Proverbs 8:22 – Wisdom interpreted as Jesus Christ in Athanasius and Eusebius of Caesarea (his post-Nicene Creed thought)

On December 30, 2015 I published a post that delved into the interpretation of Proverbs 8:22 by nine pre-Nicene Church Fathers (link). Eight of those nine pre-Nicene Church Fathers applied the passage to the pre-existent Jesus Christ. Almost two years later (December 5, 2020) I provided germane quotes from another pre-Nicene Church Father who taught that the wisdom referenced in Proverbs 8:22 was the pre-existent Jesus Christ (link).

In this post, I advance forward from the pre-Nicene Fathers to the post-Nicene Fathers. The period between the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) was one of theological instability due to the Arian crisis. Representative of this instability was the emergence of two new interpretations of Proverbs 8:22 that deviated from the ten pre-Nicene Fathers previously cited--i.e the pro-Arians who affirmed the verse taught that the pre-existent Jesus was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) by God the Father; and a few pro-Nicenes who taught the passage was a reference to Jesus' human nature only. With that said, it should be kept in mind that apart from Irenaeus who believed that wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-31 was the Holy Spirit, representatives of the three other interpretations all maintained that this wisdom was Jesus Christ.

The rest of this post will focus on Athanasius' and Eusebius of Caesarea's post-Nicene understanding of wisdom as found in Proverbs 8:22-31.

The most extensive analysis of Proverbs 8:22-31 that is found in the extant writings of the Church Fathers is provided by Athanasius in his apologetic work, Against the Arians (Discourse II). This analysis is contained within pages 357-393 of John Henry Newman’s English translation—as revised by Archibald Robertson—in the fourth volume of The Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (Series II). [This translation will be the source for all the following quotes from Athanasius - online PDF here.]

Two important observations should be kept in mind when reading Athanasius’ treatment of Proverbs 8:22-31. First, Athanasius does not challenge LXX translation of the Hebrew word qanah/kanah as ἔκτισέν (created). Second, Wisdom as portrayed in Proverbs 8:22-31 for Athanasius is first and foremost God’s Word and only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

Athanasius begins his examination of Proverbs 8:22-31 with the following from verse 22:

Now in the next place let us consider the passage in the Proverbs, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works;’ although in shewing that the Word is no work, it has been also shewn that He is no creature. (Page 357)

And:

Let the Word then be excepted from the works, and as Creator be restored to the Father, and be confessed to be Son by nature ; (Page 359)

He then adds:

And if through Him He creates and makes, He is not Himself of things created and made ; but rather He is the Word of the Creator God, and is known from the Father’s works which He Himself worketh, to be ‘in the Father and the Father in Him,’ and ‘He that hath seen Him hath seen the Father,’ because the Son’s Essence is proper to the Father, and He in all points like Him. How then does He create through Him, unless it be His Word and His Wisdom? and how can He be Word and Wisdom, unless He be the proper offspring of His Essences, and did not come to be, as others, out of nothing? (Page 360)

Athansius' main focus in his overall apologia against Arianism is that God's Word/Son "is no work", but rather an offspring from His divine essence/nature. [See the following two posts here at AF for quotes that are germane to this view: first, second. 

In chapter XVIII of Discourse II (pp. 364-372), Athanasius provides even greater support for his view that God’s Son/Wisdom/Word cannot be a creature as the Arians teach.

Chapter XIX is devoted to Athanasius’ understanding of verse 22, which is translated by Newman as: ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways, for His works’. Note the following:

For the very passage proves that it is only an invention of your own [i.e. the Arians] to call the Lord creature. For the Lord, knowing His own Essence to be the Only-begotten Wisdom and Offspring of the Father, and other than things originate and natural creatures, says in love to man, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,’ as if to say, ‘My Father hath prepared for Me a body, and has created Me for men in behalf of their salvation.’ For, as when John says, ‘The Word was made flesh, we do not conceive the whole Word Himself to be flesh?, but to have put on flesh and become man, and on hearing, ‘Christ hath become a curse for us,’ and ‘He hath made Him sin for us who knew no sin,’ we do not simply conceive this, that whole Christ has become curse and sin, but that He has taken on Him the curse which lay against us (as the Apostle has said, ‘Has redeemed us from the curse,’ and ‘has carried,’ as Isaiah has said, ‘our sins,’ and as Peter has written, ‘has borne them in the body on the wood) ; so, if it is said in the Proverbs ‘He created,’ we must not conceive that the whole Word is in nature a creature, but that He put on the created body and that God created Him for our sakes, preparing for Him the created body, as it is written, for us, that in Him we might be capable of being renewed and deified. (Page 374 - bold emphasis mine)

