New Creation: Getting Rid of a “Center” in Biblical Theology

For decades, the big question in biblical theology has been “what is the center of biblical theology?” Sometimes theologians focus on the center of the OT or NT by itself, and it is indeed hard to find a center to the entire Bible since the OT and NT suggestions are often diverse and hard to fit together. Of course by a “center,” we mean an organizational principle around which the entirety of the biblical material can be captured; a center of theological gravity, if you will.

The Problem with Centers

Centers have been proposed such as covenant (Eichrodt), God (Hasel), mission (Howard), Christological anthropology (Ellis), Christ (many), etc. As you can see, most centers end up being themes or persons of the Trinity that carry great theological weight and are pervasive throughout the Bible.

The problem with centers is that they’re always exclusionary. They have the same problem as the “canon within the canon” idea; certain ideas gain more weight than others, so books such as Esther, Proverbs, and Philemon will be given short-shrift if the center chosen is, say, covenant. Another obvious problem is the subjectivity of a center. Why one over the others? Most will have a hard time convincing others that their center is more central than others.

Replacing Center with Telos

What if, in biblical theology, we replaced a center with a telos? “Telos” of course means goal or end, the ultimate aim or purpose of something. A telos has many benefits over a center.

What if, in biblical theology, we replaced a center with a telos? Click To Tweet

First, all components of a system can be related to its telos. Crucial here is the idea of providence. Perhaps an Arminian biblical theology can’t use telos as an organizational principle because there are many events in history (in fact, billions) that are simply meaningless. If an act isn’t ordained by God, it can’t necessarily be considered as related to the telos of creation. However, those who view the entirety of history as being directed by God’s providence can explain the significance of every event by the way it contributes to the progress toward creation’s telos.

Second, telos fits well with recent uses of metanarrative to structure biblical theologies. History has taken prime place as the way to organize material, which makes the presentation chronological. A “center,” by contrast, makes the presentation topical. Using some sort of chronological structure allows the author to move easily toward the telos, which is not only the ultimate aim, but also the final aim of history and creation.

Third, a telos is far less subjective than a center. We can debate which specific part of the ultimate aim of creation is “the telos,” but one must look simply to where everything is headed. What is the final end of all things? Where is everything heading? That is the telos. I don’t think it’s debatable that discovering the telos of creation is less subjective than arguing for a center.

New Creation as the Telos

It’s a common observation that the Bible begins and ends with creation; and not only the Bible in the way it’s arranged, but also history in the way it is structured. So both the canon and history tells us that creation is of central importance, and of course we know that all history is leading toward the new creation. I think it’s fairly secure that “new creation” is at least a component of the telos. Thus, as an organizational principle, one might structure a biblical theology in such a way that all personals and events are studied for their significance in relation to the new creation.

One might add more concepts into the new creation concept. For example, in G. K. Beale’s New Testament Biblical Theology, he argues for a “new creational kingdom” that appears recurrently throughout the storyline of the Bible. Adam’s kingly figure and the fact that the consummated kingdom is essentially the new creation suggests that the inclusion of “kingdom” in the telos is fair. But by the same line of thinking, we might add many other concepts that were present in the garden and will be present in the new creation, such as the priestly role of Adam and the fact that the New Jerusalem imitates the Holy of Holies in its cube-shaped features.

Perhaps the best approach is to stick with “new creation” as the telos while defining it in a holistic way that captures all these other theological themes.

A Subconcious Telos?

It has always been surprising to me that the concept of a new creation is far less pervasive than we might expect, if it really is the telos of creation and history. We have the two clear promises of the new creation in Isa 65:17; 66:22, and echoes of the same concept throughout Isa 40-66. The there are the clear allusions to the Isaiah promises in 2 Cor 5:17 and 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1.

Apart from these clear references, there is the mention of the “new creation” in Gal 6:11. As Grant Osborne’s new commentary explains succinctly, this reference occurs in a verse that is summarizing the argumentation of the letter. According to Osborne, then, the concept of a new creation underlies (almost subconciously) the argumentation of this important Pauline epistle.

Similarly, a recent commentary on Ephesians by S. M. Baugh argues that the central theme of Ephesians is “unity in the inaugurated new creation.” There are no references explicitly to the new creation in Ephesians, but it does refer to “one new man” and “the new man” (Eph 2:15; 4:24), and the context of these passages do evoke the new creational concept (see Baugh’s commentary for further argumentation).

In the same way, the new creational concept appears in other places of the OT and the NT, but in more allusive than explicit ways. I’m personally uncertain how to explain why a concept that I argue is the telos of all creation and history is referred to explicitly so infrequently and often only allusively. Perhaps there are answers in the same way there are answers to the question of why the “kingdom of God” appears so frequently in the Gospels but so rarely outside of them.

Weigh In

What do you think about replacing center with telos? Should the new creation be considered the telos? Why do you think explicit references to the new creation throughout the Bible are so infrequent? Comment below!