping when it was not seized, but given by birth?

“But He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant” (Phil 2:6-7). Thus He took another nature without losing the first. He emptied Himself into such a form in which He showed Himself here as less than He remained with the Father.

He took the form of a servant and did not renounce the form of God. One form was taken; the other was not lost. With respect to one He said: “The Father is greater than I.” With respect to the other He said: “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30).

Let the Arian hear this, and hearing, let him be healed, so that he may not preserve falsehood by continuing disputes, or what is worse, madness. For this form of a servant is that in which the Son of God is less not only than the Father, but also than the Holy Spirit.

Nor is this all. He is also less than Himself, while in the form of God He is greater than Himself. For the man Christ does not cease to be called the Son of God. Even His flesh, lying in the tomb, was granted His name.

For what else do we confess when we say that we believe in the only-begotten Son of God, crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried? And what of His was buried, if not the flesh without the soul?

Therefore, when we confess that we believe in the buried Son of God, we surely call the flesh that was buried also the Son of God. Thus Christ, the Son of God, equal to the Father in the form of God, emptied Himself without losing the form of God, but by taking the form of a servant.

He is greater than Himself, because the form of God, which He did not lose, is greater than the form of a servant, which was taken (cf. Phil 2:6-7). What is astonishing or unworthy, then, if the Son of God, speaking according to this form of a servant, said: “The Father is greater than I”?

And what is astonishing if the same Son of God, speaking according to the form of God, said: “I and the Father are one”? For They are one according to this, that “the Word was God” (Jn 1:1). The Father is greater according to this, that “the Word became flesh” (Jn 1:14).

I would also add what Arians and Eunomians cannot deny. According to this form of a servant, the child Christ was also less than His parents, when as a child, as it is written, He was subject to His elders (cf. Lk 2:51).

Why then, heretic, when Christ, being God and man, speaks as man, do you slander God? He ennobles human nature in Himself, and you dare to deform the divine nature in Him. Unbelieving and ungrateful one, why do you lower Him who made you, because He speaks in the form of what He became for you?

Indeed, the Son equal to the Father, through whom man was made, became man in order to become less than the Father. And what would have become of man if He had not become man?

Let our Lord and Teacher say: “If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I go to the Father, for My Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:27-28). Let us hear the words of the Teacher together with the disciples, and not follow the inventions of the deceiver with those alien to Him.

Let us acknowledge the double substance, geminam substantiam, of Christ: the divine, according to which He is equal to the Father, and the human, according to which the Father is greater than He. Yet these two substances together are not two Christs, but one Christ. And God is not fourfold, but triune.

For as rational soul and flesh are one man, so God and man are one Christ. Therefore Christ is God, rational soul, and flesh. We confess Christ in all these parts and in each separately.

Who is He through whom the world was created? Jesus Christ, but in the form of God. Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate? Jesus Christ, but in the form of a servant (Phil 2:7). He consists of the separate parts of which man consists.

Who did not remain in Hades? Jesus Christ, but only with respect to the soul. Who lay in the tomb, intending to rise on the third day? Jesus Christ, but only with respect to the flesh. In all these separate parts He is called Christ. Yet all this is not two or three, but one Christ.

Therefore He said: “If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I go to the Father” (Jn 14:27-28). For human nature should be thankful that it was assumed by the Only-begotten Word in such a way that, made immortal, it dwelt in the heavens. The earth was raised so high that, as incorruptible dust, it sits at the right hand of the Father.

<...> And again: “My Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:28). Ungrateful creatures, offspring of the evil one, make use of this saying also. Yet I am convinced that these words too express the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father.

For I know that comparisons, in the proper sense, are made between things that have the same nature. We say that one angel is greater than another angel, one man more righteous than another man, one bird swifter than another bird. Therefore, if comparisons are made between those belonging to one kind, and the Father is called greater than the Son by comparison, then the Son is consubstantial with the Father.

I think those carried away by Arius’s error used in their own defense the following Gospel saying: "He who sent Me is greater than I." On this basis they supposed that the Son is a creation and a creature.

Knowing that He is very God, do not imagine from the words, "He who sent Me is greater than I," that the Son is lower or less than the Father.

For when He became man, it was fitting for Him to reveal His greatness in words of humility. He Himself said, "Let your neighbor praise you, and not your own mouth" (Prov 27:2).

