The Purpose of the Bible

What is the purpose of the Bible? Understanding purpose is crucial to interpretation. People may, if they wish, use Milton’s Paradise Lost to teach English, to practice counting letters, or to study poetic rhythms. But none of these is the main purpose for which Milton composed the poem. People may miss this main point if they invent for themselves other purposes.

Indeed, such is part of the problem with the Bible discussion that Libbie Liberal organized. The participants play with fascinating ideas that they spin off from their reading of the Bible. But they do not adequately reckon with God’s purpose in it. Even in the Bible discussion that Chris Christian organized, people disagree. Peter Pietist thinks that the purpose is devotion. Dottie Doctrinalist thinks that the purpose is teaching doctrine. Curt Cultural-Transformationist thinks that the purpose is to set in motion transforming human action in the world. Missy Missiologist thinks that the purpose is to bring the message of God to all cultures. And so on.

Let us once more listen in on the conversation in Chris Christian’s Bible discussion. We join the middle of a discussion of biblical purpose.

Oliver Objectivist: The purpose of any passage of the Bible is exactly the purpose that the human author expressed in the passage.

Fatima Factualist: Unless there is explicit indication of another direction, we should assume that the purpose is to tell what happened or what someone believes.

Herman Hermeneut: But can’t we see a larger purpose in a whole work, such as in the prophecy of Isaiah? Isaiah has a larger purpose in mind that stating each sentence, one at a time. If he does, doesn’t God have a larger purpose in giving us the entire canon of Scripture, a purpose perhaps larger than that of any one book of the Bible?

Amy Affirmationist: The Holy Spirit could have different purposes for each person who reads the Bible.

Many purposes

According to Scripture, the Bible does have many purposes. It is “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Paul tells Timothy to “preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction” (2 Tim. 4:2). There are many different kinds of functions for various parts of the Bible, in teaching and instructing, rebuking and encouraging. At the same time, since God is one, there is naturally a unity of purpose to all his word. All his words manifest his glory (cf. John 17:1). In all his words to us, God enjoins us to “be holy, because I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16; Lev. 19:2; 20:7). Or, as James says, “Do not merely listen to the word; and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says” (James 1:22). All of the Bible leads to Christ (Luke 24:44-49).

We may misconstrue the Bible either by paying attention only to one purpose, by reducing all the purposes to one, or by artificially isolating the purposes, as if we could adequately accomplish one in isolation from the rest. To avoid the extremes of isolation or reduction, we can once again use the model from God’s Trinity. We have already seen a unity in diversity and a diversity in unity in considering the forms of the word of God. The archetype for unity and diversity is in God himself. Hence, we may conveniently take our start from God’s Trinitarian character.

Triunal purpose

In John 17 the Son reflects on his work by speaking of the “word” that the Father has spoken and that he has delivered. He also speaks of mutual indwelling (verses 21-23), and of manifestation of glory (verses 4-5, 24). He speaks of communicating “the love you have for me” (verse 26), of “making you known” (verse 26), and of the disciples’ work in the world in imitation of his (verse 18). We have many purposes here. But it is comparatively easy to see that they are all perspectives or ways of talking about one purpose, a comprehensive purpose involving the entire redemptive plan of the Father. The Son can express that one purpose in more than one way, and describe from more than one angle.

The angles of expression reflect in certain ways the distinctions and unities among the Persons of the Trinity. The language about “work” focuses preeminently on the work of the Son on earth. The Son has completed “the work you gave me to do” (John 17:4). On the basis of this work, the disciples do a work according to verse 18.

The Son uses many expressions in speaking about his work. But since all point to the same work, even one expression would in principle include the whole. For convenience, and to remind ourselves of the diversity as well as the unity in the work, we may sum up the expressions under three headings, corresponding respectively to the prominence of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

First, the Son asks that the Father equip, protect, and sanctify the disciples. The work of God involves action, power, and control from the Father. We may view the entire work from the perspective of control.

Second, the work of God involves giving and receiving the truth, primarily through the Son. “I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known” (verse 26). “I gave them the words you gave me, and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you” (verse 8). Truth is manifested in the Son (compare John 14:6). We may view the entire work from the perspective of meaning, truth and knowing.

