Gregory Nazianzen (Nazianzus) and the monarchy of God

Towards the end of July, I received an email from a reader of this blog that precipitated an in depth investigation into the doctrinal axiom/rule termed, opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa (the external works of the Trinity are indivisible.)

This axiom/rule had never been a focus of my theological studies, but the very mention of if brought back to mind something Augustine wrote near the beginning of his book, De Trinitate  (On the Trinity); note the following:

…the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so work indivisibly. (On the Trintiy, 1.7 – NPNF 3.20; trans. Arthur West Haddan, revised and annotated by W.G. T. Shedd)

…the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit are inseparable, so do they work inseparably. (The Trinity, 1.7 – The Works of Saint Augustine I/5, p. 70; trans. Edmund Hill)

[Latin: Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus sicut inseparabiles sunt, ita inseparabiliter operentur]

And:

…the Trinity works indivisibly in everything that God works (On the Trintiy, 1.8 – NPNF 3.21; trans. Arthur West Haddan, revised and annotated by W.G. T. Shedd)

…the Trinity works inseparably in everything that God works The Trinity, 1.8 – The Works of Saint Augustine I/5, p. 70; trans. Edmund Hill)

[Latin: inseparabiliter operari trinitatem in omni re quam deus operatur]

The connection between the above Augustine quotes and the doctrinal axiom/rule termed, opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa is obvious. With that said, subsequent online research revealed something to me that I had been unaware of—this axiom/rule was quite influential in the formulation of the Latin/Western understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. During that research one particular book came to my attention, Adonis Vidu’s The Same God Who Works All Things: Inseparable Operations in Trinitarian Theology (Google preview).

I finished reading the book a few days ago. It was not an easy read for me given the fact that my previous knowledge of the doctrinal axiom/rule termed, opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa was limited. I can now say with confidence that this is no longer the case; Vidu’s book—along with the reading of a number of the works referenced therein—has greatly enhanced my knowledge of the axiom/rule.

Now, with that said, though I certainly appreciated Vidu’s in depth contribution, the book is not without flaws, and it is one of those flaws that will constitute the primary focus of this post—Gregory Nazianzen’s teachings on the monarchy of God.

From Vidu’s book we read:

Arguing against the personalistic trend epitomized by Zizioulas, Chrysostom Koutloumousianos demonstrates that neither the Cappadocians, nor John Damascene, Maximus the Confessor, nor any other Eastern Father, sets the person of the Father himself as primordial in relation to the divine essence. There is no monarchy of the Father, but rather a monarchy that is shared by all the persons in virtue of their sharing the one divine essence. (Page 98 – bold emphasis mine.)

Vidu, apparently relying on Koutloumousianos, makes an all too familiar mistake concerning Gregory’s thoughts on the monarchy of God—i.e. that Gregory has only ONE interpretation concerning what the monarchy of God means.

A number of patristic scholars have exposed this mistake, but for now, I shall limit this post to one—John Zizioulas. Note the following lengthy selection:

This brings us to the question of divine monarchia. What meaning did it have for the Fathers and for the Cappadocians, in particular? Did it relate to the Father or to all three persons? Let us try to answer this question with particular reference to the evidence of Gregory Nazianzen, who seems to be trusted more by the critics of the Cappadocians.

Monarchia means one arche. The idea was first employed to indicate that there is only one rule in God, amounting to one will, one power, and so on.[56] Soon, however, the concept had to be employed ontologically, as it applied not only to the Economy but to God in his eternal life. In such a case, it was inevitable for the question to arise as to its precise meaning for the being of God. The Cappadocian Fathers witness to this development by specifying what arche means with reference to God.

Basil clearly understands arche in the ontological sense of the beginning of being. As such, arche is attached exclusively to the Father. He writes: the names Father and Son 'spoken of in themselves indicate nothing but the relation (schesis) between the two'. 'For Father is the one who has given the beginning of being (arche ton einai) to the others... Son is the one who has had the beginning of his being (arche tou einai) by birth from the other'.[57]

Gregory Nazianzen seems to use the term monarchia in the early sense of one rule, will and power. As such, he refers it to all three persons of the Trinity. Yet he is not unaware of the ontological meaning which he expresses with the term monas. This he refers not to all three persons but to the Father. Let us consider carefully the following passage which is crucial for our subject.