How could He fail to manifest Himself humbly as less than the boundless Father who fills all things, when He was circumscribed by flesh and measured by human eyes?

See Jn 20:17. [...] The expression "greater" [...]

If it had been said, "greater," but not also said, "equal" (Jn 5:18-21), perhaps this expression would have some force for them. But when we find both said clearly, what will these bold men object? What will support them? How will they reconcile what cannot be reconciled?

For it is impossible that one and the same thing, in relation to one and the same thing, and in the same respect, should be both greater and equal.

Is it not clear that the Father is greater than the Son according to causality, and equal according to nature? This is what we confess with very sound judgment.

The saying, "I am the vine" (Jn 15:1), and "My Father is greater than I," and "He created Me" (Prov 8:22), and "I am a worm and not a man" (Ps 21:7), and everything else that the Son says of Himself humbly in the Gospels and the prophets, is said concerning the body that He bore for our sake.

We do not ascribe to the Father this passible body which the Son bore for the salvation of the universe. For all things were created by the Father through the Son, but the only Son is begotten of the Father.

Therefore God the Word is "the firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15), and He is Immutable from the Immutable. Thus the body that the Son bore for us is a creature.

If we say that the Father is the principle of the Son and greater than He, we do not thereby show that He has priority over the Son in time or in nature. For through Him the Father "made the ages" (Heb 1:2).

Nor does He have priority in any other respect, except in the respect of cause. That is, the Son is begotten of the Father, and not the Father of the Son. The Father is the cause of the Son by nature.

Likewise we do not say that fire comes from light, but rather light from fire. Therefore, when we hear that the Father is the principle and greater than the Son, we must understand the Father as cause.

"You heard that I said to you, I am going away and I will come to you." I told you not only that I am going away from you, but also that I will come to you. Why, then, are you afraid?

"If you loved Me, you would rejoice, because I said, I am going to the Father." Since you do not yet know My power, you surely think that if I die, I cannot guard you after death.

But you ought to rejoice that I said, I am going to the Father, who can save you from every attack. You ought to rejoice at the thought that I will be your intercessor before Him.

"For My Father is greater than I," that is, in power, as you think, since Scripture has spoken of Him much more plainly.

We have also been taught by our fathers to believe that the Son of God, like the Father, is immutable and unchangeable. He lacks nothing and is the perfect Son, in all things like the Father, who is distinguished from Him only by being unbegotten.

He is the most exact Image of the Father, differing in nothing from Him, for He possesses fully in Himself everything that constitutes perfect likeness to the Father. The Lord Himself also taught this, saying, "My Father is greater than I."

Therefore we believe that the Son always has His hypostatic being from the Father, for He "is the radiance of His glory and the Image of His hypostasis" (Heb 1:3). [...]

The word "greater," which you cite to diminish the Son, was spoken because comparison is possible, not in order to show an incomparable superiority.

If, as you say, the Son came from things that did not exist, then according to your words the Father is not greater. For what comparison is there between Him who always exists and one who came from things that did not exist?

Let us suppose that you confess He came from the Father’s Person, not temporally and not passibly. Even so, you will not be able to grasp the precise sense in which it was said, "My Father is greater than I."

This unity, beloved, by which creation is joined to the Creator, Arian blindness could not perceive with the eyes of reason. It did not believe that the Only-begotten Son of God was of one glory and essence with the Father.

Instead, it acknowledged a lesser divinity of the Son, appealing as its argument to His form of a servant. Yet the Son of God says, "The Father is greater than I," and likewise says, "I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30).

In the form of a servant, which He assumed in the last times for our restoration (1 Cor 10:11), He is less than the Father. In the form of God, in which He remained before the ages (1 Cor 2:7), He is equal to the Father.

"My Father is greater than I," not only as I am man, but also as I am God, in that He is the Cause of the Godhead. Therefore He did not say "God," but "Father."

He is not greater than the Son as God. Away with such impiety. He is greater as the Cause of the Godhead, as the God-bearing fathers have explained to us.

For the Father and the Son are one and are one God. Yet the Father is the Cause and is greater than His Son by His causality.

With respect to causality and causedness, and not createdness and uncreatedness, One is "greater" than the Other according to the order of enumeration and the dignity corresponding to that order, as Basil the Great says.

When He said, "My Father is greater than I," He spoke both according to His personal relation to the Father, as His cause, and according to His humanity, which is undoubtedly lower than the Godhead.