Is the Filioque legitimate, or a corruption?

Note: This essay was originally posted as part of a much longer series. I think that because it was buried in that series, like a chapter of a book, it did not get much attention. So I am now re-posting it, and will later repost other answers to questions in the “The Denominational Distinctives” individually, so that people will have a better place to comment on them. I will also make a point of interacting more with commenters (this takes time, of course), as part of an effort to better educate myself about the issues.

---

The second version of the Nicene Creed, that of 381 A.D., specified the person and role of the Holy Spirit this way: “And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets” (source).

But fairly soon after that version was published, various branches of the Church edited “Who proceeds from the Father,” adding “and the Son”, like this: “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son“. The italicized phrase translates a single Latin word: filioque. Thus, the controversy was over whether the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father” alone, or whether he also “proceeds from the Son.” Thus, the Western doctrine is called the double procession of the Holy Spirit. This is the specific thing the eastern branch of the Church was concerned to deny.

The Eastern Church took issue with the addition of filioque. When the bishop of Rome, Pope Leo IX, sought to impose his will over the entire Church and finally insisted on this addition being accepted universally, this led to mutual excommunications, in 1054, of key church figures. It seems Cardinal Humbert walked into the Hagia Sophia insisting that Patriarch Michael Cerularius accept the filioque. When he refused, Humbert excommunicated Cerularius. In response, Cerularius and the Holy Synod of Constantinople excommunicated Humbert and his delegation, not excommunicating Leo IX since Leo had recently died. After that, positions further hardened, centers of authority separated, and traditions grew apart. This slow-moving ecclesiastical civil war and its resulting division later came to be called the Great Schism. Thus, from what was essentially a power play centered on a relatively minor point of doctrine, the original (decentralized) Church was dissolved, or transformed, while the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church were born. Rome and the Popes went on to centralize the Western church even further, while the Eastern church remained without a single, central authority.

There is nothing, as far as I can tell, about the controversy over the filioque itself that is conceptually wedded to either side of this ecclesiastical controversy; many other points of dispute could have sparked a schism, which is perhaps best regarded as an attempt by the Pope and the Roman bishopric to assert its supremacy over all. The filioque issue itself seems to me fairly minor in terms of its impact on the rest of doctrine and practice. So, despite its historical importance, this is an issue to which I (like many Protestants) have given little thought. This is not to say I do not want to study it more, though.

In cases where I approach theological questions seriously for the first time, what I do is go through some relevant texts, seeing what they say. I have assembled quite a few, in the hope that they are adequately representative. I add my commentary on each afterward.

Filioque: relevant texts

John 14:16
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

This affirms that the Father will give the Comforter, but does not say anything regarding the Son; so it is consistent with the notion that the Holy Spirit proceeds (i.e., to us) from both.

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

This contains two intriguing details. The first is that the Father sends the Holy Spirit in the name of the Son. This colors the issue in an interesting way, because while it affirms that the Spirit is sent by the Father, he arrives in the name of the Son. If the Spirit is sent “in the name of” Jesus, then surely there is a sense in which he proceeds from the Son. The second item here is that the task or function of the Spirit with respect to us (or, at least, to the Apostles to whom Jesus was speaking!) is to “bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” This suggests that when the Spirit communicates to us, at least part of what he communicates is “whatsoever I have said unto you.” Thus the Spirit would seem to be an emissary, sent by the Father, but carrying the message of the Son.

John 15:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth [ἐκπορεύεται] from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Here, as in 14:16 and 26, the Comforter is said to be from the Father, while testifying about Jesus. Yet is sent by Jesus. This provides a sense in which the Comforter might “proceed” from the Son; but it does not use the word ἐκπορεύεται (ekporeuetai) but instead the word πέμψω (pempso, “will send”). It does affirm again that the function of the Comforter is to speak for or about Jesus. The question is, does that entail another kind of “procession”? Perhaps. We will have to see.

John 16:7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

This again says two interesting things. First, it clearly states that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit depended on Jesus being absent from earth and returning to heaven. We are not here told why this is the case. Second, Jesus again claims “will send [πέμψω again] him unto you.” The question, again, is whether this means the Spirit proceeds from Jesus? Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps there is a metaphysical or theological distinction to be drawn between the Spirit proceeding from the Father but being sent by the Son. What makes matters even more difficult is that, as I am inclined to think, many (not all) such recondite metaphysical or theological distinctions are unlikely to be found in or settled by what the Bible writers intended. I doubt John had such elaborate and detailed distinctions in mind; but perhaps he had some distinction he was marking out by using two different words.

