Let us consider the nature of the Bible. Chris Christian’s Bible study confronts the subject.
Herman Hermeneut: Before getting into the text any further, shouldn’t we first determine what sort of object and what sort of communication the Bible is?
Dottie Doctrinalist: That’s easy, Herman. The Bible is the word of God.
Hermeneut: But nowadays lots of people don’t accept that.
Doctrinalist: You’re right. Non-Christians and liberals don’t. But if we attend to Jesus’ teaching and other teachings in the Bible itself, we become convinced. We can go study the texts on inspiration and biblical authority.
Peter Pietist: No, let’s not. Among ourselves, at least, I think that we are all convinced that the Bible is God’s word. So all we have to do is to listen to what God says.
Oliver Objectivist: Not so fast. You should have said that we have to listen to the human authors. If we try to go around the human authors, we get subjective. We attribute to God whatever we think he should say, or whatever nice thoughts come into our heads.
Curt Cultural-Transformationist: But wait. Doesn’t the Bible itself say that God’s word governs the whole of creation? How could his word be sewed up within the confines of a book?
Doctrinalist: Maybe we do need to study what the Bible teaches about the word of God.
Fatima Factualist: Maybe we should find out the facts about how the Bible came to be. Won’t these facts give us an understanding of what sort of book the Bible is?
The Bible teaches that it is the very word of God addressed to human beings. What the Bible says, God says. Various human beings participated in producing the Bible. But God bore them along and controlled them in such a way that the written product is not only the production of human beings, but a communication breathed out by God.
The classic texts putting forth this claim are 2 Peter 1:21 and 2 Timothy 3:16. 2 Peter 1:21 is particularly pointed: “For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” 2 Timothy 3:16 reinforces the point by using the key word “God-breathed” (“inspired”, ). It thereby indicates that the Scripture is breathed out by God. We need not rehearse here the details of these passages, which are discussed at length in classic works on inspiration.1
Jesus also confirmed the authority of the Bible. He lived his whole earthly life with the understanding that in his actions the Scriptures were being fulfilled (e.g., Matt. 26:54; Luke 24:24-27, 44-49). He explicitly affirmed the authority of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17-20; John 10:35). He quoted Genesis 2:24, an ordinary part of Old Testament narrative, as what God said (Matt. 19:5).
If the Bible is what God says, it has God’s own truthfulness, righteousness, and purity. We are to believe its assertions, trust its promises, obeys its commands, and respond to its entreaties in the way that we respond to God himself. In particular, since God does not lie (Num. 23:19), neither does the Bible. It is completely true in what it affirms. It is without error (inerrant).2
Key communications from God to human beings have taken the form of covenants.
Then God said to Noah and his sons with him: “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you ….” (Gen. 9:8)
The Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates ….” (Gen. 15:18)
Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.” (Ex. 24:7)
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matt. 26:28)
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit. (2 Cor. 3:6)
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance. (Heb. 9:15)3
The covenant through Moses at Mount Sinai is particularly significant, because it takes the form of a written document, “the Book of the Covenant” (Ex. 24:7). This “Book” probably contained the material in Exodus 20-23. The Ten Commandments are the core of this covenant. They are called the “words of the covenant” (Ex. 34:27-28) or simply “the covenant” (Deut. 4:13; see 5:2). God instructs Moses to put the “tablets of the covenant” (Deut. 9:9-11), containing the Ten Commands (Deut. 5:22), into the “ark of the covenant” (Deut. 10:2, 5. 8). To this core of Ten Commandments, other words are added from time to time. “These [words in Deuteronomy] are the terms of the covenant the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb [Sinai]” (Deut. 29:1). Moses tells the Levites to deposit the later material beside the ark (Deut. 31:24-26).
The procedures of depositing the words are most significant. Meredith G. Kline rightly sees here the first steps in the formation of a canon, a body of holy writings that God produces, sets aside, and consecrates as a “witness against you” (Deut. 29:26).4 We cannot go into the details of Kline’s extended argument. It is enough for us to observe the covenantal structure of canon. Earlier in history God had spoken orally to human beings. But now the Bible draws attention for the first time to a written word, namely the tablets of stone containing the Ten Commandments. This written word is a covenant. Later words are added in the form of “this Book of the Law” (Deut 31:25-26), and they too are a “covenant” (Deut 29:1). All this material is placed in the most holy place in tabernacle, because it is itself holy. God also indicates that further words are coming through prophets (Deut 18:15-22). These later words will be “my words” (18:18), as indeed the later prophets claim with the expression “Thus says the Lord.” In effect, this arrangement instructs Israel to see the later words as supplements to and reinforcements of the earlier covenantal words. The whole canon, as it grows through the addition of later words, is firmly covenantal in character.
Hence, the particular covenants that God makes with human beings offer a window or perspective on what God is doing with the Bible as a whole.
What then is a covenant? God’s covenants with human beings are agreements between two parties, the LORD God and the people who are his servants. God makes commitments to us in the form of promises. We have obligations to him in the form of his commandments. In the Ancient Near East, covenant treaties typically had other elements as well. A covenant included (a) identification of the covenant Lord or suzerain, (b) a history of his past benefits, (c) the “stipulations” concerning the people’s obligations, (d) blessings and curses for obedience and disobedience, and (e) provisions for passing on the covenant: storage, public reading, provision for the next generation.5 One can see these elements illustrated in Exodus 20 and the Book of Deuteronomy.6 But more broadly, the picture in Deuteronomy 31 invites us to see the Bible as a whole from the same perspective. The whole Bible is about God—it identifies the suzerain. The Bible records the history of God’s past dealings for our benefit. It speaks God’s promises and our obligations. It blesses and curses. It looks forward to all generations.