Third, God is personally present with the disciples through the process of indwelling, mediated by the Holy Spirit (verses 21-23). We may view the entire work from the perspective of personal presence.

In sum, we have three perspectives, control, meaning, and presence.¹ These three are three ways of looking at the work of God in the world. We look at God controlling the events; we look at the meaning and the truth that God makes known; we look at God’s presence in the world and among his people. Through any one of these, as through a window, we can examine any particular work of God, or all the works comprehensively, just as Jesus did in John 17. Each is then a perspective on the whole.

Now, we may apply this triad specifically to God’s word. The communication of words is one aspect to which Jesus refers (John 17:8, 14, 17). Since it coheres with the other aspects, we may expect that it manifests them all. The word of God controls people and events in the world. The word of God expresses and asserts meaningful truth. The word of God makes God himself present with us. God brings himself into contact with the addressees.

Let us confirm these one at a time. First, concerning control. The word of God controls the sanctification of the disciples (John 17:17). Similarly, through the name of God (closely related to word of God), the disciples are “kept” (verses 11-12). Second, concerning meaning. The words that Jesus speaks in John 17 are themselves representative of the “word” about which he speaks. They have infinite meaning. Third, concerning presence. Through the words that Jesus speaks, the Father as well as the Son is personally present (John 14:9-10). “My words remain in you” in John 15:7 is parallel to “I in them” in John 17:23. The Author is present in the words that he speaks. As the words remain in the disciples, they bear fruit through union with him.² Let us call this triad of terms the triad of purpose, because each term represents one aspect of the way in which God expresses his purposes.

We saw that control, meaning, and presence can, in John 17, be correlated respectively with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But the correlation is mysterious. And we must not think that it is the whole story. Because of the coinherence of Persons of the Trinity, they share in acts of control, meaning, and presence. For example, through the presence of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17) the Son also will come and be present (John 14:18). Both the Father and the Son dwell in the believer (John 14:23). Thus all three Persons participate in personal presence with believers. Similarly, all three Persons exercise control in the works of God, and all three Persons express meaning in the word of God. All three Persons share in the one purpose of God.

Remember now the earlier triad of imaging, consisting of originary, manifestational, and concurrent perspectives. What is the relation of this earlier triad to the present triad of purpose, consisting of control, meaning, and presence? When we compare triads like these, we may expect coinherence without mere mathematical identity. The two triads are not merely two names for exactly the same thing. Rather, the triad of imaging focuses on God’s representation of himself, while the triad of purposes focuses on God’s carrying out purposes. So the two triads speak in two different ways about the unity and diversity in God. Each term in one triad therefore involves features relating to all three terms in the other triad.

For example, God’s control involves an originary aspect, consisting in God’s attribute of omnipotence. God’s control involves a manifestational aspect, consisting of actual acts of control over what he has made. God’s control involves a concurrent aspect, in that the acts of control are in harmony with who God is in his omnipotence. Similarly, God’s meaning involves originary, manifestational, and concurrent aspects. God’s truth as eternally known to himself is originary. God’s truth made known to us is manifestational. And the harmony between our knowledge and God’s originary knowledge is concurrence.

Though all the aspects involve one another, we may also sometimes notice a tantalizing relation between two triads. One triad in some fashion “mirrors” a second triad. For example, God’s meaning exists even before it is manifested, which is closely related to the originary perspective. Thus in some sense meaning “mirrors” the originary perspective. God’s control involves God’s action, which is closely related to God’s manifestation of himself. Control “mirrors” manifestation. God is present to us through indwelling, which is the concurrent aspect. Presence “mirrors” concurrence. (But note that we have reversed the normal order of control and meaning. Such rearrangements of order can occur when we try to compare two triads.)

John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word.” A word presupposes a speaker of the word. In the context of Genesis 1, which is the primary background for John 1:1, the speaker is God. In John 1:1, it must be the Father who is the speaker. Thus the Father, the First Person of the Trinity, is the Speaker. The Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, is the Word that he speaks. What role does the Holy Spirit assume?

