Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Osborne - Filioque in Rev. 3:1

Expand Messages
  • c.s.bartholomew
    In front matter of Grant Osborn s Revelation ECNT, the general editor Moises Silva (p. x) notes that this commentary series is going to include an interpretive
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 14, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      In front matter of Grant Osborn's Revelation ECNT, the general editor Moises
      Silva (p. x) notes that this commentary series is going to include an
      interpretive framework positioned within orthodox dogma, including the
      ecumenical creeds, reformed confessions, etc.

      Osborn appears to have taken this objective seriously. The language of
      orthodox dogmatics keeps popping up in his comments. For some folks who have
      become accustom to divorcing biblical studies form dogmatics, these comments
      may come as something of a shock.

      For example, in Osborn's comments on Rev 3:1 (pp. 36, 73) (see also on 1:4),
      he cites hO ECWN TA hEPTA PNEUMATA TOU QEOU as support for Filioque, or the
      procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son. "Credimus in
      Spiritum Sanctum qui a Patre Filioque procedit" (Constantinopolitan Creed,
      L. Berkof Sys.Theo. p.96-97).

      Osborn's comments on this are quite brief, no mention of the creed, no
      quotations from Latin sources, but never the less he does connect Rev. 3:1
      with Filioque with might raise some eyebrows.

      My objection to this is primarily methodological. The identity of the
      referent(s) of:

      1:4 hEPTA PNEUMATWN hA ENWPION TOU QRONOU AUTOU
      3:1 hEPTA PNEUMATA TOU QEOU

      is a subject of controversy. If we grant that hEPTA PNEUMATA TOU QEOU has
      the Holy Spirit as a referent, it still seems somewhat of a reach to see 3:1
      as a "proof text" for Filioque. In other words this is building a dubious
      case from a dubious premise which makes the end product doubly dubious.

      Don't get me wrong. I am not objecting to the idea of interacting with
      orthodox dogamtics. That is one of the features of this book which makes it
      a stimulating reading experience. What I am objecting to is drawing a
      controversial theological inference from an ambiguous text.

      I am certain that there are some NT scholars that will find the whole notion
      of of interacting with orthodox dogamtics in a NT commentary "heretical,"
      but that is not my point here.

      greetings, Clay




      REV. 1:4 IWANNHS TAIS hEPTA EKKLHSIAIS TAIS EN THi ASIAi: CARIS hUMIN KAI
      EIRHNH APO hO WN KAI hO HN KAI hO ERCOMENOS KAI APO TWN hEPTA PNEUMATWN hA
      ENWPION TOU QRONOU AUTOU
      REV. 3:1 KAI TWi AGGELWi THS EN SARDESIN EKKLHSIAS GRAYON: TADE LEGEI hO
      ECWN TA hEPTA PNEUMATA TOU QEOU KAI TOUS hEPTA ASTERAS: OIDA SOU TA ERGA
      hOTI ONOMA ECEIS hOTI ZHiS, KAI NEKROS EI.




      --
      Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
      Three Tree Point
      P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
    • Pere Porta Roca
      ... From: c.s.bartholomew To: Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 10:06 PM Subject:
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 14, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "c.s.bartholomew" <c.s.bartholomew@...>
        To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 10:06 PM
        Subject: [revelation-list] Osborne - Filioque in Rev. 3:1


        "Credimus in
        > Spiritum Sanctum qui a Patre Filioque procedit" (Constantinopolitan Creed,
        > L. Berkof Sys.Theo. p.96-97).
        >
        no quotations from Latin sources, but

        Let me say something that perhaps is not of a high level and excuse me for
        this as I'm a new list fellow.
        Does it make any sense speaking of 'Latin sources' if the original
        Constatinopolitan Creed text is greek and by no means latin? See
        http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/polycarp66/creed.htm?mtbrand=AOL_US. If right
        and correct, in this text one reads 'to ek tou patros ekporeuomenon'. No
        mention of the Son.

