Isaiah 6:1-5 and John 12:41 - God the Father, the Son of God, or the Trinity (Part 1, the Church Fathers)

A good friend of mine has been dialoguing with some Jehovah’s Witnesses concerning Isaiah’s vision in Is. 6:1-5. The JWs insist it is Jehovah/God the Father that Isaiah saw in his vision, but my friend maintains that it was the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, relying on what the apostle John said in John 12:41.

Over the last few days, I have been delving into what the Church Fathers had to say about Is. 6:1-5 and John 12:41, along with a number of modern scholars.

In this post, I will be focusing on the CFs. Note the following:

Eusebius of Caesarea - Commentary on Isaiah

The same prophet [Isaiah] saw with his own eyes the Lord of hosts over his temple, in which the prophet often preached. And he relates in detail what transpired quite literally right before his eyes when he states next: “O wretched man that I am! I am stunned; for being a man and having unclean lips, I live among a people having unclean lips, and I have seen the King, the Lord of hosts, with my eyes!” [Is. 6:5] There is no doubt that it was the man who is described above who made this statement. He said that he saw the Lord of hosts, and the text records that he saw him with his own eyes. And he records the time of the vision when he says: And it happened in the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord of hosts sitting on a throne, lofty and raised up. [Is. 6:1] I believe it is clearly stated who was revealed through the entire prophecy as the Lord of hosts (although the phrase is also translated Lord of armies or Lord of powers). He thus introduces God as he was seen. However, concerning the unbegotten divinity, it has been said: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” [Jn. 1:18] And the Savior himself taught: “Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father.” [Jn. 5:46] Surely then the Lord of hosts who appeared to the prophet was another than the unbegotten and invisible and incomprehensible divinity. And who could this be but “the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father,” [Jn. 1:18] who stepped down from his own exalted position, and, lowering himself from that position, made himself visible and comprehensible to humanity? (Eusebius of Caesarea, Commentary on Isaiah: Ancient Christian Texts, translated by Jonathan J. Armstrong, p.27)

Eusebius of Caesarea - Proof of the Gospel

As the great Evangelist St. John, teaching of our Lord and Saviour as the very Word of God full of supernatural power, begins his holy Gospel, by setting side by side His Divinity and His Humanity in His presence among men, saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and All things were made by him," and adding after this, "and the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us"; so in the same strain the inspired prophet, about to proclaim God born of a Virgin, tells first the vision of His Divine glory, when he thus describes the Being of God:

"1. I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and exalted. And the house was full of las glory. 2. And Seraphim stood round about him : each one had six wings : with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he did fly. 3. And they cried one to another and said, Holy, Holy, Holy, the li, Lord of Sabaoth, the whole earth is full of his glory."

And he adds also:

" 8. And I heard the voice of the Lord saying. Whom shall I send, and who will go to this people? And I said. Behold, Here am I. Send me. 9. And he said, Go and say to this people. Ye shall hear indeed, but shall not understand ; and ye shall see indeed, but not perceive. 10. For this people's heart has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed ; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their  heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. And I said, How long, O Lord ? And He said, Until the cities be deserted, by reason of their being uninhabited, and the houses by reason of there being no man."

What Lord may we say the prophet saw but Him Abraham we have proved to have been seen and known by the fathers with Abraham in previous days? He, we have already learned, was both God and Lord, and Angel and Captain of the Lord's power as well. So then in approaching the account of  His Coming to men the prophecy before us tells first of His divine kingdom, in which it says that the prophet saw Him ps. xliv. sitting on a throne high and exalted. This is that throne which is mentioned in the Psalm of the Beloved, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," on which the Most High Creator of the Universe, His God and Father, bade his Only-begotten

sit, saying, "Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." John the Evangelist supports my interpretation of this passage, when he quotes the words of Isaiah, where it is said, "For this people's heart is become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed," referring them to Christ, Saying, "This said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and bare witness of him." [John 12:41] The prophet then seeing our Saviour sitting on His Father's throne in the divine and glorious kingdom, and moved by the Holy Spirit, and being about to describe next His coming among men and His Birth of a Virgin, foretells that His knowledge and praise would be over all the earth, by introducing the song of the Seraphim round His throne : Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth, the whole earth is full of his glory. (Eusebius of Caesarea, The Proof of the Gospel, Vol. 2 (Edited and Translated by W. J. Ferrar, pp. 48-50)