It is the above interpretation of verse 22 where Athanasius departs from ten pre-Nicene Church Fathers that I cited in my previous posts. Those CFs maintained that ἔκτισέν (created) can also be understood as ‘begotten’, and rejected the notion that the Son/Word/Wisdom was created from nothing. As such, they saw no need to attribute verse 22 to the body Jesus Christ assumed via the incarnation.

Unlike Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea retained the pre-Nicene patristic interpretation of verse 22; rather than singling out verse 22 from the rest of Proverbs 8:22-31 and applying this sole verse to Jesus Christ's human body, Eusebius maintained that all of Proverbs 8:22-31 spoke to the pre-existent Jesus Christ as God's Only-begotten Son, His Word and Wisdom.

In his last major theological work—the post-Nicene On Ecclesiastical Theology—he clearly applies all of Proverbs 8:22-31 to the pre-existent, pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. After quoting Proverbs 8:12-31 in the first chapter of Book 3, he writes:

Chapter 2

(1) Wisdom says these things about herself in Proverbs. I have deliberately laid these out in their entirety out of necessity, having shown that the one who says these is one person, since there is no change of speaker in the middle [of the passage]. Therefore, Wisdom is shown to be teaching these things about herself. And here in the first place it must be noted in what an indefinite way she is called Wisdom. For [the text] says, “I live with prudence”; yet it does not say the “Wisdom of God.” But just as in the evangelist, the statement “in the beginning was the Word” was written indefinitely, and again, “The Word was with God,” and it was not said, “the Word of God,” so that no one might think that he is spoken of as something that exists in relation to something else, nor as an accident in God, but as subsisting and living (for which reason [the text] adds, “and the Word was God,” and did not say, (2) “the Word was of God”); the same also applies in the case of Wisdom. For God, the Word, and Wisdom are one and the same. For this reason, she is named in Proverbs indefinitely, not only in the previously cited words, but also, to be sure, through remarks like this: “Happy are those who find Wisdom,” and, “God by Wisdom founded the earth,” and, “Say to Wisdom, you are my sister,” and, “Proclaim Wisdom so that understanding might attend you,” (3) and, “Wisdom is better than jewels,” and, “Wisdom built her house, and set up seven pillars,” and all the other statements akin to these [that] are presented in the same book. In none of them was Wisdom said to be of God, but Wisdom without qualification, so that we might not think it is some accidental thing that is a contingent feature of God, like knowledge in an intelligent man, but subsisting and living Wisdom, the very same as the (4) Son of God. (Eusebius, The Fathers of the Church, Volume 135 - Against Marcellus and On Ecclesiastical Theology, trans. Kelley McCarthy Spoerl and Markus Vinzent, Book 3, Chapter 2, pp. 276-277 –bold emphasis mine.)

A bit later, Eusebius distances himself the Arian interpretation of verse 22. Note the following:

...if you suppose that these remarks apply to the Son (for he himself was Wisdom), the entire passage will read well, since no impious thought provides an impediment, given that the Apostle Paul gives testimony that agrees with this; with unmistakable clarity he named our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ “Wisdom,” having said, “Christ the power and wisdom of God.” [1 Cor. 1:24] (8) Since these things are so, it follows from all that has been laid out previously that the statement “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works” has also been said by him.

If he says, however, that he himself was created, he did not say this as if he had come into being from what is not, nor as if he were like the rest of the creatures and he himself had come into being from nothing, as some have supposed incorrectly, but as if he both subsisted and lived, and was before and preexisted the establishment of the whole cosmos, having been appointed to rule the universe by the Lord, his Father. (Ibid. p. 278 – bold emphasis mine.)