There are three opinions (δόξαι) about God, anarchy, polyarchy and monarchy. The first two were played by the children of the Greeks, and let them continue to be so. For anarchy is something without order; and the rule of many is factions, and thus anarchical and thus disorderly. For both these things lead to the same thing, namely disorder; and thus to dissolution, for disorder is the first step to dissolution. But monarchia is that which we hold in honour. It is, however, a monarchia that is not limited to one person, for it is possible for unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality; but one which is constituted by equality of nature, and agreement of opinion, and identity of motion, and a convergence (or concurrence) of its elements to one[58] ...so that though numerically distinct there is no division of ousia.[59]

So far, monarchia seems to refer to all Persons and not to any one of the Trinity. Yet we should note that Gregory uses monarchia in the sense of one will and concord of mind, that is, in the old moral or functional sense of the term, to which we referred earlier: monarchy is contrasted with anarchy and polyarchy, and the accent falls on order as opposed to disorder, and on common will, and so on. The ontological sense of monarchia comes with the text that immediately follows the one just quoted:

For this reason, the One (μονάς) having moved from the beginning (from all eternity) to a Dyad, stopped (or rested) in Triad. And this is for us the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The one as the Begetter and the Emitter (προβολεύς), without passion of course and without reference to time, and not in a corporeal manner, of whom the others are one of them the begotten and the other the emission.

In this passage, the subject is transferred to the ontological level; it is now a question not of a moral unity in which disorder and anarchy are excluded but of how the three Persons relate to one another in terms of ontological origination. The crucial point here is the word monas: to what does it refer? Does it refer to something common to the three Persons out of which the Trinity emerged? Or to the person of the Father?

If the monas referred to something other than the Father, that is to ousia or something common to the three persons, we would have to exegete the text in the following way: 'The one ousia (monas) moved to a Dyad and finally stopped at the Triad'. This would mean that from the one ousia came first the two persons together (a dyad) to which a third one was added finally to make the Trinity. Unless we are talking about the Filioque such an interpretation would look absurd. If we wish to have the Trinity simultaneously emerging from the ousia, which is what I suppose those who refer the monas to ousia would prefer, the text would forbid that, for it would have to read as follows: 'The one ousia (monas) moved (not to a dyad first but simultaneously) to a triad'.

The text clearly refers the One (μονὰς) to the Father, for it explains itself immediately by saying: 'the one (moved) as the Begetter (γεννήτωρ) and Emitter (προβολεύς), of whom the others are the one begotten and the other the emission (τῶν δέ, τό μέν γέννημα, τό δέ προβολεύς)'. Furthermore, in continuing his thought, Gregory explains all this by saying that the reason why he would insist on what he just said is that he wants to exclude any understanding of the Trinity as a derivation from an a-personal something, like an overflowing bowl (an explicit reference to Plato), lest the emergence of the Son and the Spirit be conceived of as 'involuntary', his intention being to 'speak of the unbegotten and the begotten and that which proceeds from the Father'.

In conclusion, when Gregory uses monarchia in the moral sense of unity of mind, will, and so on, he refers it to the three persons taken together (how could it be otherwise?). But when he refers to how the Trinity emerged ontologically, he identifies the monas with the Father. (Zizioulas, John D.,  Communion & Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church, T&T Clark, 2006, pp. 131-134 – Amazon link.)

Notes:

56. Thus in Justin, Dial. 1; Tatian, Or. ad Gr. 14; etc.; see above, n. 20.

57. Basil, C. Eun. 2.22. Note again the language employed by Basil: the Father gives the Son not ousia but einai, 'being'; there is a difference between these two terms: person is being, but does not denote ousia', ousia and being are not identical. See the implications of this above.

58. This is the rather inadequate rendition given of this sentence in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 301. A translation and commentary more adequate and more interesting for our subject is given by J. Mason, The Five Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus, 1899, p. 75: 'This complete harmony of mind and will in the Godhead is itself based upon the concurrence of the other Blessed Persons with that One of their number from Whom they are derived, viz. the Father'. In this case, the monarchy is ultimately referred to the Father. Exegetically, the meaning depends on how we render the word 'one' (ἓν) and the 'from it' (τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ): do these refer to the One from whom the others derive, i.e., the Father, or to the elements that make up the unity of nature, motion, etc.? The sentence that immediately follows would support the first option. My argument, however, is unaffected in either case, as can immediately be seen.