John 1:1 does not directly mention the role of the Holy Spirit. But we can obtain an answer by considering the way God’s speech is described in the Old Testament. Particular words of God come forth from his mouth with divine power. In Ezek 37 the breath of God is like a mighty wind, through which life comes into the dead. It is easy to miss in English the way Ezekiel 37 exploits two meanings of the Hebrew word ruach (j^Wr), which can mean either “wind” or “spirit.” In the visionary picture of the valley of dry bones, there comes a wind or breath from God (37:5, 9). This wind represents the Spirit of God (37:14). In Job 32:8 a “spirit” in man, the “breath” of the Almighty, gives him life. Certainly human breath is necessary to sustain life. But behind this human activity stands the supporting reality of the presence of the life-giving and life-sustaining power of the divine Spirit of God. The Old Testament does not explicitly set forth the full teaching about the Trinitarian character of God. But, in the Old Testament God sets forth the beginnings of what will come to full light in the New. In this respect, one may see the operations of this “breath” of God in God’s words of creation: “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth” (Ps 33:6).

By analogy with these works of God in the created word, we reason that the Holy Spirit is likewise involved in the speaking of the eternal Word of John 1:1. Indeed, how could he not be, since he is one with the Father and the Son? We say that the Son is eternally “begotten” through the Spirit, in analogy with the “begetting” in time that took place at the resurrection (Acts 13:32-33) and at the incarnation (Luke 1:35). The incarnation and the resurrection take place through the power of the Spirit (Luke 1:35; Rom 1:4; 8:11). Analogously, it is through the power of the Spirit as “breath” that the Father utters the Word.

In sum, the Father is the personal utterer of the word. The Son is the word uttered. And the Holy Spirit is the powerful, controlling divine breath sending out the word and carrying it to its destination. We have here a triad consisting of personal presence, truth (word), and control.

This triad, control, meaning, and presence, exists archetypally in the eternal relations of the Persons of the Trinity. It applies ectypally in God’s communication to the world and to us. The word of God to us exhibits control, meaning, and presence. It also applies ectypally when human beings communicate to one another. Each of us exerts control by communicating; we have something that we say (truth; or sometimes error), and we say it to someone, as an act that draws us into personal relation to someone (presence) Receiving a communication involves responding to this control, hearing what the person says (meaning), and listening to the person as he is present to us in the communication.

How does this triad apply to the Bible? The Bible is the word of God to human beings, and hence it ectypally manifests the same triad. In the Bible we undergo transformation by God’s control. We hear truth (the word which is truth). We meet God (personal). We may thus say that the purposes of the Bible are three: for God to transform people, for him to teach the truth, for God himself to be present.

But, as we might expect, these three purposes are also one. The triad consisting of control, truth, and personal presence derives from Trinitarian relations. It is an ectype of the Trinity, which is the archetype. The Persons of the Trinity are coinherent; so the three aspects are ectypally coinherent. That is, they mutually involve one another. Meeting God always involves knowing something about him, and thus knowing truth. Knowing truth involves knowing God who is the truth. Meeting God involves being transformed by his presence. We are overwhelmed and cannot remain the same. Even if we rebel against God, we do not remain the same but become more guilty than we were before (cf. Ex. 7:5; 7:17; 14:4; etc.). If we are transformed, it is only through the power of God working in us (Phil. 2:13; cf. Lam. 3:37-38; Eph. 1:11; Ps. 103:19).³

What are the implications for practical study of the Bible? On the one hand, God has a plurality and richness of purposes for the Bible. We ought not to reduce it all to one monolithic purpose. For example, we ought not to reduce the Bible simply to personal presence, personal encounter. We are not to be mystics, who try to achieve personal encounter with God without the presence of truth content. Such was the tendency of Pietist. In addition, we do not reduce the Bible to intellectual meaning. We are not to be intellectualists, who try to store up truth without attention to meeting God or to practical living (doing what it says). Such was the tendency of Doctrinalist. We are not to be pragmatists, who care only for “the bottom line” of visible effects, without attending either to truth or to the God who speaks. Such was the tendency of Cultural-Transformationist.