In addition to clearly rejecting the defining Arian doctrine that God’s Son/Wisdom was created “from what was not”, Eusebius is now beginning to distance himself from the LXX translation of verse 22. He then writes:

Therefore, do not wonder if metaphorically also in that statement, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,” the verb he created was used for he established or he appointed me to rule...

And if one searched at one’s leisure, one would find myriads of metaphorical statements throughout the whole of the divine Scripture, some of which have a complex meaning, and still others that are predicated univocally of different things, concerning which it would be no small task to pursue at the present time.

Therefore, in this way, even here the statement, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,” was used for, “He appointed me to rule over his works.” For this reason, [Scripture] did not simply say, “He created me,” but added, “as the beginning of his ways for his works.”

The Hebrew text explicitly shows this. And so, if someone should investigate the true meaning of the divinely inspired Scripture, he would find that the Hebrew reading did not include [the phrase] “He created me,” for which reason none of the remaining translators made use of this wording. For example, Aquila said, “The Lord acquired me as the head of his ways,” while Symmachus said, “The Lord acquired me as the beginning of his ways,” and Theodotion said, “The Lord acquired me as the beginning of his way,” and the translation seems reasonable. (Ibid. pp. 280-281)

Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion were second century A.D. translators of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Their translations were included in Origen's Hexapla. Utilizing these non-LXX translations, Eusebius then writes the following:

“The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works,” or, “The Lord acquired me,” according to the previously (21) cited translation. For the great acquisition of God was the only-begotten Son, first in that he came into existence from him since he is his Son, and second in that he was appointed the benefactor and Savior of all. And so he is and was named the greatest and most honored acquisition of the Father. For there could be no other acquisition of the Father’s more honored than the Son. (Ibid. p. 282 bold emphasis mine.)

He then adds:

Now kana [kanah or qanah] is used for “he acquired” in Hebrew. In this way it was said of Abraham, “the field that Abraham acquired (ἐκτήσατο),” for which the Hebrew has kana, the same term used in the Hebrew and in [the phrase] “The Lord created (ἔκτισεν) me as the beginning of his ways for his works.” For given that the verb kana is used here, all the translators are unanimous in rendering it with “he acquired.” (23) But the phrase “he created” was rejected by the Hebrews, which is not found in the Scripture that lies before [us].

There would be a very great difference between “he created” and “he acquired,” by which “creation,” according to common opinion, shows the passage from nothingness into being, while “acquiring” characterizes the belonging of something that already pre-existed (24) to someone who had acquired [it].

Now, when the Son of God says, “The Lord acquired me as the beginning of his ways for his works,” at one and the same time he revealed his pre-existence and his characteristic belonging to the Father, and also the usefulness and necessity of his own (25) foresight and government with regard to the Father’s works. For this reason, he next adds, “Before the age, he founded me, at the first, before the making of the earth. Before the making of the depths, before the springs abounding with water came forth, before the mountains had been shaped, before all the hills, he begets me,” through all of which statements his usefulness and necessity to all is shown, teaching that he both was and pre-existed, and ruled over the whole cosmos, and guided it in accordance with its needs. (Ibid. pp. 282-283 – bold emphasis mine.)

Shall end here for now…

 

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

Athanaius: did he teach Sabellianism (i.e. modalism) ???

I have recently encountered the proposition that Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373) was not a Trinitarian, but rather, that he was a Sabellian (i.e. modalist).

The first instance of connecting Athanasius with Sabellianism that I came across occurred back on 11-26-2023 via my reading of a post published by Andries van Niekerk on his blog From Daniel to Revelation under the title, 'The Sabellians of the Fourth Century'. Andries wrote:

Note that the West also vindicated Athanasius. His theology was similar to the Sabellians...

And:

Another article provides further evidence of the Sabellian leaning of the theologies of Alexander and Athanasius. For example, “Studer’s account here follows the increasingly prominent scholarly position that Athanasius’ theology offers a strongly unitarian Trinitarian theology whose account of personal differentiation is underdeveloped.” (LA, 238) The question is, why did the West vindicate these two Sabellians?

The 'Another article' mentioned (and linked to) by Andries was published under the title, 'Was Athanasius a Sabellian?' From that post we read:

There is no real difference between the theology of Alexander and Athanasius and the main Sabellians of their time; Eustathius and Marcellus. As ‘one hypostasis’ theologians, Alexander and Athanasius were part of a minority in this church. And since both Sabellius’ theology and the term homoousios were already formally rejected as heretical by the church during the preceding century, they followed an already discredited theology.