Hilary of Poitiers

From everlasting we have not heard, nor have our eyes seen God, except Thee, and Thy works which Thou wilt do for them that await Thy mercy. [Is. 64:4] Isaiah says that he has seen no God but Him. For he did actually see the glory of God, the mystery of Whose taking flesh from the Virgin he foretold. And if you, in your heresy, do not know that it was God the Only-begotten Whom the prophet saw in that glory, listen to the Evangelist:—These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory, and spake of Him. [John 12:41] The Apostle, the Evangelist, the Prophet combine to silence your objections. Isaiah did see God; even though it is written, No one hath seen God at any time, save the Only-begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father; He hath declared Him, [John 1:18] it was God Whom the prophet saw. He gazed upon the Divine glory, and men were filled with envy at such honour vouchsafed to his prophetic greatness. For this was the reason why the Jews passed sentence of death upon him. (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book V.33: The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II, 9.95)

Gregory of Nyssa

...through the prophet Isaiah it is attested, as to the manifestation of the Divine appearance vouchsafed to him, when he saw Him that sat "on the throne high and lifted up:" [Is. 6:1] the older tradition, it is true, says that it was the Father Who appeared to him, but the evangelist John refers the prophecy to our Lord, saying, touching those of the Jews who did not believe the words uttered by the prophet concerning the Lord, "These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory and spake of Him." [John 12:41] But the mighty Paul attributes the same passage to the Holy Spirit in his speech made to the Jews at Rome, when he says, "Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet concerning you, saying, Hearing ye shall hear and shall not understand," [Acts 28: 25, 26] showing, in my opinion, by Holy Scripture itself, that every specially divine vision, every theophany, every word uttered in the Person of God, is to be understood to refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book II.14: The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II, 5.129)

Theodore of Mopsuestia

He [John] further adds, [John 12:41] Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke about him. Indeed, when he saw the Lord of the armies sitting upon the high and lofty throne along with the Seraphim who were praising him and proclaiming him "Holy," the Lord then said to him, "Go and say to this people, 'Keep listening, but do not comprehend; keep looking, but do not understand.'" [Is. 6:1-9] Here the blessed John says that the glory of Christ was seen by Isaiah. In Acts the blessed Paul said that he saw the Spirit, as he said to the Jews, "The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your ancestors through the prophet Isaiah, 'You will indeed listen, but never understand.'" and so forth. [Acts 28:25-26] What did he see? In the spiritual vision, in the revelation of the divine nature, which is incomprehensible, Isaiah saw the glory that is common to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, since Scripture cannot establish precisely whether it is the glory of the Son or the Holy Spirit. Therefore neither the Evangelist nor the apostle is in contradiction in saying that it is the glory of the Son or of the Holy Spirit. (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Gospel of John: Ancient Christian Texts, translated with introduction and notes by Marco Conti, p. 114)

Before providing interpretations from two more CFs—Origen and Jerome—I thought it important to point out that certain remarks from Jerome’s comments indicate he had a negative view of Origen’s interpretation, even though he does not mention by name. Now the quotes:

Origen - Homilies on Isaiah

“And the Seraphim were standing around him, six wings belonging to the one and six wings belonging to the other.” [Is. 6:2] I see two Seraphim, each one of them in himself having six wings...