In addition, through covenants God establishes a relation of personal intimacy with his people: I will “be your God, and you will be my people” (Lev. 26:12; cf. Ex. 6:7).
A similar combination of speech, intimacy, and action appears in John 17. The Father gives words to the Son (John 17:8). He is in personal intimacy with the Son in their mutual indwelling (verses 21-22). They act in that they give glory to one another (verses 4-5, 24). They share possessions (verse 10).
In Chris Christian’s Bible discussion, Peter Pietist had an eye only for personal intimacy. Doctrinalist had an eye only for verbal content (teaching). Cultural-Transformationist had an eye only for pragmatic action that transforms the world. Liturgist had an eye for the ceremonies in making and renewing covenant with God. Factualist had an eye only for the record of past events. In fact, all these aspects form a unity in a covenantal relationship.
What are the implications for interpreting the Bible? We need the combined attentions of Pietist, Doctrinalist, Cultural-Transformationist, Liturgist, and Factualist. Understanding the Bible involves understanding God’s covenant with us. And that understanding is inexhaustible. To begin with, there are many important particular covenants: covenants with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and David. But because of its centrality, covenant is also a way by which we can view the entirety of God’s relations with human beings.7
Thus, the entire record of God’s relations to human beings colors our understanding of the covenant, and this understanding in turn controls our use of the Bible. Or, to put it another way, we must enter into relation with God and his word with our entire being. Our response as a whole influences the individualities of interpretation, since our covenantal relation to God affects all. The individual passages in turn teach about God and his covenants, and these then influence the total character of our covenantal response.
Moreover, in covenant with God, we either receive blessing for obedience or curse for disobedience. Since, our obedience is inadequate and imperfect, we always need Christ for atonement and substitution. The atoning work of Christ must operate in order that we may be blessed and not cursed in responding to the Bible.8
We have seen that divine speaking can take different forms: God can address people in oral speech at Mount Sinai. Or he gives written speech in the Ten Commandments recorded on stone. We need to consider how the Bible in particular is related to other forms of God’s speech.
God spoke the words that brought the universe into being. “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light’ ” (Gen. 1:3). The word said indicates that God used genuine speech, though God was not at that point speaking to human beings. Subsequent to creation God continues to rule the world by speaking. He rules all things by the power of his word: “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?” (Lam. 3:38). The Son sustains “all things by his powerful word” (Heb. 1:3).
God has also addressed human beings. He spoke orally to the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:1-3, 15:1, 4-5, 7, etc.). He spoke audibly to the people of Israel at Mount Sinai (Ex. 20:1, 19, 22; Deut. 5:33; 6:22-27). He spoke at the mount of transfiguration (Matt. 17:5).9
At other times, instead of direct address from heaven, God used human beings such as the prophets and apostles as his spokesmen. They spoke his word orally, in preaching and teaching, as well as the writings that make up the books of the Bible.10 God spoke through the words of Jesus Christ while he was on earth, including some words that have not been included in the Bible (John 21:25).
Finally, Jesus Christ himself, as the Second Person of the Trinity, is called the Word in John 1 and Rev. 19:13.11
In sum, God speaks in a variety of ways, through a variety of media. Within the Bible he speaks about a variety of subjects through a variety of types of literature, such as history, song, teaching, and prophecy.
How do we understand this variety? How is the diversity compatible with the fact that all these varieties can be equally described as God’s word or God speaking? In order to answer this question at a fundamental level, we must first reflect on the divine character of all God’s words.
All the forms of the word of God are God speaking. What God says has his own authority, power, righteousness, and truth. For example, it is clear that God’s words of creation, such as “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3), resulted in creative acts. Only God’s power can bring about such acts. Hence, the word that God speaks has divine power. Likewise, since God is righteous, all his utterances and judgments are righteous: “Righteous are you, O Lord, and your laws are right” (Ps. 119:137). Because God is true, his word is true (Num. 23:19; John 17:17).
The same conclusions that hold for God’s creative words in Genesis 1 hold also for his address to human beings. Note first the close relation between God’s creative words and his words to human beings. In the psalms people revere, praise, and honor the covenantal word through Moses, right along side of words pertaining to the creation and providential sustenance of the universe (Pss. 19:1-11; 119:89-96; 119:48, 120, 129, 137, 144, 152, 160). Just as God’s creative words had divine power and righteousness, so do his words to human beings. The law is perfect, eternal, and life-giving (Pss. 19:7; 119:89; 119:50; 1 Peter 1:25; Luke 21:33). To God’s word Jesus ascribes divine authority to judge (John 12:48). If God’s word did not display the attributes of God, it would not in fact be God’s word, but something else.
We may therefore make the same fundamental affirmations concerning all forms of God’s word. In particular, the word of God is eternal; it endures forever (Ps. 119:89; Matt. 24:35). The word of God endures forever into the future, in the sense that it never passes away and its truth never alters. It endures forever into the past, in the sense that, even before it was first uttered to human beings, it was hidden in God’s wisdom from the very foundation of the world (Matt. 13:35).
When God first utters a particular word to a human being, his act is no more incredible than that most incredible act, the incarnation. Let us consider the incarnation for a moment. In the incarnation, God the Son, the Word, became man. He remains God forever. In becoming man, he became what he was not at any earlier time. This incarnation is ultimately mysterious. We believe that Christ became incarnate, not because we can fathom it, but because God says so in the Bible.
Now consider the analogous events with respect to God writing the Bible. The eternal Word is the Truth. He is forever God and is with God. This Truth, remaining what it was as an expression of God’s inscrutable wisdom from all eternity, becomes what it was not, a particular utterance in a particular human language to particular human beings.
