The Filioque in light of Revelation 22:1

[Catholic_Dude]

I came across an interesting find - though I found out this has been known about for some time - and that is the famous Greek term “proceeds” in John 15:26 that’s used in reference to the Holy Spirit “proceeding” from the Father. Well, it turns out the same Greek word is used elsewhere in the New Testament, but one occurrence is particularly interesting:
And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal,
proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb.
From this we see it is possible for something to proceed from the Father and the Son.

Now, if the “water of life” here is a symbolic term for the Holy Spirit, then that’s even more powerful. And it just so happens there is a very similar reference back in John 7,
38 He that believes in me, as the scripture says:
Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 Now this he said of the Spirit which they should receive who believed in him
The term “river”, and “water” are the same Greek words in Revelation 22:1, and the term “living” in 7:38 is of the same root as 22:1.

I don’t know about you, but that’s pretty awesome.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Wow, another big find from the Catechism of the Catholic Church making a comment about the liturgy:
CCC1137: “the river of the water of life . . . flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb,” one of most beautiful symbols of the Holy Spirit [Rev 22:1]
Thanks to Tim Stables in This Article for that find. Astonishingly, he doesn’t seem to realize the Greek term for the English word “flowing” here is the same “proceeds” as in John 15:26.

So by the Church’s own confirmation (although indirect), I can even more confidently say Revelation 22:1 is a good proof for the Filioque. At this point, I think it’s good to mention Tim’s analogy: Protestants say ‘Paul says we’re justified by faith’, yet that doesn’t demand ‘faith alone’; similarly, Eastern Orthodox say John 15:26 says ‘the Spirit proceeds from the Father’, yet that doesn’t demand the Father alone.

 

[dcointin]

My priest made a very similar comment in a homily once, but with a reading from Daniel 7 and conclusion:

"9 “As I looked,

“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
10 A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened."

His point was that the river of fire was the Holy Spirit, and it flowed from the father alone, not the Son.

 

[graceandglory]

I don’t know about you, but that’s pretty awesome.

Yes, it is pretty awesome!

 

[Ghosty]

My priest made a very similar comment in a homily once, but with a reading from Daniel 7 and conclusion:

"9 “As I looked,

“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
10 A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened."

His point was that the river of fire was the Holy Spirit, and it flowed from the father alone, not the Son.

Given that the description in Daniel matches the description of Christ in Revelation 1, I don’t think it can reasonably be used to indicate the Father “alone”, or even the Father at all; as can be seen in Revelation, it was Christ being described by Daniel. I’m kind of curious how this priest explained this disparity.

That being said, I don’t think any of this really clearly points to the filioque. At most it would seem to apply to the economic giving of the Holy Spirit, and though I believe this is an image of the internal Trinity this view is hardly the only one that can legitimately be taken.

I do believe in the filioque, and that the filioque is attested to by Scripture, but I don’t think this passage is a solid lock on the teaching.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dcointin]

Given that the description in Daniel matches the description of Christ in Revelation 1, I don’t think it can reasonably be used to indicate the Father “alone”, or even the Father at all; as can be seen in Revelation, it was Christ being described by Daniel. I’m kind of curious how this priest explained this disparity.

That being said, I don’t think any of this really clearly points to the filioque. At most it would seem to apply to the economic giving of the Holy Spirit, and though I believe this is an image of the internal Trinity this view is hardly the only one that can legitimately be taken.

I do believe in the filioque, and that the filioque is attested to by Scripture, but I don’t think this passage is a solid lock on the teaching.

Peace and God bless!

The Son of Man later in that chapter comes to the Ancient of Days, which indicates a difference of persons. The description of he Ancient of Days however is very similar to Christ in revelation, and the two scenes are definitely related.

I would be interested in hearing some patristic commentary on both of these passages. I’m also hesitant to use either as a proof text, but they are compelling.

I remembered my priests comments on this because they caused quite a problem with my fiancee and I. She’s Catholic, and was attending the liturgy with me when he started attacking the filioque in his homily. My parish is a small mission and she was the only Catholic so she took the comments personally and was very angry. I was as well, and it caused a row with my priest that I had to resolve in confession.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

At most it would seem to apply to the economic giving of the Holy Spirit, and though I believe this is an image of the internal Trinity this view is hardly the only one that can legitimately be taken.

What do you think of the two stages of the argument taken separately?

(1) It shows the term “proceeds” is not technical/reserved like “begotten,” and that something can “proceed” through two things. Is that valid to you?