59. Gregory Naz., Theol. Or. 3.2. [This is the 3^rd ‘theological oration’ and has the title ‘On the Son’; it is also numbered as #29 among the 45 extant orations of Gregory N.]

In ending this opening post, I would like to submit that an objective reading of Gregory Naziansen’s writings reveals he submitted TWO interpretations, not ONE, concerning the monarchy of God—the most important being the monarchy of God the Father.

Grace and peace,

David

Monoousios vs. Homoousios

Back on May 11th, a good friend of mine began posting again in the Terminology: trinitarianism, unitarianism, monotheism, polytheism... thread, after an extended hiatus. The conversation between the two us continued over the next few days; and then on the 22nd, Tom contributed three consecutive, interrelated posts that would have been a bit difficult to adequately address in the combox. As such, I have created this new thread in an attempt to do justice to the cogent concerns and questions that he raised in those posts.

Now, a bit of background information. For a number of years now, I have maintained that the Greek term homoousion in the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition was used in a generic sense and not a strict numeric sense—in other words, homoousion is to be understood as 'same essence' rather than 'one essence'. And so, on my May 21st post to Tom, I wrote:

The Greek of the Chalcedonian Definition (451) strongly suggests a generic sense for both. My studies indicate that the numeric sense was not adopted until much later when homoousia began to be interpreted as monoousia. [Note: I had quickly typed up the above response and posted it before realizing that I had misspelled both homoousia and monoousia—should read homoousios and monoousios—sorry Tom, I am getting old.]

Tom on the 22nd responded with:

I would agree that homoousia began to be interpreted as monoousia, but what scholars usually say is “homoousia in the numeric sense.” I have not seen folks who suggest that traditional Christian Trinitarian teachings are true use the term monoousia to describe what they believe. Folks like Plantinga might be inclined to point to the developed equivalence of monoousia and homoousia in the numeric sense, but I don’t see things like this from Father Don Davis or Phillip Schaff.

I first encountered the distinction between monoousios and homoousios in Dr. Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology. Dr. Hodge wrote:

The ambiguity of the word ὁμοούσιος has already been remarked upon. As ούσια may mean generic nature common to many individuals, not unum in numero, but ens unum in multis, so ὁμοούσιος (consubstantial) may mean nothing more than sameness of species or kind. (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981 reprint, 1.463.)

Dr. Hodge then provides two important quotes from the famous Christian historian, Philip Schaff:

It is therefore said, that “the term homoousion, in its strict grammatical sense differs from monoousion or toutoousion, as well as from heteroousion, and signifies not numerical identity, but equality of essence or community of nature among several beings.” “The Nicene Creed,” Dr. Schaff adds, “does not expressly assert the singleness or numerical unity of the divine essence (unless it be in the first article: ‘we believe in one God’), and the main point with the Nicene fathers was to urge against Arianism the strict divinity and essential equality of the Son and Holy Ghost with the Father. (Ibid.)

In the next paragraph, Hodge continues with:

Gieseler goes much further, and denies that the Nicene fathers held the numerical identity of essence in the persons of the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Spirit were the same in substance as having the same nature, or same kind of substance. This he infers was their doctrine not only from the general style of their teaching, and from special declarations, but from the illustrations which they habitually employed. The Father and the Son are the same in substance as among men father and son have the same nature; or as Basil says, Father and Son differ in rank, as do the angels, although they are the same in nature. Gieseler says that the numerical sameness of nature in the three divine persons, was first asserted by Augustine. It was he, according to Gieseler, who first excluded all idea of subordination in the Trinity. “Athanasius and Hilary understood the proposition, ‘There is one God’ of the Father. Basil the Great and the two Gregories understood by the word God a generic idea (Gattungsbegriff), belonging equally to the Father and the Son. (Ibid.)