Let us return to the point. All of God’s words have divine attributes. Therefore, God’s words are themselves divine.
Many people think that since the Bible consists in human words, it quite obviously cannot be divine. But, as we have seen from John 17, this argument is fallacious. Since the time of his incarnation, Jesus is fully human (Heb. 2:14). The words that Jesus spoke on earth are obviously human. But Jesus is also divine and the words that he spoke are therefore divine. If Jesus Christ is God, as the Bible teaches, he must be obeyed absolutely. We cannot separate obeying him from obeying his words (John 12:48-50). His words have the authority of the speaker, that is, divine authority. The same divine authority attaches to the words of the Bible.
Since twentieth century pride resists this truth, it is worthwhile to underscore it. According to Deuteronomy 5:27-33, the mediation of Moses was “good.” The people were obligated to obey the word through Moses just as they were to obey the voice of God speaking directly from Mount Sinai (verse 22). Moses’ writings had the same authority as the tablets written by the finger of God (Deut. 31:24-29). There is no suggestion of diminution, but rather faithful continuation of the same fundamental character of divine speaking. Now Moses is the model for the later prophets (Deut. 18:16-22), and the Ten Commandments are the model for later Scripture (Deut. 31:24-29). Hence the same truths hold for the later inspired speakers and inspired writings.
An objector may say, “To worship a book would be idolatry.” But one must avoid the fallacy of equating the word of God with paper and ink. We have already noted that the message remains even when the media change or copies are destroyed.
The analogy with the incarnation of Christ also shows that there is no contradiction between the eternality of the word of God and its inscripturation. The Second Person of the Trinity exists as God for all eternity. In his deity, he does not change (Mal. 3:6). In accordance with the unchanging eternality of his plan, he becomes man. He acts and speaks and accomplishes miracles at particular moments of time. Analogously, the word of God, remaining divine, becomes human words communicated to particular people at particular times.12
The Bible endorses the analogy in another way, through the language of the covenant. The entire Bible is covenantal, as we have seen. But at the heart of the covenants is God’s saving commitment to his people, and the final expression of this commitment is Christ himself. “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ” (2 Cor. 1:20). He is the “one mediator between God and men” (1 Tim. 2:5). Only through Christ are we fit for fellowship with God (Acts 4:12; Heb. 10:14). Since all God’s covenantal words establish at least some degree of fellowship, they all tacitly presuppose the undergirding work of Christ. Through him alone we can draw near to God. The covenants unite God with human beings in a way that prefigures the final unity of God and man in the divine-human person of Christ. In Isaiah Christ as the coming Servant of the Lord is actually identified as the covenant: Isaiah 42:6; 49:8.
John 1 underlines the analogy between the Second Person of the Trinity and the particular words of God spoken at particular times. To begin with, John uses the term word to designate God the Son, already suggesting a connection. But there is more.
John 1:1-3 alludes to Genesis 1.13 In Genesis 1 God created by speaking. “Let there be light” inaugurates the first specific act of creation, and uses a verbal utterance to do it. Creation continues with the repeated command, “let there be …” (1:6, 9, 11, etc.). The narrative includes instances where God names created things: “God called the light ‘day,’ and the darkness he called ‘night’ ” (1:5). Psalm 33:6 sums it up by saying, “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.” John says in a parallel manner, “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made” (John 1:3).
At the very least, these connections might mean that the words spoken in Genesis 1 are analogous to the eternal Word, the second Person of the Trinity. But closer reflection shows that John makes a much more startling claim. The utterances of God spoken in Genesis are themselves the manifestation and expression of God in his triunity. John 1:3 implies as much by asserting that the Second Person of the Trinity, in his capacity as Word, was the means through which creation came to be. The Word is the means, whereas in Genesis 1 the particular words are the means. Clearly, the particular words are expressions of the one Word. They are the manifestation and action of the second Person of the Trinity. None of the utterances in its particularity and specificity exhausts the eternal Word, since other utterances occur besides. But each utterance is an operation of the eternal Word, through whom all things came to be (John 1:3; Col. 1:16; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:2). According to the analogy, God the Father is the speaker in both cases. From all eternity, God speaks the eternal Word. In creating the world, God the Father spoke the particular words recorded in Genesis 1.
We must include here not only the utterances directed to the subhuman world but the verbal communications with human beings in Gen. 1:28-30. For one thing, these verbal communications, no less than all the rest, are what God speaks. In addition, they function specifically to light the path of human service and endeavor. They are thus an aspect of the life that “was the light of men” (John 1:4). Jesus speaks similarly of his own words, “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life” (John 6:63).
Moreover, the word of God is closely correlated with the name of God. Both involve the use of language. In John 17 Jesus speaks of the “name you gave me” (verses 11-12) in close relation to “the words you gave me” (verse 8). The name of God is an expression of his very character, as in Ex. 34:5-7.. The presence of God’s name involves the presence of God himself (Ex. 23:21; Deut. 12:5; 1 Kings 8:29). The name of God is thus undoubtedly divine. The phrase “word of God” is not synonymous with “name of God,” but designates God’s speech about any subject whatsoever. God’s speech about himself, including his utterance of his name, is in one sense only one part of the totality of God’s speech. Yet in a broader sense all of God’s speech shows something about who God is, and is thus an expression of his character. It is only a short step from acknowledging the divinity of the name of God to acknowledging the divinity of the word more broadly.14
How can we possibly understand this situation? If there is only one God, if the Word of God is God, how can there yet be a great diversity of distinct and different divine words? If the Word of God is divine, if he is himself God, how can he speak of the particulars of history? After all these particulars not themselves a necessary aspect of God’s being. God exists before creation began. The Second Person of the Trinity exists eternally. God exists necessarily with his Word, the Second Person of the Trinity. But it was not necessary for God to create in time, nor was it necessary that he speak the words calling light into being.