John 16:13–15
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

This adds even more detail to the latter passage (16:7). The Spirit will guide the Apostles (and quite possibly us as well) into the truth, not of himself but what he is told to say. But we learned already in 14:26 and 15:26 that he will speak on behalf of and testifying about Jesus himself; here, Jesus adds the similar points that the Spirit will glorify Jesus and show that which he (the Spirit) has received from Jesus. Yet the last sentence here (v15) might be thought to be particularly relevant to the question of double procession: Jesus says, “All things that the Father hath are mine,” just after saying that the Spirit will show that which he receives from Jesus. In context, this suggests that, since whatever the Father has, the Son has as well, it follows that the Spirit might communicate things that, as it were, originated with the Father. That is basically what “he [the Spirit] shall take of mine [which includes things of the Father], and shall shew it unto you” means.

What these cryptic statements mean is not clear. On the narrow question of whether the Spirit “proceeds from” the Son, matters have really become no clearer. It certainly is the case that the Spirit gives us the messages and gifts of the Son, which are at least sometimes (perhaps always) messages and gifts of the Father. Whether these proceed from the Son is another question, and whether this means the Spirit itself proceeds from the Son is a still different question. Nevertheless, the fact that Jesus explicitly avows that “All things that the Father hath are mine,” in the context of communications from the Holy Spirit, seems particularly important.

John 20:22
And when he [Jesus] had said this, he breathed on them [the Apostles], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.

This famous event, unique to John, has been described as “an earnest” of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on all the rest of the disciples at Pentecost. What is important to the issue here is that the breath (pneuma, a word that also means “spirit”) of Christ is said to convey the Spirit himself. Thus, he proceeded to the Apostles out of the mouth of Jesus, so to speak; what remains to study is whether that is what is meant by “procession” in “double procession.”

Luke 24:49
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

“The promise” and “power” (of the Spirit: this is implied) are said to come from “my Father” and “on high.” Once again, this does not deny that the Spirit does not also proceed from Jesus; but neither does it affirm that it does.

Acts 2:33
Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he [Jesus] hath shed forth [ἐξέχεεν] this, which ye now see and hear.

This is surely a key text, because it provides another word describing the relationship between Jesus and the Spirit: ἐξέχεεν (execheen, “pour out” or “shed forth”). Peter is speaking at Pentecost, explaining that speaking in tongues, as shown by the gathered disciples to the Jewish visitors from many lands, has two heavenly explanations: (1) Jesus received the promise of the Holy Ghost from the Father; (2) Jesus “shed forth” this same Spirit to the assembled disciples, evidence of which was visible and audible. Similar remarks as before apply.

Romans 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Much in line with what John said in 16:7 and 13–15, Paul here casually describes the Holy Ghost as “the Spirit of God” as well as “the Spirit of Christ.” This suggests that he is properly called the Spirit of both. Again, perhaps there are further fine metaphysical distinctions to draw here, with regard to “procession.”

Romans 8:11
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Here Paul describes the Spirit as he who raised Jesus from the dead; this might well be used to argue that he does not “proceed” from Jesus, or not always. More of course can be said here, of course. But this is not a strong argument, considering that sometimes it is even said that Jesus raised himself from the dead (see, e.g., Jn 2:19 and 10:17–18).

Galatians 4:6
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Here, God is said to have sent the Spirit; but it is “the Spirit of his Son” which is said to have been sent! This is very much in line with John’s remarks in Jn 14–16.

Philippians 1:19
For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, …

Here is another instance of the Spirit being referred to as Jesus’ own.

Titus 3:5–6
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on [ἐξέχεεν again] us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; …

Similarly to Gal 4:6, Paul implies that it is the Father who “renewed” the Holy Ghost (in us) but who did it “through” Jesus Christ. Once again, this might or might not point to abstruse metaphysical distinctions. The simple reading is that, before, the Holy Ghost did not dwell in us; but he does after we are born again, by “renewing” the presence of the Holy Ghost in us.

Analysis

Now, having rehearsed these verses and made a few non-committal remarks about how they bear on the question, I think we can make a few more general, helpful, and I hope uncontroversial summary statements. The Holy Spirit is said most consistently to proceed or come from the Father; but added to this, we are told that Jesus would send the Spirit himself, and that the Spirit was of both the Father and the Son, and shed or poured from both. Moreover, we must not forget the intriguing details the Gospel of John supplied, such as that the Spirit communicated the message of Jesus and that the Father has given all things to the Son.