(2) If the Holy Spirit is the “river of living water” as He is in John 7 and the Liturgy, then how can it not be saying Filioque?

The reason why I don’t think the “economic giving” answer makes sense is precisely because the term “proceeds” is used. That would mean taking “proceeds” in John 15:26 as non-economic is purely ad hoc. It’s akin to the Protestant argument that “justify” in Paul means “save” while “justify” in James means “vindicate”.

 

[dcointin]

What do you think of the two stages of the argument taken separately?

(1) It shows the term “proceeds” is not technical/reserved like “begotten,” and that something can “proceed” through two things. Is that valid to you?

(2) If the Holy Spirit is the “river of living water” as He is in John 7 and the Liturgy, then how can it not be saying Filioque?

The reason why I don’t think the “economic giving” answer makes sense is precisely because the term “proceeds” is used. That would mean taking “proceeds” in John 15:26 as non-economic is purely ad hoc. It’s akin to the Protestant argument that “justify” in Paul means “save” while “justify” in James means “vindicate”.

One objection I could see to the Revelation texts used as a proof of the filioque is that it describes a double procession and source, which is contrary to the careful Catholic dogma of procession from the Father through the Son. What do you think about that?

 

[Ghosty]

What do you think of the two stages of the argument taken separately?

(1) It shows the term “proceeds” is not technical/reserved like “begotten,” and that something can “proceed” through two things. Is that valid to you?

(2) If the Holy Spirit is the “river of living water” as He is in John 7 and the Liturgy, then how can it not be saying Filioque?

The reason why I don’t think the “economic giving” answer makes sense is precisely because the term “proceeds” is used. That would mean taking “proceeds” in John 15:26 as non-economic is purely ad hoc. It’s akin to the Protestant argument that “justify” in Paul means “save” while “justify” in James means “vindicate”.

Ekporousis, which is the term used, is simply a Greek work that only later took on theological significance when trying to define the Trinity. The fact that it is used in several different ways is no more significant than the fact that consubstantial is used in several different ways, but in theological discussion both have a much narrower meaning. Consubstantial, for example, can apply to two humans, or two oak trees, but when it’s used specifically to refer to the Trinity it takes on a different nuance.

Likewise, this term proceeds is being used in Revelations in its proper original meaning of simply flowing out of something else, in this case either one throne that is shared by two, or two thrones (I don’t understand the Greek well enough to know which number of thrones is correct). While it makes a compelling image I don’t think it really rises to the level of “proof-text” because the word ekporousis simply didn’t take on a theologically significant meaning until much, much later.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

One objection I could see to the Revelation texts used as a proof of the filioque is that it describes a double procession and source, which is contrary to the careful Catholic dogma of procession from the Father through the Son. What do you think about that?

I don’t see the text indicating there are two streams of the River that eventually turn into one, so I I don’t think double source makes sense. As for “double procession,” I’m not sure what you mean by that especially if there is once source: there is a “procession” from the Father through the Son.

 

[Ghosty]

One objection I could see to the Revelation texts used as a proof of the filioque is that it describes a double procession and source, which is contrary to the careful Catholic dogma of procession from the Father through the Son. What do you think about that?

I was going to raise this point as well, except that I don’t know if it’s referring to two thrones or one. If it’s referring to two distinct thrones, then the image (carried to its logical extent) is actually heretical if applied to the Trinity. If “the throne of God and of the Lamb” refers to only one throne, however, then it’s a legitimate image.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dcointin]

I mean that the river flows from both thrones equally, not from one throne into the other as the Filioque is often described, i.e a spring, river, and lake.

 

[Formosus]

Language is very fluid, even with Greek (that has done so well at retaining older usages even today). The writer of Revelations has terrible Greek. Further, technical theological vocabulary for the trinity didn’t develop till the 2nd council, some 300 years after Revelations was written. I think its fair to say that Revelations is not using the term the same way as later Greek speaking fathers would use it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ekporousis, which is the term used, is simply a Greek work that only later took on theological significance when trying to define the Trinity. The fact that it is used in several different ways is no more significant than the fact that consubstantial is used in several different ways, but in theological discussion both have a much narrower meaning. Consubstantial, for example, can apply to two humans, or two oak trees, but when it’s used specifically to refer to the Trinity it takes on a different nuance.

Likewise, this term proceeds is being used in Revelations in its proper original meaning of simply flowing out of something else, in this case either one throne that is shared by two, or two thrones (I don’t understand the Greek well enough to know which number of thrones is correct). While it makes a compelling image I don’t think it really rises to the level of “proof-text” because the word ekporousis simply didn’t take on a theologically significant meaning until much, much later.