We will never be able to exhaust this mystery. But we obtain help in understanding it through the starting point provided in John 1. John 1 presents us with the reality of eternal divine speaking in the being of the Trinity. This eternal speaking is the Original. Our own language and speech is derivative. Man was made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-30). But, as Col. 1:15 indicates, Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, is the original Image, on whom all of creation depends. We are images by analogy with his original imaging. The Second Person is the Original Word. He is the archetype, the original model on which all else is based. All other words are analogous and derivative. They are ectypes, that is, they are copies imitating the original, the archetype.
This Trinitarian Original provides the ultimate basis for the fact that the word of God is both one and many. First, there is unity. The Word is the Word of the Father. As such, he presents the plan, will, mind, and attributes of the Father. He is one with the Father (John 10:30). But there is also diversity. The Word is eternally distinct from the Father. The Father utters the Word that is distinct from himself.
The unity and diversity in the Trinity is the archetype or Original. The unity and diversity in God’s speaking to us is analogous to this original. We may speak of the ontological unity diversity in the Trinity as the archetype, while the unity and diversity in God’s word to us is an ectype. But we must note that God’s words to us are still divine. As we noted above, they have divine power, authority, and purity. The words to us, as ectype, are still divine, along with the archetype. Thus, “ectype” as we are using it includes not only created ectypes, such as man made in the image of God, but divine ectypes, particular words that imitate the archetypal unity and diversity in the Trinity. Everything that God says is divine, a manifestation of the one Word who is one with God, in unity. Everything God says has distinctness, in analogy with the distinctness of the Son from the Father.
We can understand God’s presence in his word still better by considering the role of the Holy Spirit.
John 3:34 provides one way of understanding the role of the Spirit. “God gives the Spirit without limit” to the Son. That is, the Spirit is the Father’s gift to the Son. As such, he is the expression of the Father’s love: “the Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands” (John 3:35). We know that the Spirit is given to us to express the Father’s love for us (John 14:23-27). Through the Spirit, both the Father and the Son dwell in us (John 14:23). The Son’s dwelling in us is analogous to the Father’s dwelling in the Son (John 17:21-23). In other words, God’s dwelling in us is an ectype, an image, of God’s dwelling in God. The Father dwells in the Son and the Son in the Father. This indwelling takes place through their mutual love, which is the gift of the Spirit. Indwelling does not confuse the Persons of the Godhead. Each Person remains distinct from the others, while they dwell in one another.
Through the Spirit, then, the Persons of the Godhead dwell in one another. Each is present in the works of all the others. Each shares the attributes of the others. This relation of Persons is termed coinherence, because each Person “inheres” in the other Persons; each belongs to the others and is in the others.15
The coinherence of the Persons of the Trinity provides a background for understanding the character of God’s word. The Persons of the Trinity are present to one another. The Word is “with God” according to John 1:1. He is “at the Father’s side” (NIV) or “in the bosom of the Father” (RSV, KJV) according to John 1:18. This coinherence provides the archetype. In an ectypal way, God is present in all his words with respect to creation. The Father is “in” the Son (John 14:10) without being identical with the Son (the two are distinct Persons). Similarly, the Father is present in his words without being identical with those words. Since the Son is in the Father, the Son also is present in all the words of God. The eternal Word of John 1:1 is present in the particular words. Thus, there is a unity of being to all the words. All the words of God are not only words from God as speaker. They are words that manifest the presence of the eternal Word. They are expressions and manifestations of that one Word.
Now we can see the significance of the speaking and hearing of different Persons in John 14-17. We saw many different instances of speaking from one Person to another. The differences cohere in a unity guaranteed by the fact that the Persons dwell in their words and in one another. For example, the words that the Son receives from the Father he gives in turn to the disciples (John 8). Thereby, the disciples hear the Father and the Son. The Father dwells in the Son and so is speaking when the Son speaks. “The words that I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work” (John 14:10). The Spirit speaks what he hears in John 16:13. This speaking is then also the speaking of the Father and the Son.
We can summarize our results in terms of three aspects or perspectives on the word of God, namely originary, manifestational, and concurrent aspects. First, we have an originary aspect. God speaks in accordance with who he is, and in accordance with the permanent truths of his original plan. In the originary perspective, we look at how God’s word makes known the Father’s plan.
Second, God speaks in particular ways in particular manifestations. In the manifestational perspective, we look at the particular expression of the word in its particular form. For example, Jesus speaks the particular words of John 15:7 to his disciples, indicating the consequences of abiding in him.
Third, God is present through all the manifestations. He dwells in the manifestations, so that any one manifestation is a manifestation of who he is. We can grasp the original plan of God through its manifestation. The original dwells in the manifestation, and the manifestation dwells in the original. The two are concurrent with one another. In the concurrent perspective, we focus on the relation of the other two aspects. The originary aspect is concurrent with the manifestational aspect, in that the two are present in one another. The original plan is in the particular manifestation and is expressed in the manifestation. For example, God the Father makes known his plan for the disciples through the words of John 15:7. The Father’s plan is concurrent with the particular expression in the words of John 15:7.