        Pere
      • Georg S. Adamsen
        Is it Osborne who speaks of Latin sources? Georg S. Adamsen
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 15, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Is it Osborne who speaks of Latin sources?

          Georg S. Adamsen

          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Pere Porta Roca [mailto:pporta@...]
          > Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 6:00 AM
          > To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Osborne - Filioque in Rev. 3:1
          >
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "c.s.bartholomew" <c.s.bartholomew@...>
          > To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 10:06 PM
          > Subject: [revelation-list] Osborne - Filioque in Rev. 3:1
          >
          >
          > "Credimus in
          > > Spiritum Sanctum qui a Patre Filioque procedit"
          > (Constantinopolitan Creed,
          > > L. Berkof Sys.Theo. p.96-97).
          > >
          > no quotations from Latin sources, but
          >
          > Let me say something that perhaps is not of a high level and
          > excuse me for
          > this as I'm a new list fellow.
          > Does it make any sense speaking of 'Latin sources' if the original
          > Constatinopolitan Creed text is greek and by no means latin? See
          > http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/polycarp66/creed.htm?mtbrand=AOL_
          > US. If right
          > and correct, in this text one reads 'to ek tou patros
          > ekporeuomenon'. No
          > mention of the Son.
          >
          > Pere
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          > ---------------------~-->
          > Get a FREE REFINANCE QUOTE - click here!
          > http://us.click.yahoo.com/2CXtTB/ca0FAA/i5gGAA/J2VolB/TM
          > --------------------------------------------------------------
          > -------~->
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
        • c.s.bartholomew
          Hello Georg, ... No. Osborne (p.36) says in English: In 3:1 Sardis is told that Christ holds the sevenfold Sprit of God, indicating that he is the Spirit
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 15, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello Georg,

            on 4/15/03 12:41 AM, Georg S. Adamsen wrote:

            > Is it Osborne who speaks of Latin sources?

            No. Osborne (p.36) says in English:

            "In 3:1 Sardis is told that Christ 'holds the sevenfold Sprit of God,'
            indicating that he is the 'Spirit of Christ' sent by the Son as well as the
            Father."

            on 4/14/03 9:00 PM, Pere Porta Roca wrote:

            > Let me say something that perhaps is not of a high level and excuse me for
            > this as I'm a new list fellow.
            > Does it make any sense speaking of 'Latin sources' if the original
            > Constatinopolitan Creed text is greek and by no means latin? See
            > http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/polycarp66/creed.htm?mtbrand=AOL_US. If right
            > and correct, in this text one reads 'to ek tou patros ekporeuomenon'. No
            > mention of the Son.

            Thanks for pointing this out Pere. You are correct. L.Berkof* states that
            Latin version of the Constatinopolitan Creed was modified to read:
            "Credimus in Spiritum Sanctum qui a Patre Filioque procedit" by a decision
            reached at the Synod of Toledo (589 AD). The Eastern Church didn't accept
            this decision.

            What struck me in Osborne was the expression "sent by the Son as well as the
            Father" which is a neat inversion of the Latin.

            This is getting a little far from the book Revelation, but thanks for the
            clarifications and corrections.

            greetings, Clay

            --
            Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
            Three Tree Point
            P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

            *(L. Berkof Sys.Theo. p.96-97)
          • c.s.bartholomew
            ... Osborne seems to be building his case for sent by the Son from several texts: Osborne on 3:1 (p173) ... Jesus holds (ECWN ... connotes divine
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 15, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              on 4/15/03 8:55 AM, c.s.bartholomew wrote:

              > Osborne (p.36) says in English:
              >
              > "In 3:1 Sardis is told that Christ 'holds the sevenfold Sprit of God,'
              > indicating that he is the 'Spirit of Christ' sent by the Son as well as the
              > Father."