Peace and God bless!

You make a good point. On the lines of differing meanings for the term consubstantial, let’s also remember that homoousion was at one point a modalist term which was later appropriated and defended by the Cappadocian fathers who gave it a more nuanced meaning.

Also, my Greek is pretty terrible, but I think that “εκπορευομενον εκ του θρονου του θεου και του αρνιου,” implies one throne possessed by God and the lamb, as θρονου is the singular genitive/ablative case of θρόνος.

 

[Formosus]

What do you think of the two stages of the argument taken separately?

(1) It shows the term “proceeds” is not technical/reserved like “begotten,” and that something can “proceed” through two things. Is that valid to you?

(2) If the Holy Spirit is the “river of living water” as He is in John 7 and the Liturgy, then how can it not be saying Filioque?

The reason why I don’t think the “economic giving” answer makes sense is precisely because the term “proceeds” is used. That would mean taking “proceeds” in John 15:26 as non-economic is purely ad hoc. It’s akin to the Protestant argument that “justify” in Paul means “save” while “justify” in James means “vindicate”.

The term “begotten” is a common Greek word that is not just a technical term for the Son. These words had quite a history of normal use before the Councils modified their meanings to refer to the Trinity.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I was going to raise this point as well, except that I don’t know if it’s referring to two thrones or one. If it’s referring to two distinct thrones, then the image (carried to its logical extent) is actually heretical if applied to the Trinity. If “the throne of God and of the Lamb” refers to only one throne, however, then it’s a legitimate image.

Peace and God bless!

Even if it were two distinct thrones, that in itself wouldn’t automatically be heretical because the source would be starting with the Father, then through the Son.

Language is very fluid, even with Greek (that has done so well at retaining older usages even today). The writer of Revelations has terrible Greek. Further, technical theological vocabulary for the trinity didn’t develop till the 2nd council, some 300 years after Revelations was written. I think its fair to say that Revelations is not using the term the same way as later Greek speaking fathers would use it.

The writer of Revelation is St John, the same John who composed the Gospel. To say he has “terrible Greek” is dangerous in light of the fact Scripture is ultimately inspired by God.

The term “begotten” is a common Greek word that is not just a technical term for the Son. These words had quite a history of normal use before the Councils modified their meanings to refer to the Trinity.

Within Scripture, the term is not used various ways, and there is a consistent application to Jesus being “only begotten Son” of God. The term “proceeds” is different, for it’s only used twice in reference to the Spirit (Jn 15:26 and Rev 22:1), otherwise “proceeds” is used often for other things.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

From what I see, when Revelation speaks of “the throne and Lamb” it is never speaking of two thrones, but rather one throne with the Father seated and the Lamb standing in front of it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Even if it were two distinct thrones, that in itself wouldn’t automatically be heretical because the source would be starting with the Father, then through the Son.

The writer of Revelation is St John, the same John who composed the Gospel. To say he has “terrible Greek” is dangerous in light of the fact Scripture is ultimately inspired by God.

It can’t be inspired by God, but also be in pretty lackluster Greek? There is only one religion, as far as I can tell, that argues that its scriptures must be linguistically perfect because they are God-inspired, and Christianity is not that religion.

Within Scripture, the term is not used various ways, and there is a consistent application to Jesus being “only begotten Son” of God. The term “proceeds” is different, for it’s only used twice in reference to the Spirit (Jn 15:26 and Rev 22:1), otherwise “proceeds” is used often for other things.

You are reading too much into it. At that time, ἐκπορευόμενον did not have the same theological implications that it did in later Cappadocian thought, the same way that the Greek term μονογενὴς, did not have the Trinitarian implications it has now in post-nicene times as it did in ante-nicene times.

 

[Hesychios]

E

The writer of Revelation is St John, the same John who composed the Gospel. To say he has “terrible Greek” is dangerous in light of the fact Scripture is ultimately inspired by God.
.

Your church would not back you up on this statement.

 

[Vico]

I don’t see the text indicating there are two streams of the River that eventually turn into one, so I I don’t think double source makes sense. As for “double procession,” I’m not sure what you mean by that especially if there is once source: there is a “procession” from the Father through the Son.

Historically there are two meanings of double procession. One, not Catholic, is that both the Father and the Son are the sources of the Holy Spirit. The other meaning is that there are two internal processions: 1) Son is begotten of the Father, and 2) Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (through the Son).