Let us consider another illustration. The words that the Father gives to the Son are originary. As John 17:8 says, “For I gave them the words you gave me and they have obeyed your word.” “The words you gave me,” that is, the words of the Father, are originary. The words that the Son gives to the disciples are manifestational. Since the Father dwells in the Son, what the disciples hear is not only the Son speaking but the Father speaking. In the act of speaking to the disciples, the speaking of the Father and of the Son are concurrent. The two speakers are concurrent in the bond of the Holy Spirit. Hence, three aspects, originary, manifestational, and concurrent, correspond respectively to the interactive roles of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Each of the three aspects coheres with the others. Of course they do, because the three are ultimately derived from the triunity of the coinherence of the Persons. Because of coinherence, any one aspect provides a perspective on knowing God. Through hearing the Son, in the manifestational aspect, the disciples know God the Son. Through hearing the Son, they hear the words of the Father, and thereby know the Father. They hear the Father speaking. This speaking gives the originary perspective. They also know the coinherence of the Father in the Son, thereby knowing the Spirit who performs this coinherence.
Each of these perspectives presupposes the others. The manifestational aspect, the Son speaking, presupposes something that he makes known, namely the originary aspect, the words of the Father. The originary aspect, the words of the Father, come to the disciples only by being made known in concrete and specific form, thus presupposing the work of the Son. The concurrent aspect concerns the relation of the speech of the Father to the speech of the Son. The two are concurrent in that each is in harmony with the other. The concurrent aspect must be presupposed so that the manifestational is truly a manifestation of the originary. Conversely, the concurrent aspect presupposes the existence of the other two aspects. Concurrence can operate only if there are aspects on which it can operate. There must be two items that can be concurrent to one another. Thus concurrence presupposes the originary and the manifestational.
Since we will use the idea of perspectives in our later reflections, let us illustrate it now. Through Jesus Christ, we know the Father as well as the Son (John 14:7, 9; Matt. 11:27). There is no other way to know the Father (John 14:6). Thus we may say that knowing Christ provides the perspective or window on knowing the Father. In fact, each of the Persons of the Trinity is indispensable in knowing God. Only through the Father do we know the Son: “No one knows the Son except the Father” (Matt. 11:27), and “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:4). Only through the Spirit do we know the Father and the Son: “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them” (1 Cor. 2:14). Each Person of the Trinity has a distinct role. The Father is the source of knowledge, the Son the channel, and the Holy Spirit the one changing our hearts to be receptive to the truth.
At the same time, each Person points to the work of the others and presupposes the work of the others. The Son is the bearer of knowledge because of the commission of the Father who sent him. The Son’s work is explicable only if we see him not merely as a human being, but the unique Son. Thus the Son presupposes the Father. Conversely, the Father’s revelation presupposes the Son. Since he is holy, the Father makes himself known savingly to sinners only through the Savior and Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5). And finally, the Holy Spirit works only as one sent by the Father and the Son. He presupposes their activity. At the same time, God becomes savingly known to us only if we have a change of heart, and this change takes place only through the Holy Spirit: “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5). Thus, knowing the Father and the Son presupposes the work of the Spirit.
In sum, the three Persons of the Trinity coinhere in the work of making God known. This coinherence is only one instance of coinherence that God expresses in all his works. He manifests coinherence in each particular kind of work, because he is himself eternally coinherent in the being of the Trinity. He acts toward us in a way that manifests who he is in himself.
The most fundamental coinherence is the coinherence of the Persons of the Trinity. But we see derivative coinherence in the perspectives in which he manifests himself. One such triad consists in the originary, manifestational, and concurrent perspectives given above.
We do well to note that the three perspectives are always involved in one another and cannot be neatly separated. We can illustrate this fact by looking more closely at the work of the Holy Spirit in John 16:13-14. The Holy Spirit “will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” The Holy Spirit as hearer receives words from the Father and the Son. His own speech is manifestational in relation to the originary word of the Father. The Spirit himself can thus be viewed from the manifestational aspect. And in relation to human words about him, the Spirit is originary. The Spirit’s relation to the Father who speaks is a relation in harmony. Thus the Spirit has a concurrent relation to the Father. Depending on our point of view, we can view the Spirit as originary, manifestational, or concurrent. Earlier, we correlated each aspect out of the three with only one Person of the Trinity. The originary aspect derived from the Father, the manifestational aspect from the Son, and the concurrent aspect from the Holy Spirit. But we oversimplify if we say that therefore the aspect correlate exclusively with only one Person. The aspects are inseparable, and in fact belong to all three Persons of the Trinity. Precisely because the Persons dwell in one another, we cannot penetrate this ultimate mystery.
We may reexpress these truths using the language of imaging. The Son is the exact Image of the Father, according to Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:3. So he is able to present the Father to the world: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). In the next verse, John 14:10, Jesus explains that the Father is present through indwelling: “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?” The Son’s images the Father and presents the Father to the disciples because the two Persons dwell in one another. As we have seen, the dwelling of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father is closely associated with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is their bond of union. The Son is the Image of the Father through the Spirit. The Spirit represents the concurrent aspect, the relation between the Father and the Son. Because of the close relation of the three aspects to imaging, let us then call the triad consisting in originary, manifestational, and concurrent perspectives the triad of imaging.
In a unique sense the Son is the exact Image of the Father. But the Bible uses the language of image with respect to man. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him” (Gen. 1:27). Man is the image of God (1 Cor. 11:7). Moreover, the idea of imaging does not simply stop with the creation of the first man. Genesis 5:1-3 goes on to say:
This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them “man.” When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
God made man in his image and named them “man.” Adam had a son in his image and named his son “Seth.” Adam imitated God in these actions. He was “imaging” God in the process of producing another image. Seth is the image of Adam. Adam in the image of God. And God has an imaging relation within himself, in the relation of the Father to the Son. Each derivative imaging relation is itself an image of a higher imaging relation.
Imaging, apparently, is all over the place in the description of man. And no wonder! If the Father loves the Son (John 3:34!) it is fitting for him to act out of his love when he creates, and to celebrate that love by producing pictures of it within creation.