Though Hodge and Schaff acknowledge that homoousios can be understood in a generic sense, they maintain—contra Gieseler—that it's use in the Nicene Creed should be interpreted in the numeric sense.

Moving from 19th century writers to those of the 20th century, we find the following from the pen of J.N.D. Kelly:

It is reasonable to suppose, pace Eusebius, that a similar meaning, viz. 'of the same nature', was read into the homoousion. But if this is granted, a further question at once arises: are we to understand 'of the same nature' in the 'generic' sense in which Origen, for example, had employed ὁμοούσιος, or are we to take it as having the meaning accepted by later Catholic [i.e. Western] theology, viz. numerical identity of substance? The root word ούσια could signify the kind of substance or stuff common to several individuals of a class, or it could connote an individual thing as such. (Early Christian Doctrine, 2nd ed. 1960, p. 234.)

And from Ivor J. Davidson:

Homoousios was, however, a word with a difficult history. For a start, it was not biblical, which meant that the council [i.e. Nicaea 325] was proposing to talk about the nature of the Godhead in terms that were philosophical or conceptual rather than in language drawn directly from the Scriptures. 

…the outcome of the council was virtually unanimous. All but two of the bishops agreed to sign the creed. The dissenters, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, were both from Libya, where Arius had particularly loyal support. They suffered exile, as did Arius himself. The rest, it seemed, were at one, and Constantine had got his way; the church was united in its opposition to the teaching of Arius [i.e. that the Son was a created being, created ex nihilo, and that there was “a time he was not”].

The reality, however, was for more complex. The apparently all-important homoousios could in fact be understood in a variety of ways. Literally, it meant “same being.” But what was the “sameness” here? To be “the same as” can be “identical to” in a specific sense or “exactly like” in a generic sense. The “being” in question is also vague: a human and animal may both be described as “beings,” but one has on form of “being” (or “nature” or “substance”) and the other another. For staunch enemies of Arius, such as Eustanthius and Marcellus, homoousios meant “one and the same being.” For Eusebius of Caesarea, on the other hand, it meant “exactly like in being”—potentially a very significant difference. Is the Son, the same as God in his being, or is he exactly like God in his being? To Eusebius and many other Greek bishops it seemed better to say that he is like God. (The Baker History of the Church, Vol. 2 – A Public Faith: From Constantine to the Medieval World, AD 312-600, 2005, pp. 35, 36.)

In the selections provided above, our esteemed authors identify four prominent 4th century Church Fathers who interpreted homoousios in the generic sense—Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. I would now like to introduce a fifth Church Father from the 4th century who affirmed the generic understanding, and also explicitly differentiated between monoousios and homoousios—Athanasius. From his Expositio Fidei we read:

For neither do we hold a Son-Father, as do the Sabellians, calling Him of one but not of the same essence, and thus destroying the existence of the Son. (Statement of Faith, 2.2 - A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series, Vol. 4.84)

The phrase, "calling Him of one but not of the same essence", is a non-literal translation of the Greek, and a bit misleading. The Greek reads as follows:

λέγοντες μονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον  (legontes monoousion kai ouch homoousion)

My translation: saying [he is of] one essence and not [of the] same essence

[Full Greek text of 2.2—οὔτε γὰρ υἱοπάτορα φρονοῦμεν ὡς οἱ Σαβέλλιοι λέγοντες μονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἀναιροῦντες τὸ εἶναι υἱόν—Migne, PG 25, 204.]

Athanasius identifies the strict numeric understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son with the Sabellians, contrasting the term monoousion from that of homoousion to drive home his point.

This generic understanding found in Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (and other Church Fathers), is the dominant understanding of many Eastern Orthodox theologians—theologians who adamantly maintain that it is the only consistent understanding of the use of homoousion in the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition.

More later, the Lord willing...

Grace and peace,

David

Monarchy of God the Father—God the Father as the cause/source of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit: three valuable resources

It was the writings of a number of Eastern Orthodox theologians which prompted me to begin an in depth study into the important doctrine of the Monarchy of God the Father. I started with the pre-Nicene and Nicene Church Fathers, and then (of course) the pre-Augustinian CFs who defended the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.). Of late, I have focused on Augustine's elucidations on God the Father as the cause/source of the Son and Holy Spirit.