              Osborne seems to be building his case for "sent by the Son" from several
              texts:

              Osborne on 3:1 (p173)

              "... Jesus 'holds' (ECWN ... connotes divine control, as in 1:16,18) the
              'Seven Spirits,' a likely reference to the 'sevenfold Holy Spirit' (from
              Zech. 4:2,10) ..."

              Osborne on 5:6 (p257)

              "... more likely refers to the 'sevenfold Holy Spirit' described here as
              APESTALMENOI EIS PASAN THN GHN (... sent into all the earth) ... "

              Osborn's logic seems to run something like this. Jesus is shown to hold
              authority over TA hEPTA PNEUMATA TOU QEOU (3:1) which are sent into all the
              earth (5:6). Based on this and statements made by Jesus in John's Gospel
              (Jn. 14:26; 15:26 and 16:7) we can conclude that "the Holy Spirit is 'sent'
              by the Father and Jesus to carry out their mission to the world, ... "
              (Osborne p. 257).

              I have one or two additional objections. APESTALMENOI in Rev. 5:6 is a
              perfect passive with no agent specified. It may be a "divine passive" but
              that does not make Jesus the explicit agent.

              Also, this whole procedure of daisy-chaining texts together from the John's
              Gospel and Revelation might appear to some as taking us back in the
              direction of Charles Hodge. Perhaps that is overstating the case.

              Once again, I applaud the idea of doing biblical theology within a
              commentary on Revelation. The problem is how to do this. It is a notoriously
              difficult nut to crack.

              This is probably far from a perfect reconstruction of Osborn's line of
              thought, but it does serve to illustrate the style of his commentary.

              It is a good book. Read it.

              Clay

              --
              Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
              Three Tree Point
              P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062




              REV. 3:1 KAI TWi AGGELWi THS EN SARDESIN EKKLHSIAS GRAYON: TADE LEGEI hO
              ECWN TA hEPTA PNEUMATA TOU QEOU KAI TOUS hEPTA ASTERAS: OIDA SOU TA ERGA
              hOTI ONOMA ECEIS hOTI ZHiS, KAI NEKROS EI.

              REV. 5:6 KAI EIDON EN MESWi TOU QRONOU KAI TWN TESSARWN ZWiWN KAI EN MESWi
              TWN PRESBUTERWN ARNION hESTHKOS hWS ESFAGMENON ECWN KERATA hEPTA KAI
              OFQALMOUS hEPTA hOI EISIN TA [hEPTA] PNEUMATA TOU QEOU APESTALMENOI EIS
              PASAN THN GHN.

              --
            • John C. Poirier
              Clay, Perhaps there is a problem with the daisy-chaining, as you call it, but doesn t the greater difficulty lie in the assumption that the sending of the
              Message 6 of 7 , Apr 15, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Clay,

                Perhaps there is a problem with the "daisy-chaining," as you call it, but doesn't
                the greater difficulty lie in the assumption that the "sending" of the Spirit in
                a NT spirit christology is at all related to the emanationist identification of
                the Spirit in the councils' Trinitarian theology? For Luke (or anyone else) to
                envision Jesus sending the Spirit doesn't imply that he thinks of the Spirit as
                proceeding from the Son within the ontological economy of the Trinity.


                John C. Poirier
                Middletown, Ohio


                "c.s.bartholomew" wrote:

                > on 4/15/03 8:55 AM, c.s.bartholomew wrote:
                >
                > > Osborne (p.36) says in English:
                > >
                > > "In 3:1 Sardis is told that Christ 'holds the sevenfold Sprit of God,'
                > > indicating that he is the 'Spirit of Christ' sent by the Son as well as the
                > > Father."
                >
                > Osborne seems to be building his case for "sent by the Son" from several
                > texts:
                >
                > Osborne on 3:1 (p173)
                >
                > "... Jesus 'holds' (ECWN ... connotes divine control, as in 1:16,18) the
                > 'Seven Spirits,' a likely reference to the 'sevenfold Holy Spirit' (from
                > Zech. 4:2,10) ..."
                >
                > Osborne on 5:6 (p257)
                >
                > "... more likely refers to the 'sevenfold Holy Spirit' described here as
                > APESTALMENOI EIS PASAN THN GHN (... sent into all the earth) ... "
                >
                > Osborn's logic seems to run something like this. Jesus is shown to hold
                > authority over TA hEPTA PNEUMATA TOU QEOU (3:1) which are sent into all the
                > earth (5:6). Based on this and statements made by Jesus in John's Gospel
                > (Jn. 14:26; 15:26 and 16:7) we can conclude that "the Holy Spirit is 'sent'
                > by the Father and Jesus to carry out their mission to the world, ... "
                > (Osborne p. 257).
                >
                > I have one or two additional objections. APESTALMENOI in Rev. 5:6 is a
                > perfect passive with no agent specified. It may be a "divine passive" but
                > that does not make Jesus the explicit agent.
                >
                > Also, this whole procedure of daisy-chaining texts together from the John's
                > Gospel and Revelation might appear to some as taking us back in the
                > direction of Charles Hodge. Perhaps that is overstating the case.
                >
                > Once again, I applaud the idea of doing biblical theology within a
                > commentary on Revelation. The problem is how to do this. It is a notoriously
                > difficult nut to crack.
                >
                > This is probably far from a perfect reconstruction of Osborn's line of
                > thought, but it does serve to illustrate the style of his commentary.
                >
                > It is a good book. Read it.
                >
                > Clay
                >
                > --
                > Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
                > Three Tree Point
                > P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
                >
                > REV. 3:1 KAI TWi AGGELWi THS EN SARDESIN EKKLHSIAS GRAYON: TADE LEGEI hO
                > ECWN TA hEPTA PNEUMATA TOU QEOU KAI TOUS hEPTA ASTERAS: OIDA SOU TA ERGA
                > hOTI ONOMA ECEIS hOTI ZHiS, KAI NEKROS EI.
                >
                > REV. 5:6 KAI EIDON EN MESWi TOU QRONOU KAI TWN TESSARWN ZWiWN KAI EN MESWi
                > TWN PRESBUTERWN ARNION hESTHKOS hWS ESFAGMENON ECWN KERATA hEPTA KAI
                > OFQALMOUS hEPTA hOI EISIN TA [hEPTA] PNEUMATA TOU QEOU APESTALMENOI EIS
                > PASAN THN GHN.
                >
                > --
                >
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              • c.s.bartholomew
                ... Thanks John, Yes, I see what you are saying. Two things that don t tie together. My mistake, clearly not Osborn s. Perhaps then, one should not connect
                Message 7 of 7 , Apr 15, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  on 4/15/03 4:29 PM, John C. Poirier wrote:

                  > Perhaps there is a problem with the "daisy-chaining," as you call it, but
                  > doesn't the greater difficulty lie in the assumption that the "sending" of the
                  > Spirit in a NT spirit christology is at all related to the emanationist
                  > identification of the Spirit in the councils' Trinitarian theology? For Luke
                  > (or anyone else) to envision Jesus sending the Spirit doesn't imply that he
                  > thinks of the Spirit as proceeding from the Son within the ontological economy
                  > of the Trinity.
                  >
                  >

                  Thanks John,

                  Yes, I see what you are saying. Two things that don't tie together. My
                  mistake, clearly not Osborn's.

                  Perhaps then, one should not connect Osborne's discussion of this in any way
                  with the Filioque controversy. I admit that discussions of the "ontological
                  economy of the Trinity" are hard to understand.

                  So if we factor out the Filioque issue and forget the creeds and look rather
                  at "the 'sending' of the Spirit in a NT spirit christology," if we do all
                  of this then I think the objections still hold.

                  Thanks for the clarification.

                  greetings, Clay




                  --
                  Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
                  Three Tree Point
                  P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.