We can reexpress this situation using the triad of terms that we already introduced: originary, manifestational, and concurrent aspects or perspectives. Start with the Son imaging the Father. The Father is Originary; the Son is Manifestational; the Spirit who represents the relation between them is Concurrent. When God made man, God was originary, man was manifestational, and the permanent relation of imaging, brought about through inbreathing (Gen. 2:7), was concurrent.
Now consider further the concurrent aspect, that is, the imaging relation between God and man. The imaging relation is the model for Adam having a son in his image. In this context given by Gen. 5:1-3, the relation between God and man is originary, whereas the relation between Adam and Seth is manifestational. The imitating relation between the two is concurrent.
Similarly, the imaging relation between the Father and the Son is originary in comparison to the manifestational imaging relation between God and man. The presence of the Spirit is the bond, by which these two kinds of imaging are concurrent. Note how a renewed imaging relation between God and man is expressed in John 17:21-23 in terms of indwelling:
... that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
Consider the three terms, originary, manifestational, and concurrent. As we have already seen, these three terms describe aspects that derive originally from the distinct roles of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in revelatory operations. Since revelatory operations reveal something of who God actually is, the three terms are an “image” or mirror of the Trinitarian relations. They tell us something of who God is in his Trinitarian Being. In every case, what is permanently true about who God really is (that is, the originary) is manifested in a particular way in revealed form. The manifestation relates to the originary by way of concurrence: each dwells in the other. God is Trinity. And his manifestations are necessarily manifestations through Trinitarian operations.
We should recognize that much of the Bible focuses on God’s relations to us and the historical outworking of redemption. God’s Trinitarian character stands forth most fully and eloquently in the redemptive events where the Persons of the Trinity have a distinct role (e.g., Matt. 3:16-17; Acts 2:33; Rom. 8:11; 1:4; John 16:13-15). God reveals himself to us through his action in the world. We observe the relations of the Persons of the Trinity in their functions in creation, redemption, and consummation. The manifestation of the Trinity in action in the world is traditionally called the “economic” Trinity. (“Economic” here bears the older sense, having to do with managing household affairs; it does not deal with material production and distribution.)
In John 1:1 and elsewhere, the Bible does sometimes focus more directly on aspects of the ontological Trinity, that is, on God as he is in his own existence before creation and independent of creation. But even here we recognize that the language of the Bible is crafted for the purposes of nourishing our faith, enlarging our understanding, and promoting our redemption. Hence the language as a whole is tied in with “functional” purposes.
Since God is our standard and his word is our standard, there is nothing more ultimate than this revelation of himself. We believe that God is true. He truly reveals himself, not a substitute or a mirage. We believe it because God says so. Hence we believe that God is in conformity with what he reveals. Moreover, in John 17 what God says is said to himself and not merely to us. What he says is then in full conformity with who he is. The Trinity in functional operations reveals the ontological Trinity. Hence, I have not tried to separate in any strict or exhaustive way functional (economic) and ontological statements. Such separation on the part of a creature would itself be a repudiation of creaturehood.
What do we conclude concerning the study of the Bible? When we study the Bible, we study the word of God. We also know that God speaks words to creation (Ps. 147:15, 18). The Second Person of the Trinity is the Word. The word of God occurs in all these forms. The Bible, as one form, coinheres with other forms. Christ himself dwells in the biblical word. Thus, the particular word always comes in a context, the context of coinherence in God. That context is inexhaustible, and so there is an inexhaustibility to God’s word. Because we are focusing on the Bible, we shall, through the rest of the book, have the Bible in focus when we speak of God’s word. But the larger picture remains an indispensable background.16
Since the word of God is divine, it is in the technical sense of the term incomprehensible. We do not mean that the word is unintelligible or meaningless to us. Rather, the word of God is accessible, “near you” (Rom. 10:8), as Paul says. But it is near you in the same way that God is near you. We know God truly, and know many truths about him. But God remains mysterious, unfathomable in the depth of his wisdom. Similarly, we know what the word of God says, and simultaneously it remains mysterious to us; we do not fully fathom it or exhaust it.
Let us consider a particular example. John 2:16 says, “And he told those who sold the pigeons, ‘Take these things away; you shall not make my Father’s house a house of trade’ ” (RSV). We claim that this verse is incomprehensible. But its meaning is intelligible. Jesus told the pigeon sellers to remove their goods from the temple area. Jesus gave a direct instruction and expected a direct response. We can easily understand the verse to this extent. But we have not yet exhausted its import.
On the surface, the meaning may seem to be straightforward. But Jesus’ explicit instruction also points indirectly to depths that are more complex. Behind the explicit instruction lie motives. The instruction reveals Jesus’ zeal, as the next verse notes, “Zeal for your house will consume me.” The verse itself include a reason, “You shall not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” With this negative statement Jesus indicates that the temple is not for “trade.” But he hints thereby that it has a positive purpose, a purpose indicated by the whole Old Testament. It is house honoring God. It is the place where God has put his name (1 Kings 8:29). it displays God’s majesty, and provides access to God for sinful people. In the last days, as Isaiah says, “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations” (Isa. 56:7; cf. Mark 11:17).
In fact, through this statement Jesus points to the full meaning of the temple, as that meaning is developed in extensive instruction through the Old Testament. The text in John 2:16 thus invites us not only to look at what it says on its surface, but what it implies as it calls to mind the teaching of the Old Testament.