As I continue my studies into the Monarchy of God the Father, I wanted to bring to the attention of my readers three important contributions which are germane to this topic. The first is a website ran by Andrew Davis:

CONTRA MODALISM

Andrew is a cogent contributor in the comboxes of my recent threads on Augustine. His site has a number of threads on the Monarchy of God the Father, defenses of the Nicene Creed, and exposés on 'modern' forms of modalism and 'semi-modalism'.

The second is a dissertation by James Paul Krueger:

God the Father in the Western Tradition - Bringing Augustine and Bonaventure into the Conversation with Modern Theology 

From the opening introduction of the dissertation we read:

One of the widespread contemporary approaches to the Trinity repudiates “mere monotheism” and emphasizes the community of the Persons as three separate centers of action. Within some versions of this “social Trinitarianism,” the unique role of the God the Father as source of the godhead is marginalized or obscured. The views of Jürgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg on God the Father bring this problem into focus, as they diminish the “monarchy” of the Father as unfitting because as traditionally understood it lacks reciprocity. Instead, they envision alternative modes of explaining the unity, stressing the original threeness and describing divine unity as an eschatological achievement. After linking the Father’s diminished place in these approaches with the problem of divine unity, this study examines the theology of God the Father in Augustine and Bonaventure to clarify how the concept of the Father as unique source can provide a solution to this pressing problem in contemporary systematic theology.

And the third is a master's thesis by Elizabeth Klein:

Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus on the Fatherhood of God

The following is from the abstract of the thesis:

This thesis examines the concept of God as Father in the thinking of two Patristic authors: Athanasius (c. 293-373) and Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329-390). Since God is called Father frequently in the New Testament both Athanasius and Gregory see the name as fundamental to understanding the nature of the intradivine life, as well as God’s relationship to humankind. The reliance of Patristic authors on the language of Father and Son brings relational language to the fore of Christological and trinitarian discussions of the 4th and 5th centuries. In this thesis, I endeavour to demonstrate the centrality of the fatherhood of God in the thinking of Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus, and to connect their thinking on this topic to larger theological questions of the period.

I recommend the above resources to those folk who share my interest in the Monarchy of God Father.

ENJOY !!!

Grace and peace,

David

Book Recommendation - Christopher Beeley's, The Unity of Christ - Continuity and Conflict in Patristic Tradition

This is the second book of Christopher Beeley's published works that I have now read. I first became aware of Dr. Beeley via a link provided by Iohannes in THIS COMMENT. [See also this Google Books Preview.]

I was thoroughly impressed by his, Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God, so when I discovered The Unity of Christ during some recent online research, I knew I had to obtain it—I was not disappointed—this book has reinforced my opinion that Dr. Beeley is firmly establishing himself as one of the most gifted Patristic scholars of the early 21st century.

In The Unity of Christ, Dr. Beeley delves into the theology of the following Church Fathers: Origen of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, and Leo the Great, with an emphasis on development of doctrine and the formation of the early creeds produced by the councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451).

Though all the chapters of the book are quite good, I particularly appreciated the one devoted to Eusebius of Caesarea (chapter 2, pp. 49-104). For a number of years now, I have felt that Eusebius' theological contributions have been either ignored or significantly under appreciated by most patristic scholars. Dr. Beeley is of the same opinion; he demonstrates that Eusebius offers much more than his valuable history of the Church, and that he was a major contributor concerning the issue of the monarchy of God the Father.

Anyway, I wanted to bring this excellent book to the attention of readers who have an interest in patristic studies. Selections from the book can be read online via this, Google Books Preview.

For those who make the decision to purchase the book, I would be very interested in hearing from you once you have had the opportunity to read it.

Grace and peace,

David

The Father is greater than I (John 14:28): The Patristic witness that is ignored by many contemporary Evangelicals

Over the weekend, I came upon an ongoing "civil war" (Dr. Michael Bird used the phrase "civil war" in one of his numerous posts on a number of issues germane to this thread - see his posts listed under THIS LINK)*, between a good number of contemporary Evangelical theologians (most of whom are also Calvinists). I first gained knowledge of this "civil war" via a blog post published by Dr. Mike Ovey, Principal of the Oak Hill College in London, England, under the title: "Should I Resign?" (LINK)

This "civil war" seems to have begun over the divide between the complementarian and egalitarian camps over gender roles. For reasons I don't fully understand, it was broadened to include the issue of 'the eternal subordination' of the Son to the Father. It is this latter issue that will be the focus of this thread—without further reference to the gender issue.