The Western Council of Serdica in 343, where Athanasius played a dominant part, is devastating evidence. It explicitly describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one hypostasis and Athanasius approved and supported this creed. People struggle with this conclusion is that it shows that Athanasius, who is regarded as the hero of the Arian Controversy, was a Sabellian; not a Trinitarian.

Before moving on to my second recent encounter with the notion that Athanasius was a Sabellian, I would like to mention I have been following Andries blog for over two years now. It began shortly after Andries posted a few comments back in late November 2021 in an old thread here at AF [LINK]. (Interestingly enough, earlier this week during some online research I discovered that Andries had also published the material from the two above mentioned threads at the Christianity Stack Exchange [LINK].)

With this background information in place, I suspect that folks reading this post will be as surprised as I was that in a mere seven days after reading Andries’ posts on Athanasius and Sabellianism, I began receiving emails from a knowlegable member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who has embraced the proposition that Athanasius was a modalist/Sabellian. (My December 10, 2023 AF post  was inspired by our email exchanges.)

Prior to all this, I was involved in an email exchange—beginning on August 30th—with an advocate of neo-modalism who had questions concerning my AF post, James White's (mis)use of Melito of Sardis as an early witness to the incarnation of God (the Son) [December 5, 2011 - LINK].

There is one more connection that warrants mentioning: the LDS gent mentioned above is a friend with Errol Amey. Errol has a keen interest in patristics, and has contributed a number of informative comments in a few threads here at AF. And so, we have four gents mentioned above, that have at least three interests in common—patristics, theology, and challenging/respectful dialogue—who are in one way or another linked to this current post.

It is now time to delve into why I maintain Athanasius was not a Sabellian/modalist. One of Andries’ arguments—which initially seems quite strong and compelling—is that,"Athanasius opposed the concept of 'three hypostases'" and taught the "Father and Son are only one Hypostasis". (LINK)

Though Athanasius wrote in at least two extant documents that the Father and Son are 'one hypostasis', he also acknowleged that they are 'three hypostases'. Note the following:

And how do the impious men venture to speak folly, as they ought not, being men and unable to find out how to describe even what is on the earth? But why do I say 'what is on the earth?' Let them tell us their own nature, if they can discover how to investigate their own nature? Rash they are indeed, and self-willed, not trembling to form opinions of things which angels desire to look into (i Pet. i. 12), who are so far above them, both in nature and in rank. For what is nearer [God] than the Cherubim or the Seraphim? And yet they, not even seeing Him, nor standing on their feet, nor even with bare, but as it were with veiled faces, offer their praises, with untiring lips doing nought else but glorify the divine and ineffable nature with the Trisagion. And nowhere has any one of the divinely speaking prophets, men specially selected for such vision, reported to us that in the first utterance of the word Holy the voice is raised aloud, while in the second it is lower, but in the third, quite low,—and that consequently the first utterance denotes lordship, the second subordination, and the third marks a yet lower degree. But away with the folly of these haters of God and senseless men. For the Triad [Τριὰς], praised, reverenced, and adored, is one and indivisible and without degrees (ἀσχηματιστός). It is united without confusion, just as the Monad also is distinguished without separation. For the fact of those venerable living creatures (Isa. vi. ; Rev. iv. 8) offering their praises three times, saying 'Holy, Holy, Holy,' proves that the Three Subsistences [τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις] are perfect, just as in saying 'Lord,' they declare the One Essence. They then that depreciate the Only-begotten Son of God blaspheme God, defaming His perfection and accusing Him of imperfection, and render themselves liable to the severest chastisement. For he that blasphemes any one of the Subsistences [τῶν ὑποστάσεων] shall have remission neither in this world nor in that which is to come. But God is able to open the eyes of their heart to contemplate the Sun of Righteousness, in order that coming to know Him whom they formerly set at nought, they may with unswerving piety of mind together with us glorify Him, because to Him belongs the kingdom, even to the Father Son and Holy Spirit, now and for ever. Amen. [Athanasius, In Illud ‘Omnia’, Mihi Tradita – On Luke x. 22 (Matt. Xi. 27) - NPNF 4.90]