But in emphasizing the diversity of purposes, we still affirm a unity. Each purpose points to and even encompasses the others. For instance, rightly knowing truth irreducibly involves knowing God who is the truth (John 14:6). Hence, meaning, properly understood, includes personal presence. Knowing the truth also includes practical effects (2 Cor. 3:18; John 17:3). Hence, meaning includes control. Conversely, response in action, the practical side of obedience, includes cognitive action, that is, knowing truth. Similarly, response is proper only if it is response to the God who comes, response that reaches out in the personal encounter of worship. Thus the aspect of control encompasses the aspect of personal presence. In a similar way we can see that each aspect encompasses the other two aspects.⁴ The aspects are coinherent.

Now this coinherence has a specific implication. Truth and application are distinguishable, but not isolatable from one another. They are two aspects of a coinherent triad. The truth is the content of Scripture (the meaning aspect), while application is the control of Scripture over our selves, our thoughts, and our behavior (the control aspect). The two coinhere.

God means and intends to communicate certain truths. He also means and intends that the truths be applied. The application is thus an integral aspect of the meaning. Meaning includes application. But conversely, application includes meaning. Any particular application is an application of something, an application of a truth or truths. It is an application of meanings of specific words or texts that are being applied. The application illustrates the meaning on which it is based. Moreover, the totality of application includes application in the mental sphere. Applying a verse includes applying it to our beliefs. It includes altering our beliefs so that they agree with what the verse says. That is, it includes attention to the meaning of the verse.

Consider a simple example. “Then in accordance with what is written, they celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles with the required number of burnt offerings prescribed for each day” (Ezra 3:4). “What is written” alludes to Numbers 29:12-38; Leviticus 23:33-43; and other passages in the Mosaic law. An aspect of the meaning of Numbers 29:12-38 is that people should celebrate with certain sacrifices. One implication of the meaning is that the people of Zerubbabel’s time should do so. The action in Zerubbabel’s time is an application of the text from Moses’ time. The application is an implication of the meaning of the earlier text, and as such is an aspect of that meaning. But now there is another way of looking at the matter. One application of Numbers 29 is mental application. People should mentally grasp what God is prescribing. When Zerubbabel (and others) correctly grasp of God’s law, they grasp its meaning. Meaning is thus application in the mental sphere. Meaning is an aspect of application.

The same intertwining of meaning and application occurs in the foundational text in John 17. The Father has given his word to Christ, and Christ has given the word to the disciples (John 17:14). His purpose in the word is that the Father would sanctify them by the truth (verse 17). The sanctifying is an aspect of the intention and the effect of giving the word; it is an aspect of the meaning of the communicative act. Conversely, one aspect of sanctifying is mental sanctifying, through understanding the meaning. Thus meaning is an aspect of the application, that is, the sanctifying. Meaning and application are even more impressively intertwined when we consider them on the level of divine action. The control through the sanctifying of the Father and the truth through the word of the Son coinhere through the indwelling of the Father and the Son in one comprehensive work.

As we might expect, coinherent unity and diversity exist wherever we look in Scripture, whether our focus be on personal fellowship with God, on truth, or on application. Consider first the matter of personal fellowship with God. There is one God, and hence all Christian fellowship is fellowship with one God. Fellowship rests on the unity of the unchanging person of God. Such is the unity of fellowship. There is also diversity: many people enjoy God’s fellowship, at many times, in many stages of growth, as 1 Corinthians 12 reminds us.

Or consider the matter of application. We may obviously find diverse applications to the diverse circumstances in which we live. Yet all the applications have a unified goal as well: they aim at holiness (Heb. 12:14; 1 Peter 1:15-16). They all aim at glorifying God (1 Cor. 10:31). Or, to express it differently, they aim at Christlikeness, conformity to the image of Christ (Rom. 13:14; 2 Cor. 3:18; 1 Cor. 15:49).

Finally, consider the issue of truth. The Bible contains many distinct truths in the distinct assertions of the distinct verses. But all these cohere in the One who is the Truth (John 14:6).

Christ as the center of Scripture

It is worthwhile to develop in more detail the Christocentric character of biblical truth. A number of passages of Scripture indicate in more than one way that Christ is at the center of the Bible and the truth. John 14:6, “I am the truth,” is only one.

Colossians 2:3 says that “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” are hidden in Christ. “All the treasures” obviously includes all the truths of all the verses of Scripture. All are hid in Christ.

John 1:1 and Revelation 19:13 indicate that Jesus Christ is the Word of God. As we have seen above, all particular divine words, from the words of creation onward, are manifestations of this one eternal Word.