But yet these Seraphim, who surround God, who say by pure knowledge, “Holy, holy, holy!” [Is. 6:3] observe in this way the mystery of the Trinity, because they themselves also are holy. Indeed, in all these things that exist, nothing is more holy. And they speak not softly to one another: “Holy, holy, holy!” but, by crying out, they announce the salvific confession to everyone. Who are these two Seraphim? My Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit. You should not suppose the nature of the Trinity to be divided, if duty-bound observances of the names are to be kept. (Origen, Homilies on Isaiah: The Fathers of the Church, Volume 142, translated by Elizabeth Ann Dively Lauro, pp. 42, 43)

Origen - De Principiis

My Hebrew master also used to say that those two seraphim in Isaiah, which are described as having each six wings, and calling to one another, and saying, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God of hosts,” were to be understood of the only-begotten Son of God and of the Holy Spirit. And we think that that expression also which occurs in the hymn of Habakkuk, “In the midst either of the two living things, or of the two lives, Thou wilt be known,” ought to be understood of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. (Origen. De Principiis, Book I.3.4: Ante-Nicene Fathers, 4.253)

For my Hebrew teacher also used thus to teach, that as the beginning or end of all things could be comprehended by no one, save only our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, so under the form of a vision Isaiah spake of two seraphim alone, who with two wings cover the countenance of God, and with two His feet, and with two do fly, calling to each other alternately, and saying, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Sabaoth; the whole earth is full of Thy glory.” (Origen. De Principiis, Book IV, 1.26: Ante-Nicene Fathers,  4.375, 376)

Jerome - Commentary on Isaiah

Sacred history relates that Uzziah was struck with leprosy, because he laid claim to an unlawful priesthood for himself [cf. 2 Chr 26:16–21]. When he died the Lord is seen in the temple that he had polluted. From this we observe that while a leprous king is reigning within us, we are not able to see the Lord reigning in his majesty, nor are we able to recognize the mysteries of the Holy Trinity. This is why even in Exodus, the people cried out to the Lord after Pharaoh died, who was oppressing Israel with mud, straw, and bricks [cf. Exod 1:14; 5:7]. For they were not able to cry out while he was alive [cf. Exod 2:23]. Moreover, it was after the terrible ruler Pelatiah the son of Benaiah died that Ezekiel falls on his face and cries out to the Lord with a loud voice [cf. Ezek 11:1–4, 13]. And it is nicely expressed by the Hebrew word that it was not the Lord himself who filled the temple, whose throne is heaven and whose footstool for his feet is the earth [cf. Isa 66:1]; and we read about him in another passage, “The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord, his throne is in heaven” [Ps 11:4]; but the things that were under his feet filled the temple.

Now in John the Evangelist and in the Acts of the Apostles we learn more fully who is this Lord who is seen. John says of this, “Isaiah said this when he saw his glory and spoke about him” [John 12:41], doubtless signifying Christ. In the Acts of the Apostles, on the other hand, in Rome Paul speaks to the Jews, and says,

The Holy Spirit spoke through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, “Go to this people and say: You will hear with hearing and you will not understand, and seeing you will see and you will not perceive. For the heart of the people is fat and with difficulty they have heard with their ears, and they have closed their eyes, lest perhaps they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and convert themselves and I would heal them.” [Acts 28:25–27; Isa 6:9–10]

But the Son is seen in the character of one reigning, and the Holy Spirit has spoken on account of the association of their majesty and the unity of their substance.

Someone may ask how the prophet can say now that he has seen the Lord, not the Lord without qualification, but the Lord Sabaoth [cf. Isa 6:5], as he himself testifies in what follows, although John the Evangelist has said, “No one has ever seen God” [John 1:18; 1 John 4:12], and God says to Moses, “You cannot see my face, for no man will see my face and live” [Exod 33:20]. We will respond to this that fleshly eyes are not able to see not merely the divinity of the Father, but not even that of the Son and the Holy Spirit, since the nature in the Trinity is one. But the eyes of the mind [can see him], of which the Savior himself says, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” [Matt 5:8]. We read that the Lord of Abraham was seen under the figure of a man [cf. Gen 18:1–3], and a man, as it were, who was God, wrestled with Jacob. This is why the place itself was called Penuel, that is, face of God [cf. Gen 32:24–30]. He says: “For I have seen God face to face and my soul was saved” [Gen 32:30]. Ezekiel too saw the Lord in the form of a man sitting over the cherubim; from his loins and below he was like fire and the upper parts had the appearance of amber [cf. Ezek 1:26–27]. Therefore, the nature of God is not discerned, but he is seen by men as he wills. (Jerome, St. Jerome: Commentary on Isaiah: Ancient Christian Writers #68, Translated and with an Introduction by Thomas P. Scheck, pp, 150, 151-print edition, pp. 138, 139-PDF edition)