Now some people may say at this point that we are no longer dealing with John 2:16, but with other passages, all of which have meanings of their own. They may claim that John 2:16 in and of itself does not have all these implications. And there is some truth in their concern. Certainly we have to be aware of the differences between what different passages say, as well as their connections. Yet do we really know what we mean when we talk about John 2:16 “in and of itself”? At a fundamental level, there is no such thing. John 2: 16 is part of the Bible, and God intends that we read it and understand it in relation to all the other parts of the Bible. When he caused the words to be written in the Gospel of John, he already intended that they should be seen as we are seeing them, namely in connection to other passages which together unfold the purpose of God.
Moreover, in John 2:16 Jesus calls the temple “my Father’s house.” Jesus claims a special relation to God, who is his Father. Because of his relation to his Father, he has a special concern and zeal for the temple. And, in spite of the Jews’ demands and objections in the dialogue in John 2:18-20, Jesus has authority over the temple, as the Son. Jesus’ statements and demands about the temple arise out of his zeal for the temple and his zeal for the honor of God his Father. This zeal in turn arises from the special understanding and love that Jesus has for his Father. Jesus out of his knowledge of his Father knows the Father’s purposes. He knows that the Father’s purposes are violated by trading in the temple. He acts confidently against the violation because he is confident in his knowledge of the Father. The particular statement in John 2:16 presupposes this knowledge and communion of the Son with the Father. It even expresses the communion explicitly when Jesus calls God his Father. The passage invokes this communion between the Father and the Son, a communion that is infinitely deep. Thus the passage reveals depths that we cannot fathom.
In addition, we should have learned something from John 17. God, as well as human beings, can hear what he says. The Son addresses the Father in John 17. Similarly, the utterance “you shall not make my Father’s house a house of trade” not only means something to us; it means something to God. God the Father hears the Son speaking. God the Father knows the intimacy that the Son expresses with the words “my Father’s house.” He also knows the zeal that the Son expresses in the words, “Take these things away.” The Father, knowing the Son, knows depths of nuance and shared knowledge that we cannot fully see. In hearing the words that Jesus speaks in John 2:16, he understands in depth, because he brings prior understanding of the Son, and this prior understanding enriches the understanding of the words themselves. The Father sees implications that we do not see. There is an infinite fullness of meaning here, just as we began to find in John 17.
The name of God, as a concentrated form of the word of God, shows similar features. First of all, the name of God genuinely reveals God. It describes the character of God. Thus:
[God] proclaimed his name, the LORD. And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.” (Ex. 34:5-6)
To “proclaim God’s name” is expounded by a description of God’s character, including his attributes, “compassionate,” “gracious,” and so on.
The name of God says something definite about God. It makes it clear who God really is and what our responsibilities are. The name of God brings God near to us, as is clear from the key character of the dwelling of God’s “name” in Jerusalem (Deut. 12:5; 1 Kings 8:29). But God’s name is simultaneously mysterious, awesome, and transcendent. God’s name indicates all that God is, and we cannot exhaustively comprehend or penetrate that “all.” For instance, the messenger of the Lord who wrestles with Jacob brings him face to face with God (Gen. 32:30, 28). The messenger refuses to reveal a name (Gen. 32:29). The messenger who comes to Manoah is later recognized as divine (Judg. 13:22). He indicates only that his name is “wonderful,” or, as the NIV has it, “beyond understanding” (Judg. 13:18). The psalms praise the name of God and celebrate its excellence (Pss. 8:1, 9; 9:2; 34:3; 44:8; 54:6; 72:19; 86:12; etc.). His name is glorious, exalted, holy, and awesome (Pss. 72:19; 103:1; 148:13; 145:21; 99:3; 111:9). God’s name transcends human analysis and knowledge. Similarly, the word of God, which is exalted together with God’s name (Ps. 138:2), transcends human knowledge.
The transcendence of the word of God has implications for our manner of approach. Humility is necessary. We should be suspicious of any supposedly simple solution to the profundities of interpretation, or any claim to have mastered language and communication.
Let us state the matter another way. The Second Person of the Trinity is incomprehensible from the beginning of time. He remains incomprehensible when he becomes incarnate. The incarnation makes Jesus Christ accessible to us, and we understand him in a sense through his humanity. But instead of overcoming mystery, the incarnation adds still another mystery to those already existing: how can God become man and still remain God?
John 17 shows that the words of the incarnate Christ are incomprehensible. His words have infinitely rich meaning. We can generalize to the entirety of Scripture. The word of God remains incomprehensible when it becomes Scripture. The fixity, accessibility, specificity, and clarity of Scripture do not in the least diminish its incomprehensibility, but rather add a further mystery: how can God’s eternal, omnipotent word become human speech and still remain divine?
Table of Contents | Next Chapter
1 Benjamin B. Warfield, Inspiration; Louis Gaussen, Theopneustia: The Bible, its Divine Origin and Entire Inspiration, …, (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971); more recently, Stonehouse and Woolley, eds., Infallible Word; Montgomery, ed., God's Inerrant Word; D. A. Carson and John Woodbridge, eds., Scripture and Truth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983); D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, eds. Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon.
2 Such conclusions have been disputed by many, notably by Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (New York: Harper & Row, 1979); Donald K. McKim, ed. The Authoritative Word: Essays on the Nature of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983). But see the reply in John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982). Affirming inerrancy (no errors) does not imply taking a wooden approach to interpreting the Bible: see Moisés Silva, “Ned B. Stonehouse and Redaction Criticism,” Westminster Theological Journal 40 (1977-78): 77-88, 281-303.
3 When citing these and other texts, I am certainly aware of scholarly debates concerning their interpretation. But it would clutter the exposition to interact with all the various opinions, especially those in mainstream historical-critical scholarship. It should be apparent later in this book that the presuppositions of mainstream scholarship are seriously flawed. Hence, “accepted” opinion must be critically rethought from the beginning. Scholarship, not the Bible, is in need of revision.
