I couldn’t help noticing the absence of the Holy Spirit in John’s description of life in the New Heaven and the New Earth. Where is the Holy Spirit going to be?
~ I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple (Rev 21:22, TNIV, emphasis added).
~ Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city (Rev 22:1, 2a, TNIV, emphasis added).
~ No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him (Rev 22:3, TNIV, emphasis added).
I suppose that the Holy Spirit is going to permanently indwell all the glorified people of God for all of eternity. Keep in mind that this is only a conjecture.
Have you read NT Wright’s “Surprised by Hope”? It’s all there…
I suggest that the Holy Spirit will be flowing like a river from the throne of God and of the Lamb, 22:1. (Yes, that may be a good argument for the filioque clause, for those who understand this issue.)
Peter,
That certainly may be the case. I tend to think it is.
Dennis Johnson, in his “Triumph of The Lamb” (excellent book by the way) agrees. He writes This is the water of the Holy Spirit’s resurrection life, which John now sees in vision flowing from the throne of God and the Lamb. (p. 321)
Beale, in his commentary on Revelation (another excellent book), thinks it may be the case. If the waters symbolize the Spirit, as in the similar portrayal in John 7:37-39, then Rev. 22:1 is an early picture of the later Christian confession that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son…Though the Holy Spirit may be in mind, the water metaphor primarily represents the life of eternal fellowship with God and Christ…(p. 1104)
Joh 7:37-39 On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
Aavey, I’m actually reading that book right now, but I haven’t gotten that far…
Peter and Stan, I’ve never really considered the Holy Spirit as the one flowing from the throne of God and the of the Lamb, but it’s worth looking into.
Peter, the filioque is a strong posibility, I say.
Stan, Grant R. Osborne of Trinity Divinity School in his commentary says that Beale and others who take that position have failed (p.769). He points to the Garden of Eden and Ezek 47:1-12 as possible background material, and thus refers to the presence of God but not in the sense of the Holy Spirit. I’ll have to dig deeper.
holy, holy holy Lord God Almighty
Holy Father
Holy Son
Holy Spirit
Ferg, I’ve heard that,
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? “My God, my God,” refer to the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Quite creative, I say.
Shame, I rather hoped my argument for the filioque was a new one. But I suppose that’s hardly likely after 1500 years of controversy.
Peter,
Considering we have eternity ahead of us, it’s practically new.
Peter, new is relative.
[...] a comment on another blog a few days ago I referred to the infamous filioque addition to the Nicene Creed, or, more [...]