And:

And prohibit even the reading or publication of the paper, much talked of by some, as having been drawn up concerning the Faith at the synod of Sardica. For the synod made no definition of the kind. For whereas some demanded, on the ground that the Nicene synod was defective, the drafting of a creed, and in their haste even attempted it, the holy synod assembled in Sardica was indignant, and decreed that no statement of faith should be drafted, but that they should be content with the Faith confessed by the fathers at Nicaea, inasmuch as it lacked nothing but was full of piety, and that it was undesirable for a second creed to be promulged, lest that drafted at Nicaea should be deemed imperfect, and a pretext be given to those who were often wishing to draft and define a creed. So that if a man propound the above or any other paper, stop them, and persuade them rather to keep the peace. For in such men we perceive no motive save only contentiousness. For as to those whom some were blaming for speaking of three Subsistences [τρεῖς λέγοντας ὑποστάσεις], on the ground that the phrase is unscriptural and therefore suspicious, we thought it right indeed to require nothing beyond the confession of Nicaea, but on account of the contention we made enquiry of them, whether they meant, like the Arian madmen, subsistences [τριοουσίους] foreign and strange, and alien in essence [οὐσίας] from one another, and that each Subsistence [ὑπόστασιν] was divided apart by itself, as is the case with creatures in general and in particular with those begotten of men, or like different substances, such as gold, silver, or brass ;—or whether, like other heretics, they meant three Beginnings and three Gods, by speaking of three Subsistences [τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις λέγωσι].

They assured us in reply that they neither meant this nor had ever held it. But upon our asking them 'what then do you mean by it, or why do you use such expressions?' they replied. Because they believed in a Holy Trinity [ἁγίαν Τριάδα], not a trinity [Τριάδα] in name only, but existing and subsisting in truth, 'both a Father truly existing and subsisting, and a Son truly substantial and subsisting, and a Holy Spirit subsisting and really existing do we acknowledge,' and that neither had they said there were three Gods or three beginnings, nor would they at all tolerate such as said or held so, but that they acknowledged a Holy Trinity [ἁγίαν μὲν Τριάδα] but One Godhead [μίαν δὲ θεότητα], and one Beginning, and that the Son is coessential [ὁμοούσιον] with the Father, as the fathers said; while the Holy Spirit is not a creature, nor external, but proper to and inseparable from the Essence [τῆς οὐσίας] of the Father and the Son. (Athanasius, Tomus ad Antiochenos - Tome to the People of Antioch, Paragraph 5 - NPNF 4.484)

Having accepted then these men's interpretation and defence of their language, we made enquiry of those blamed by them for speaking of One Subsistence, whether they use the expression in the sense of Sabellius, to the negation of the Son and the Holy Spirit, or as though the Son were non-substantial, or the Holy Spirit impersonal. But they in their turn assured us that they neither meant this nor had ever held it, but 'we use the word Subsistence thinking it the same thing to say Subsistence or Essence [ὑπόστασιν μὲν λέγομεν ἡγούμενοι ταὐτὸν εἶναι εἰπεῖν ὑπόστασιν καὶ οὐσίαν];' 'But we hold that there is One, because the Son is of the Essence of the Father [ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας], and because of the identity of nature [τὴν ταυτότητα τῆς φύσεως]. For we believe that there is one Godhead [μίαν γὰρ θεότητα], and that it has one nature [φύσιν],  and not that there is one nature of the Father, from which that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are distinct.' Well, thereupon they who had been blamed for saying there were three Subsistences [τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις] agreed with the others, while those who had spoken of One Essence, also confessed the doctrine of the former as interpreted by them. And by both sides Arius was anathematised as an adversary of Christ, and Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata, as impious men, and Valentinus and Basilides as aliens from the truth, and Manichasus as an inventor of mischief. And all, by God's grace, and after the above explanations, agree together that the faith confessed by the fathers at Nicaea is better than the said phrases, and that for the future they would prefer to be content to use its language. (Athanasius, Tomus ad Antiochenos - Tome to the People of Antioch, Paragraph 6 - NPNF 4.484, 485)

Clearly, Athanasius used the term 'hypostasis/hypostases' in two, distinct senses. In one sense, he equated 'hypostasis' with 'ousia' and 'theotēs', and in a second sense, with the personal distinctions of the three members of the Trinity. He also made it quite clear that he separated himself from those folk who embraced a Sabellian sense of the term. With these facts in place, I must conclude that Athanasius did not embrace Sabellianism.