2 Corinthians 1:20 says, “No matter how many promises Gold has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ.” The promises of God all find fulfillment in him. Of course, only some parts of the Bible have the explicit form of a promise. But perspectivally speaking, all of the Bible contains a promissory aspect, since God commits himself to us when he speaks to his people.

1 Timothy 2:5 and other passages indicate that Christ is the unique, indispensable mediator between God and men, by which we are saved and are able to listen to God without dying. Christ is indispensable for our right reception of Scripture. And since the Scripture has the function of bringing salvation, it is fundamentally about Christ. “Preaching must be theological. Salvation is of the Lord, and the message of the gospel is the theocentric message of the unfolding of the plan of God for our salvation in Jesus Christ. He who would preach the Word must preach Christ.”⁵

The claims in Luke 24:25-27 and 24:44-49 are particularly important. The disciples on the road to Emmaus felt defeated after Jesus’ crucifixion. But Jesus rebuked them:

How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory? And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. (Luke 24:25-27)

Thus, in this discussion on the road to Emmaus, Christ himself indicates that the Old Testament from beginning to end is about himself.

Sometimes people have thought that Christ is only claiming that a verse here and there popped up and spoke of the coming Messiah. And it is of course true that some verses speak more directly and obviously in this way. But the whole of the Old Testament is about God working out salvation. And salvation is to be found only in Christ. So the whole Old Testament, not just a few verses in isolation, speaks of Christ. Luke 24:44-47 makes this claim more explicitly:

He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”

“The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” cover most, if not all, of the Old Testament. The Jews conventionally divided the Old Testament into three parts, the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Law of Moses consisted of Genesis through Deuteronomy. The Prophets included the “Former Prophets” or historical writings of Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, and 1-2 Kings, as well as the “Latter Prophets,” Isaiah through Malachi (but Daniel was customarily reckoned with the writings). The Writings included all the other books, the most prominent of which was the Book of Psalms. Since the Writings was a more miscellaneous collection, it did not until later have a standardized name.⁶ At an early period it appears that “Psalms” was used as a convenient designation for this third group⁷ Thus, Jesus probably referred to the whole group of writings through the Psalms as its most representative member. But even if he did not, that is, even if he only referred to the Book of Psalms and not the other books composing the Writings, he has encompassed the great bulk of the Old Testament in the sweep of his claims.

Note also that in verse 45 it says, “he opened their minds so that they could understand the Scriptures.” Here the Scriptures comprehensively are in view, not just a part of them, certainly not just a few scattered “Messianic texts.” Verses 46-47 indicate in what this understanding consists. “This is what is written,” that is, the substance of the message of the Scriptures. “The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, … .” The whole Old Testament, we conclude, has as its central message the suffering and resurrection of Christ. This conclusion confirms what was said in Luke 24:25-27. The whole Old Testament is about the work of Christ, in that it points forward to this work as what “must be fulfilled” (verse 44).

Few would challenge the idea that Christ is the core of the message of the New Testament writings. But Luke 24 is striking in making an analogous claim about the Old Testament. Christ’s work is the core of the purpose and import of the Old Testament as well as the New. How can it be so, and how do we arrive at an understanding like that of the apostles? We do not want simply to force a Christological message onto a text in an artificial way. For this imposition would not be “understanding” the Scriptural text in question, but simply imposing a meaning from some other, New Testament text. But neither do we want to avoid taking up the challenge that Luke 24 offers. The alternative to Christocentric understanding of the Old Testament is not understanding rightly—not understanding as Christ desired.

Understanding the Christocentric character of the Old Testament is not easy. For the Scriptures are profound, and we do not exhaust their implications. A good beginning can be made by studying the quotations and more direction allusions to the Old Testament that are found throughout the New Testament. Thereby Christ himself and his apostles instruct us in this understanding. The Book of Hebrews is particularly important, because, of all the books of the New Testament, it contains the most lengthy discussion of the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

This matter is so important that is deserves a book-length discussion. Indeed, books have been written on just this subject of Christ’s fulfillment of the Old Testament.⁸ Because of the availability of some of these works, we will go on to consider other topics, rather than expounding the Christological implications of the Old Testament in detail.