Jerome - Letters of St. Jerome

Next: I SAW THE LORD SITTING UPON A THRONE HIGH AND ELEVATED: AND THE HOUSE WAS FILLED BY HIS GLORY, AND SERAPHIM STOOD ABOUT HIM. Certain ones who have interpreted this passage before me, Greeks as well as Romans, have declared that the Lord sitting upon a throne is God the Father, and the two seraphim which are said to be standing one at each side are our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

2 I do not agree with their opinion, though they are very learned men. Indeed, it is far better to set forth the truth in uncouth fashion than to declare falsehood in learned style. I dissent especially because John the Evangelist wrote that it was not God the Father but Christ who had been seen in this vision. For when he was speaking of the unbelief of the Jews, straightway he set forth the reasons for their unbelief: Therefore they could not believe in Him, because Isaias said: “Ye shall hear with the ear and not understand, and perceiving ye shall behold and shall not see” [Isaiah 6:9]. And he said these things when he saw the glory of the Only-begotten and bore witness concerning Him [John 12:39–41].

3 In the present roll of Isaias he is bidden by Him who sits on the throne to say: Ye shall hear with the ear and not understand. Now He who gives this command, as the Evangelist understands it, is Christ. Whence we comprehend that the seraphim cannot be interpreted as Christ, since Christ is He who is seated.

4 And although in the Acts of the Apostles Paul says to the Jews that agreed not among themselves: Well did the Holy Ghost speak to our fathers by Isaias the prophet, saying: Go to this people and say: With the ear you shall hear and shall not understand, and seeing you shall see and shall not perceive. For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears have they heard heavily, and their eyes they have shut, lest perhaps they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them [Acts 28:25–7; Isaiah 6:9–10]—for me, however, the diversity of the person does not raise a question, since I know that both Christ and the Holy Spirit are of one substance, and that the words of the Spirit are not other than those of the Son, and that the Son has not given a command other than the Spirit. (Jerome, The Letters of St. Jerome, Vol. 1, Letter 18A: Ancient Christian Writers #33, translated by Charles Christopher Mierow, pp. 82, 83)

Shall end here for now, saving the various interpretations of modern-day scholars for my next post.

 

Grace and peace,

David

The Homoiousians: are they 'Arians'—correcting some misreprentations

Last week, I received the book, How and What You Worship - Christology and Praxis in the Revelations of Joseph Smith, which contains the papers delivered at the 49th Annual Brigham Young University Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, and published in 2020 by the BYU Religious Studies Center (full book and PDFs available online HERE; videos of the presentations HERE.)

Two of the papers in particular stood out to me: Frederick’s, “Incarnation, Exaltation, and Christological Tension in Doctrine and Covenants 93:1–20”, and Lane's, “Choosing Divinity, Choosing Christ.” Both of these papers contain a misrepresentation of those Christian folk of the fourth century who utilized the Greek term ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) to describe the relationship between God the Father and His Only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Frederick's wrote:

Debates such as these over the relationship between the Father and Son have deep roots, dating back to the fourth century CE. A similar controversy, which became quite heated and for a time divided the Roman Empire, centered around the question of whether Jesus Christ was homoousia (of the same substance) or simply homoiousia (of a similar substance) with the Father. The latter position was termed Arianism after one of its most prominent proponents, a fourth-century bishop named Arius. (Page 15 - link to paper HERE)

And from Lane we read:

Much of this view of Christ and human beings as agents that choose is different than the Christology of historical Christianity. To connect it with traditional christological and soteriological discussion, one could say that, like the Arians, members of the Church of Jesus Christ see the unity of God the Father and the Son as coming from the perfection of Christ’s will rather than from divine essence or substance. While we would use the Arian term homoiousios, being like God rather than being “of one substance with the Father” (homoousios), for us this does not result in Christ being a creature (that is, not divine) because we do not believe in an ontologically distinct divine substance or essence. (Pages 58, 59 - link to paper HERE)