From what I have gathered, the main disagreement is over whether or not the Son of God is eternally subordinate to God the Father. Those who affirm, usually do so via the concept of 'functional subordination' and/or 'relational subordination'; while those who deny, relegate all talk of subordination of the Son to the Father in terms of the Incarnation.

Since I hold to the doctrine of the Monarchy of God the Father, I side with those who affirm that the Son of God is eternally subordinate to God the Father. But, with that said, a key element concerning this eternal subordination has been pretty much ignored in this contemporary debate: the issue of etiology—i.e. the causality of the Son from the Father. [IMO, the issue of etiological subordination within the Godhead is even more important than 'functional subordination' and 'relational subordination'.]

As with most issues concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, I think it is imperative that one examine closely what the Church Fathers had to say. In my studies of the Church Fathers, I have found that the interpretation of one verse in particular was quite significant in determining what a good number of the Church Fathers believed about the issue of the subordination of the Son of God to God Father: John 14:28. The selections I will be providing clearly show many CFs understood that the phrase, "the Father is greater than I", should not be relegated exclusively to the Son's incarnation; but rather, it also speaks to the Son's eternal causation from God the Father. Note the following:

Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria -

We have learnt that the Son is immutable and unchangeable, all-sufficient and perfect, like the Father, lacking only His "unbegotten." He is the exact and precisely similar image of His Father. For it is clear that the image fully contains everything by which the greater likeness exists, as the Lord taught us when He said, 'My Father is greater than I.' And in accordance with this we believe that the Son always existed of the Father ; for he is the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His Father's Person.' But let no one be led by the word 'always' to imagine that the Son is unbegotten, as is thought by some who have their intellects blinded : for to say that He was, that He has always been, and, that before all ages, is not to say that He is unbegotten...

Therefore His own individual dignity must be reserved to the Father as the Unbegotten One, no one being called the cause of His existence : to the Son likewise must be given the honour which befits Him, there being to Him a generation from the Father which has no beginning ; we must render Him worship, as we have already said, only piously and religiously ascribing to Him the 'was' and the 'ever,' and the 'before all ages ;' not however rejecting His divinity, but ascribing to Him a perfect likeness in all things to His Father, while at the same time we ascribe to the Father alone His own proper glory of 'the unbegotten,' even as the Saviour Himself says, 'My Father is greater than I.' (Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, from Theodoret's, Ecclesiastical History, I.III - NPNF 3.39, 40.)

Athanasius -

But since he has here expressly written it, and, as has been above shewn, the Son is Offspring of the Father's essence, and He is Framer, and other things are framed by Him, and He is the Radiance and Word and Image and Wisdom of the Father, and things originate stand and serve in their place below the Triad, therefore the Son is different in kind and different in essence from things originate, and on the contrary is proper to the Father's essence and one in nature with it. And hence it is that the Son too says not, 'My Father is better than I,' lest we should conceive Him to be foreign to His Nature, but 'greater,' not indeed in greatness, nor in time, but because of His generation from the Father Himself", nay, in saying 'greater' He again shews that He is proper to His essence. (Against the Arians, I.58 - NPNF 4.340.)

Basil -

For since the Son's beginning/origin (ἡảρχή) is from the Father, according to this, the Father is greater, as cause (ἀίτιος) and beginning/origin (ảρχή). Therefore the Lord said, My Father is greater than I, clearly because He is Father. Indeed, what else does the word Father mean unless the cause (τὸ αἰτία) to be/exist [Latin: esse] (εἶναι) and beginning/origin (ἀρχὴ) of that which is begotten of Him? (Against Eunomius,  I.25 - translation mine.)

