How do those who hold to the filiquoe understand 1 Timothy 6:16?

Question

I was thinking about the mention of the Father in the NT with the definite article, first example is John 1:1. In the rest of the NT there is always a theological reverence towards the Father that must be noticed. One quick example is 1 Tim 6:16 "who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see." I do not want to make this question long, so there we go: don't you think that by affirming filioque we actually run over the role (economy, not ontology) of the Father in the New Testament?

Answer 1

As you ask for a catholic view on the question, I think it is beneficial to point out that “biblical theology” as it appears you understand it, doesn’t really exist in the RCC.

Exegesis is an important part of Catholic theology, and the Holy Scripture isn’t called that without a reason. But it is definitely not Catholic sound theology to make an argument on any theological issue purely based on a personal reading of a specific verse, chapter, or even book, in the Bible.

That being said, it is also relevant to consider that there is no such thing as “the Bible”. The Catholic Church has a system, starting with the Council of Trent where the canon has been finally and definitely defined, of control over what translation is accepted as correct (or “Catholic” if you like). I am not aware of any such formal system in other Christian churches, but I do know that different churches, and different national branches of churches, have accepted certain canons and certain translations, based on (educated) tradition.

So when you refer to John 1:1, as a Catholic I may read something else than my reformed brother. For me it says: "In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum."

1 Tim 6:16 reads:

qui solus habet immortalitatem, lucem habitans inaccessibilem, quem vidit nullus hominum nec videre potest; cui honor et imperium sempiternum. Amen.

To be honest, I fail to see why these words would be an argument against the Filioque nor do I see why the Filioque runs over the role of the Father in the New Testament. I hope you noticed that the definite article you seem to see as a strong basis for an argument, does not exist in Latin. And Latin is the basic language of the Bible as the Roman Catholic Church accepts it as the Holy Scripture.

I could try to give arguments why the RCC does affirm the Filioque, but that would be a long answer and not really an answer to your question, as you asked “Don’t you think…”. Well, no, I don’t. As a member of the catholic clergy, I have a rather strong affiliation with the faith as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, and I do not approach the Bible as you seem to suggest, as I tried to explain. But even then, I do not find the arguments from Scripture you gave convincing. Even more, I don’t even see the point you try to make. Therefore my answer is as it is, no, I don’t think so.

But I thank you for the question, it was a good starting point for some thought about the matter!