As a point of general exegesis, I would add here that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was a notion introduced by prophecies that might well have been familiar to Jesus’ audience.¹ When Jesus adverted to these prophecies, he might well, at that point, be expected to say that the Spirit would come from the Father; this, it stands to reason, would serve to dignify and lend credibility to the deliverances of the Spirit, in the mouths of the Apostles. It is particularly important that Jesus should say this, as an endorsement of the preaching of the Apostles, who, it was said, were inspired by this same Spirit, as Jesus said they would be (quoted above, particularly John 14–16). After all, they would be battling critical Jews who denied apostolic authority and even, in some cases, the authority of Jesus himself. So, they needed a “letter of recommendation” (to use Paul’s term), and that from the highest and least controversial source: the Father himself.

Yet Jesus also, quite clearly albeit less frequently, stated that this same Spirit carried his own messages. This was to underscore his own authority. And we should never forget Jesus’ clear, relevant pronouncement: “I and my Father are one.” (Jn 10:30)

So what bearing does all this have on the question of the double procession? To answer that, we must first ask: What is the doctrine of the double procession?

The simple formulation of the doctrine is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son both, and not from the Father alone. But this language of “proceeding” or “procession” seems to be special jargon that both the Western church and Orthodoxy use. A key question in my mind is whether both traditions actually understand the term in the same way.

Whatever mysteries are involved, we may say that there are two things that the terms might mean, at least on first glance. In the first (“ontological”) sense, “procession” refers to an eternal relationship between two, or maybe three, persons in the Trinity: The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from (or out of) the Father. Here, the arrival of the Spirit is metaphysical or ontological, which is to say that the Spirit “proceeds” into being from the Father. This suggests an ontological priority of some sort (not temporal, or in time, because this relationship is held to be eternal, or atemporal). The question, then, is whether the Spirit also eternally “proceeds” into being from the Son as well.

In the second (“economic”) sense, the Spirit proceeds from the Father (and, as the text says often, the Son) to us in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. On this concept, procession is something that happens between the Father (and maybe the Son) and the Spirit with respect to us; such procession was not even occurring before human beings were created, obviously.

I am not now definitively claiming that the filioque in either of these senses is settled by Scripture. The reason I draw this distinction is to raise a question: How do the warring sides understand it? Could this, perhaps, be a semantic dispute?

I do not think so. I have not read widely about the Trinity yet, as much as I want to, so I will not pretend to have a well-informed or interesting opinion on this. I gather, however, that the Latin (so, Western Church) Fathers Hilary, Ambrose, and Augustine, whose writings are perhaps most responsible for the addition of the filioque, definitely understood the filioque to refer not just to the economic sense but also to the ontological sense. They each developed arguments that, yes, made use of the fact that Jesus sent his Spirit, but the conclusion of the argument was that the Spirit eternally proceeded from the Son.

The economic question is fairly obvious in light of many texts: the Spirit is of Christ; Christ sends him; he speaks for Christ; all things of the Father are also held by the Son, and this is stated in the context in which the Son sends the Spirit. Therefore, there is a double procession of the Spirit in the economic sense: he proceeds to us from both. But the ontological question lies shrouded in mystery.

My present view, for what little it is worth (I am no expert), is that the Trinity is already quite a mystery enough for us to be insisting on things about the internal relations of the persons of the Godhead about which neither the Bible nor a priori reasoning can offer anything definite. I have read enough of speculative theology, as opposed to biblically based systematic theology, to have developed a decided distaste for it. By “speculative” I mean reasoning that extends beyond both Scripture and things strictly, logically entailed by correct scriptural exegesis. This is particularly difficult considering that we have no (or woefully inadequate) immediate experience of God. Reasoning and philosophy I love; but this does not mean I think we can, or should, attempt to rule on questions about the things of God that lie well beyond our purview.²

So, on this question, for now, I remain agnostic. Perhaps when I finally read books on the Trinity like Augustine’s De Trinitate, which is definitely in the queue, I will change my mind. Maybe that will even change my attitude toward theological speculation. As to the dispute between the Western and Eastern Church, for now, my entirely amateur opinion is this: I suspect the dispute is neither clear nor important enough to justify a denominational division. But I don’t even know that, to be honest.

Footnotes

1. Joel 2:28–29; Isa 32:15, 44:3; Ezek 36:26–27, 39:29.[↩]
2. I can illustrate the methodological principle in play by pointing out that I also have no taste for speculation about orders of angels and demons, the nature of heaven and hell, etc., for similar reasons.[↩]