Neither of the two above authors seem to be aware that the term ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) was not an “Arian term”. In fact, the folk of the fourth century who held beliefs that emulated those of Arius (i.e. Homoians and Anhomians), repudiated the term. Perhaps even more importantly, two of the most prominent defenders of the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. in the fourth century—Athanasius of Alexandria and Hilary of Poitiers—embraced those Christians who preferred the term ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) over ὁμοούσιος (homoousios) as brothers in Christ, and as fellow defenders against Arianism. Note the following:

Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks ; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Coessential [ὁμοούσιον], must not be treated as enemies ; nor do we here attack them as Ariomaniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers [ἀδελφοὶ πρὸς ἀδελφοὺς], who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from other subsistence [ὑποστάσεως], and that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting even the phrase, 'Coessential [ὁμοούσιου].' Now such is Basil, who wrote from Ancyra concerning the faith. For only to say 'like according to essence,' is very far from signifying 'of the essence,' by which, rather, as they say themselves, the genuineness of the Son to the Father is signified. Thus tin is only like to silver, a wolf to a dog, and gilt brass to the true metal ; but tin is not from silver, nor could a wolf be accounted the offspring of a dog'. But since they say that He is 'of the essence' and 'Like-in-essence [ὁμοιοούσιον],' what do they signify by these but 'Coessential [ὁμοούσιον]?' (Athanasius, De Synodis 41 – NPNF-2, 4.472 - bold emphasis mine)

And:

Holy brethren, I understand by ὁμοούσιον God of God, not of an essence that is unlike, not divided but born, and that the Son has a birth which is unique, of the substance of the unborn God, that He is begotten yet co-eternal and wholly like the Father. I believed this before I knew the word ὁμοούσιον, but it greatly helped my belief. Why do you condemn my faith when I express it by ὁμοούσιον while you cannot disapprove it when expressed by ὁμοιούσιον ? For you condemn my faith, or rather your own, when you condemn its verbal equivalent. Do others misunderstand it? Let us join in condemning the misunderstanding, but not deprive our faith of its security. Do you think we must subscribe to the Samosatene Council to prevent any one from using ὁμοούσιον in the sense of Paul of Samosata? Then let us also subscribe to the Council of Nicaea, so that the Arians may not impugn the word. Have we to fear that ὁμοιούσιον does not imply the same belief as ὁμοούσιον ? Let us decree that there is no difference between being of one or of a similar substance. The word ὁμοούσιον can be understood in a wrong sense. Let us prove that it can be understood in a very good sense. We hold one and the same sacred truth. I beseech you that we should agree that this truth, which is one and the same, should be regarded as sacred. Forgive me, brethren, as I have so often asked you to do. You are not Arians: why should you be thought to be Arians by denying the ὁμοούσιον ? (Hilary pf Poitiers, De Synodis – On the Councils, 88 – NPNF-2, 9.28 - bold emphasis mine)

Shall end this post with the assessments from two patristic scholars that are germane to our topic at hand:

It is certainly true that in the later chapters of the De Synodis Athanasius accepts that those who teach that the Son is homoiousios to the Father are ‘orthodox’, although he continues to maintain the superiority of homoousios to define the relationship of the Father and the Son. This argument is highly significant in the development of Athanasius’ polemic, as for the first time he acknowledges the possibility that a Christian might hold a different theology to his own, and yet not be ‘Arian’. (Gwynn, The Eusebians, p. 43)

In 360 Athanasius realized that Basil of Ancyra and he were basically fighting for the same cause, and held out a proposal of an alliance even if Basil and his friends retained their scruples about the keyword of the Nicene formula, 'identical in essence' (homoousios) : 'Those who accept the Nicene creed but have doubts about the term homoousios must not be treated as enemies ; we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers; they mean the same as we, and dispute only about the word.' The eirenic words introduce Athanasius' longest and best discussion of the meaning of the Nicene formula. The consequent rapprochement between Athanasius and the party of Basil of Ancyra was to contribute much to the ultimate defeat of Arianism. (Chadwick, The Early Church, 1967, p. 144)

 

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.