4 Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972).
5 Ibid.
6 Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963).
7 One may receive instruction here from the many works on aspects of covenant theology. Books on Reformed systematic theology contain extensive discussion. See Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968); Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970). We also have more recent treatments from a redemptive-historical point of view: Kline, Structure; O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980); Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966).
8 See Vern S. Poythress, “Christ the Only Savior of Interpretation,” Westminster Theological Journal 50 (1988) 305-321.
9 See John M. Frame, Perspectives on the Word of God: An Introduction to Christian Ethics (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1990), 23-24.
10 Ibid., 24.
11 For more wide-ranging reflections, see ibid., 3-35.
12 One may compare my view with G. C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 195-212. Berkouwer usefully reflects on a long history in which theologians have spoken of an analogy between incarnation and inscripturation. He rightly points to nuances and sensitivities that ought to be maintained. But I am uncomfortable with the excessive caution and negation he exhibits at some points.
For example, according to Warfield and Berkouwer, in Scripture there is no question of “personal union,” that is the union of two natures in one person. The analogy between incarnation and inscripturation is therefore “remote” (pp. 201-2). The statement about “personal union” is technically correct. But it seems to me that the uniqueness of Christ’s being, far from implying that the analogy is “remote,” makes Christ indispensable to understanding Scripture!
Consider. We are sinful. God is holy. How can God speak to us without our dying (cf. Ex. 20:19)? Ultimately, he does so only through Christ, the one mediator between God and men (1 Tim. 2:5). The union of natures in the person of Christ must form an ontological and redemptive ground for the speaking of God to sinful human beings at all times. It is then the exemplar for understanding Scriptural speech. Such speech is not impersonal. In Scripture, it is God who speaks through Christ. Even in Old Testament times, God’s speaking looked forward to Christ’s incarnation and redemptive work. There is then no way of adequately understanding Scriptural speaking except in a way that links it with the prime exemplar, Jesus’ speaking in his incarnation. Moreover, people are likely to take offense at the doctrine of the Incarnation unless the OT prepares them for it by its repeated covenantal structures, which involve divine-human words.
Berkouwer says, “Scripture was not given to us in the climate of a stupendous miracle” (p. 204)—as if the voice from Mount Sinai and the Ten Commandments graven on stone by the “finger of God” did not involve a miracle! Perhaps Berkouwer wants us to think of the fact that at times Scripture comes less spectacularly, as in the Gospel of Luke. So also Jesus’ teaching on earth sometimes comes less spectacularly, without the fanfare of a spectacular visible miracle. But is his incarnate speech less weighty, less awesome, less inexhaustible, just because we are not dazzled by a magician’s fanfare? It is not clear what point Berkouwer expects to make.
Berkouwer also believes that the analogy breaks down because we reject bibliolatry, the adoration of Scripture (p. 204). But he does not explore the distinction that I made above between the media (stone tablets, or paper and ink) and the message (the word of God).
Berkouwer rightly sees that we ought to avoid a “docetic” view of Scripture in which its human form is suppressed (pp. 198, 202n). Where is there an analogous discussion of the “adoptionist” views surrounding us today?
It seems to me that Berkouwer’s discussion has overlooked an important point. When Jesus spoke with human voice on earth, his speech offered a bridge between the fact of incarnation and the issue of divine-human speaking as it occurs in the Bible.
13 Speculations abound as to the possible sources and allusions behind John 1:1-3 and the use of the term “the Word” ( ὁ λόγος ). But we must not miss the obvious allusion to Genesis 1. The Gospel of John invites Christian readers to understand it primarily in the light of Old Testament background. As Jesus says later in John, “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me” (John 5:46). Elsewhere in John allusions abound to the Mosaic festivals and other symbolic materials from the books of Moses.
14 For a fuller discussion on the doctrine of the word, I must refer readers to the forthcoming book by John M. Frame on the doctrine of the word of God. Unfortunately, the material is available at present in fullest form only in a classroom syllabus, ‘‘Doctrine of the Word of God,’’ for a course at Westminster Theological Seminary in California. But for a condensation, see Frame, Perspectives.
15 Systematic theology has also used the terms circumcession, circumincession, perichoresis, and emperichoresis.
16 Modernist theology in all its forms denies these crucial conclusions. Some forms of modernism rebel against biblical teaching in obvious ways. But neoorthodoxy looks more attractive. It has many fine-sounding things to say about the word of God, but one seldom knows what is meant by the “word of God.” Is such theology referring to Jesus Christ incarnate, subsequent to the incarnation, or to the second Person of the Trinity both before and after the incarnation, or to Jesus Christ and the speech of God in Scripture, or to Scripture? If neoorthodoxy calls Scripture the word of God, it does so only obliquely: Scripture supposedly “becomes” the word of God only at those times when it rises to become a dynamic pointer to Jesus Christ, who is alone the word of God in the proper sense. Neoorthodoxy pretends to appeal to the Bible, but in the end, directly contrary to the Bible (John 12:47-50), it simply smuggles in the idea that one can honor Jesus Christ and simultaneously not honor his words. See the critique of neoorthodoxy in John Frame, “Scripture Speaks for Itself,” in God’s Inerrant Word, ed. John W, Montgomery, pp.178-200; and J. I. Packer, “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958).
Neoorthodoxy uses immense learning, profundity, and cleverness to conceal from itself the fact that it has smuggled in a mere autonomous supposition, the Kantian idea that God cannot manifest himself in the phenomenal world, and in particular in the world of human language. Not the Bible but human philosophy in rebellion to God (and the “assured results” of modern criticism) has told them that the Bible is not actually the word of God but only “conveys” the word from time to time into noumenal contact with the human soul.