Grace and peace,

David

Homoousios, Monoousios and Tautoousios

This last week, I have been dialoguing with a gent via email on the topic concerning the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. Folk familiar with this blog are aware that I prefer to speak of differing Trinitarian concepts, rather than ‘the doctrine of the Trinity’—but I digress…

Our dialogue has touched on the terms homoousios and hypostasis as used in the original Nicene Creed (325), as well as the subsequent period of doctrinal development up to the Council of Constantinople. Two previous threads published here at AF, have been referenced during the discussion—The original Nicene Creed and semantic confusion and Monoousios vs. Homoousios—which should be useful for folk interested in our topic at hand.

Our ongoing dialogue has precipitated some renewed research on my part into the issues being raised, and this last Friday (12-08-23) I discovered an informative essay by Prof. John S. Romanides—The Christological Teaching of St. John of Damascus—that is germane to the discussion. The following from the essay caught my eye:

Differing terminology pointing to one single concrete revelatory reality was seen clearly by St. Athanasius in regard to those who rejected the homoousios but accepted that the Logos is of an ousia similar in everything to that of the Father and from the ousia of the Father. St. Athanasius claims that this is exactly what he himself means by homoousios.

The “those" being refernced by Fr. Romanides are those bishops who preferred the term homoiousios, when speaking of the relationship between the Son of God and God the Father. Concerning these folk, Athanasius wrote:

...those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Coessential, 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, 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, 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.' [On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia (de Synodis) - NPNF series 2, 4.472.]

In his essay, Fr. Romanides points out that differing terminology in certain contexts meant the same thing—i.e. homoousios and homoiousios—whilst the same term could mean something different. The term homoousios was a prime example; some folk understood the term in a strict numerical sense (one essence), whilst others in a generic sense (same essence)—see the Monoousios vs. Homoousios thread. Concerning this issue, Fr. Romanides mentions a term— tautoousios —that I did not recall reading about in my previous studies; note the following:

...the Orthodox themselves were split over the use of the term "homoousios" because many were afraid that it denoted a Sabellian confusion of the Hypostases and could be taken to mean "tautoousios." This was finally precluded by the general acceptance of the Cappadocian distinction between Hypostases and ousia, which Augustine and the Franks who followed him never understood.

Immediately after coming across the term, I pulled Lampe’s exhaustive tome, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, off of the shelf and read:

*tautoousios (*tautousios), of the same substance, identical in essence; Trin. ; 1. dist. from homoousios and rejected by orthodox...Epiph.Aaer.65.8 (p.11, 10; M.42.25A); [p.1377]

The following is Frank Williams' English translation of the Epiph.Aaer.65.8  reference listed by Lampe:

8,1 And so there are not two Gods, because there are not two Fathers. And the subsistence of the Word is not eliminated, since there is not one [mere] combination of the Son’s Godhead with the Father. For the Son is not of an essence different [ἑτεροούσιος] from the Father, but of the same essence [ὁμοούσιος] as the Father. He cannot be of an essence different [ἑτεροούσιος] from his Begetter’s or of the identical essence [ταυτοούσιος]; he is of the same essence [ὁμοούσιος] as the Father. (Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, 1994, p. 217)

Epiphanius is making clear distinctions between those who teach that the Son is of a ‘different essence’ [ἑτεροούσιος] than the Father (i.e. Arians) and those who believe he is of an ‘identical essence’ [ταυτοούσιος] (i.e. Sabellians/modalists) with the Father, with the ‘orthodox’ who maintain that he is of the ‘same essence’ [ὁμοούσιος] as the Father.

Athanasius makes a similar distinction between monoousios and homoousios, referencing the Sabellians. The following is from the Monoousios vs. Homoousios thread:

>>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.>>

Conclusion: in many doctrinal discussions, it is important to realize that different terms can sometimes be used to mean the same thing, whilst the same term can carry a different meaning for opposing sides when attempting to define their respective positions.

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.