Greek text:

Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἡ ἀρχὴ τῷ Υἱῷ, κατὰ τοῦτο μείζων ὁ Πατὴρ, ὡς αἴτιος καὶ ἀρχή. Διὸ καὶ ὁ Κύριος οὕτως εἶπεν· Ὁ Πατήρ μου μείζων μου ἐστὶ, καθὸ Πατὴρ δηλονότι. Τὸ δὲ, Πατὴρ, τί ἄλλο ση μαίνει ἢ οὐχὶ τὸ αἰτία εἶναι καὶ ἀρχὴ τοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεννηθέντος; (Migne, PG 29.568)

Gregory Nazianzen -

As your third point you count the Word Greater ; and as your fourth. To My God and your God. And indeed, if He had been called greater, and the word equal had not occurred, this might perhaps have been a point in their favour. But if we find both words clearly used what will these gentlemen have to say? How will it strengthen their argument ? How will they reconcile the irreconcilable? For that the same thing should be at once greater than and equal to the same thing is an impossibility; and the evident solution is that the Greater refers to origination, while the Equal belongs to the Nature ; and this we acknowledge with much good will. But perhaps some one else will back up our attack on your argument, and assert, that That which is from such a Cause is not inferior to that which has no Cause ; for it would share the glory of the Unoriginate, because it is from the Unoriginate. And there is, besides, the Generation, which is to all men a matter so marvellous and of such Majesty. For to say that he is greater than the Son considered as man, is true indeed, but is no great thing. For what marvel is it if God is greater than man ? Surely that is enough to say in answer to their talk about Greater. (Orations, 30.7 - NPNF 7.312—see THIS THREAD for more detail.)

Hilary of Poitiers -

But perhaps some may suppose that He was destitute of that glory for which He prayed, and that His looking to be glorified by a Greater is evidence of want of power. Who, indeed, would deny that the Father is the greater; the Unbegotten greater than the Begotten, the Father than the Son, the Sender than the Sent, He that wills than He that obeys ? He Himself shall be His own witness :—The Father is greater than I. It is a fact which we must recognise, but we must take heed lest with unskilled thinkers the majesty of the Father should obscure the glory of the Son. Such obscuration is forbidden by this same. (On the Trinity, III.12 - NPNF 9.65.)

If, then, the Father is greater through His authority to give, is the Son less through the confession of receiving? The Giver is greater : but the Receiver is not less, for to Him it is given to be one with the Giver. If it is not given to Jesus to be confessed in the glory of God the Father, He is less than the Father. But if it is given Him to be in that glory, in which the Father is, we see in the prerogative of giving, that the Giver is greater, and in the confession of the gift, that the Two are One. The Father is, therefore, greater than the Son: for manifestly He is greater, Who makes another to be all that He Himself is, Who imparts to the Son by the mystery of the birth the image of His own unbegotten nature, Who begets Him from Himself into His own form, and restores Him again from the form of a servant to the form of God, Whose work it is that Christ, born God according to the Spirit in the glory of the Father, but now Jesus Christ dead in the flesh, should be once more God in the glory of the Father. When, therefore, Christ says that He is going to the Father, He reveals the reason why they should rejoice if they loved Him, because the Father is greater than He. (On the Trinity, IX.54 - NPNF 9.174.)

I have chosen the above Church Fathers for two very important reasons: first, all of them wrote in Greek, for Greek was their mother tongue; and second, all of them wrote their above reflections on John 14:28 with Arianism in mind. If there ever was a period in the history of Christianity for one to limit John 14:28 to the incarnation of the Son of God it was the period from Arius through that of the Homoians and Anhomoians (i.e. Neo-Arians); and yet, their exegesis of the Biblical text compelled them to refrain from doing so.

In addition to the above CFs, I would like to add John of Damascus—the Church Father I recently introduced to readers of AF (LINK)—who wrote the following concerning John 14:28:

So then, whenever we hear it said that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the Son, let us understand it to mean in respect of causation. (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter 8 - NPNF vol. 9, page 9, second section.)

In ending, I think that when one considers John 14:28 and its relationship to the subordination of the Son of God to God the Father, one should seriously keep in mind the reflections from the Church Fathers quoted above.

Grace and peace,

David

*UPDATE (06-15-16): Because the post where Dr. Bird used the phrase, "civil war", has already moved to page 2 of the link I provided above, I thought it wise to provide a DIRECT LINK to it.