Greater or Better than the Son?

"I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

(John 14: 28, KJV) 

The Watchtower has a teaching that denies the deity of Christ. One of their favorite verses they will quote as a proof text is the theme text above. They will argue that the Son is not God because the Father is "greater" than the Son. What they are implying here is that the Father is "better" than the Son, because He is God, while the Son is not. According to the Watchtower publication Let God be True, Jehovah is greater than Jesus not only in regard to office but also in regard to His person. Jehovah is intrinsically greater than Jesus.[1] So the question is, does John 14: 28 disprove the deity of Christ?  

No, not at all. First, let's look at the words greater and better. The title for this blog, "Greater or Better?" is reminiscent of the two recent blogs I had written about Christ's superiority over angels. Regarding the terms greater and better. They are defined as follows. Greater in the context of the Scripture passage above would mean in regards to the Father's position over the Son; Better here in keeping with the context would refer to the Father's person being more superior than the Son. So does greater mean Jehovah is better in person than the Son? Is the Son less than the Father in person as God? 

No, not in the least. Because the Watchtower does not know Jehovah, they continually misrepresent Christ. John 14: 28 is a classic example of this. They either totally miss what other Scriptures say about Jesus Christ, or they purposefully ignore them. If the Father is better than the Son in person, because He is God and the Son is not; then how does one explain honestly, "I and my Father are one" (John 10: 30). This verse points out the equality of the Son with the Father; whereas, John 1: 1; 8: 58 points out the eternality of the Son with the Father in His pre-existence and equality. Since the Lord Jesus Christ is the "only begotten Son" of the Father, that automatically puts Him in equal footing with the Father. For example, let's say an earthly king had an only son. Naturally, the father who is the king would be greater in position than the son, but never in person. For when the king dies, the son will inherit the throne and become king in his father's place, which makes him now equal in position as his father was. Even the Jews understand this truth: "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5: 18).  

Another eye-opening Scripture is Philippians 2: 6, which states: "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." In "form" the Son is referred to here as God. Now as for the word "equal," this re-enforces the truth. The Athanasian Creed affirms that Christ is "equal to the Father as touching his Godhood and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood."[2] 

Again, quoting Mr. Rhodes on Philippians 2: 6. 

“Paul’s affirmation that Christ was “in the form of God” is extremely significant. Christ in His essential being is and has always been eternal God—just as much as the Father and the Holy Spirit. Theologian Charles Ryrie notes that the word form in the Geek connotes “that which is intrinsic and essential to the thing. Thus here it means that our Lord in his preincarnate state possessed essential deity.” Reformed theologian Benjamin Warfield comments that the word form is a term “which expresses the sum of those characterizing qualities which make a thing the precise thing that it is.” Used of God, the words refer to “the sum of the characteristics which make the being we call ‘God,’ specifically God, rather than some other being—an angel, say, or a man.”[3] 

Here below are two definitions that elaborate in more detail on the term “form” in Philippians 2: 6. 

3444. μορφη morphe; gen. morphes, fem. noun. Form, shape. Morphe appears with schema (4976), fashion, the whole outward appearance, in Phil 2:6-8. These two word stand for the form and fashion of a person or thing. A form would exist were it alone in the universe even if there were none to behold it. There may be a concept (to nooumenon, pres. act. part. of noeo [3539], to conceive, exercise the mind) without becoming apparent or externally visible. The nooumenon, conceptual, may remain such or may become phainomenon (pres. act. part. of phaino [5316], to appear), visible, with a shape, which can be observed. The use of morphe and schema implies that an appearance is made in a visible form and fashion. 

Morphe in Phil 2:6-8 presumes an obj. reality. No one could be in the form (morphe) of God who was not God. However, morphe is not the shaping of pure thought. It is the utterance of the inner life, a life that bespeaks the existence of God. He who had been in morphe Theou, in the form of God, from eternity (John 17:5) took at His incarnation the morphen doulou (doulos [1401], servant), a form of a servant. The fact that Jesus continued to be God during His state of humiliation is demonstrated by the pres. part. huparchon, "being" in the form of God. Huparcho (5225) involves continuing to be that which one was before. nothing appeared that was not an obj. reality from the beginning. In His incarnation, Jesus took upon Himself the form (morphe) of a servant by taking upon Himself the shape (schema) of man. The schema, shape or fashion, is the outward form having to do not only with His essential being, but also with His appearance. The eternal, infinite form of God took upon Himself flesh (John 1:1a, 14a). See Sept.: Dan 4:36; 5:6, 9, 10. 

In Mark 16:12, the expression en hetera morphe (en [1722], in; hetera [2087], qualitatively another; morphe, the same as metemorphothe, aor. pass. of metamorphoo [3339], in another form, means that Christ was transformed (Matt 17:2; Mark 9:2; Sept.: Isa 44:13). The transfiguration upon the mount was a prophetic anticipation of that which we shall all experience at Christ's return (1 Thess. 4:17; 1 Cor 15:52). This form in which the risen Lord appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13ff.) was a human form but different from that which Jesus had during His life on earth, yet He was readily recognized by His disciples.”[4] 

This next quote by Mr. Wuest, powerfully builds on the definition above. 

“[This is the mind] which is also in Christ Jesus, who has always been and at present continues to subsist in that mode of being in which He gives outward expression of His essential nature, that of absolute deity, which expression comes from and is truly representative of His inner being [that of absolute deity], and who did not after weighing the facts, consider it a treasure to be clutched and retained at all hazards, this being on an equality with deity ]in the expression of the divine essence], but himself He emptied, himself He made void, having take the outward expression of a bondslave, which expression comes from and is truly representative of His nature [as deity], entering into a new state of existence, that of mankind. And being found to be in outward guise as man, He stooped very low, having become obedient [to God the Father] to the extent of death, even such a death as that upon a cross. (Phil. 2:6-8)”[5] 

As one can see from what has been said in this blog that Jesus Christ is every bit as much God as the Father is. He is equal in every way. Only in Christ’s humanity was the Father “greater” than the Son, but only for the short while He sojourned here on earth. So the Watchtower’s assertion that John 14: 28 is proof against the deity of Christ is false. The Father was "greater" in position than the Son, while the son made Himself "a little lower than the angels" (Heb. 2: 9), and took upon himself humanity. But never is it indicated in Scripture that the Father was better or more superior in person than the Son of God. The case above speaks for itself.

---

[1] Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses, (Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2009), pgs. 145-146.

[2] Ron Rhodes, Ibid., page 146.

[3] Ron Rhodes, Ibid., page 148.

[4] Ed. Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament, p. 997.

[5] Kenneth Wuest, The New Testament: An Expanded Translation, p. 462-463.