Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Merrill's Center of the Bible
Well enough of Melo and the 'Cuse, and now onto another topic: What is the center of the entire Bible? I should have started with this post and then done the center of the OT, but I am not that organized. So what is the center of the Bible? Some say Christ, others Kingdom, other New Creation. Obviously this post cannot exhaustively detail the previously stated centers, but I do want to bring up a new, at least for me, theory out there that is very attractive to me. This theory is proposed by Dumbrell and followed by Merrill which sees Genesis 1:26-28 as informing one as the goal and center of the Scriptures. He in a sense says that center message of the Bible is God mediating His rule over all of creation through man. Since man fell, this rule by man became impossible. Therefore, Christ had reconcile man and God in order for this mediated rule to come about. Merrill writes, "God the Sovereign Lord of all that is, created the universe for His own glory, displaying that glory through what is made and what he does in nature and history. Man, created as God's image, is the channel and agent chosen by God to mediate his revealed will and to implement his sovereign purposes." The reason this center shocks me is that there no mention of Christ. Now I am sure that Merrill that gives Christ His due, but it seems to be second fiddle. By that I mean that the primary center is God mediating His rule through man, and only since Adam fell is Christ brought into the picture. But back to the center question, does this center encapsulate the entire drama of redemption? What are the ramifications concerning the millennium, already/not yet hermeneutic...etc.? Give me some thoughts!! Josh, please do not say that you think this is 'neat.'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
when you said center of the Bible, I immediately thought "Shakespear". I had a college professor talk about when the KJV Bible was written and how it was around Shakespears time...so in the KVJ the Center of the Bible is in Psalms and it's between two words "Shake" and "Spear"...but then I don't think that was what you were going for.
oh...and our college pastor is an OT guy. Brent Aucoin...come to our counseling conference in Feb. and you can meet him...
g-knee
Thanks for your response. I have also heard of your 'center'. It comes from Psalm 46 where 'shake' is the 46th word, and the word 'spear' if you count backwards is also the 46th word. What I can't remember is the significance of '46'. I think it is something like Shakespear was 46 at the time the Psalm was translated or something like that. So if you know or hear let me know! Thanks--Chelle sends her greetings!
Scott,
The issue of center is a question that I first have to consider the legitimacy of the question itself (perhaps you can give me your thoughts on the concept of center and why would the Scriptures necessitate one).
As to Gen. 1:26-28 I do see what your saying as a potential secondary position for Christ. I guess the potential would be for something like Barth who takes Christology to inform his anthropology. In short, man couldn't do it right so God became and man, so finally a perfect man (Christ) could fulfill the intended rulership.?.
My Hebrew sure is rusty but with trusty Bible works it appears that at least the preceeding verses are also waw consecutives. Thus from a discourse perspective nothing is even special in the narrative to make these verses stand out. Am I missing something that would embolden such a concept more?
Tim
I will respond two times to you, but this first one concerns a center. I guess that there does not have to be a center, but then the Bible becomes a random book of stories. So to say there is no center, says to me anyway that the Bible has no cohesion. If there is cohesion to the Bible, then what brings it together?
Now I will state that a center will not necesarily mean that every phrase in the text will deal immediately with the center. Rather, the center is an organizing principle that helps form a layout of the message of the Bible. So a center for me is necessary. Also, Hasel's statement that the center of the OT is God, is also ridiculous! The organizing principle of the OT is more than God. (that sounds very bad, almost blasphemous to me)
So to sum up, I see the Scriptures as being a singular message that encompasses much material, and I am seeking to find the organizing principle behind this cohesive mesaage. But maybe I am not seeing it straight either--so let me here your thoughts
I saw your blog at G-Knee's. I was Chelle's roomate at MBBC...could you tell her Sara Foz said hi, and your kids are so CUTE!
This is Mike (your brother) I couldn't get my blogger account working. anyway...
Does Dumbrell go further with the man and 'Christ' concepts? Hebrews 2 addresses this issue. The author of Hebrews (AOH) in seeking to demonstrate the glory of Christ over angels says that the world to come is not going to be subjected to (ruled by) angels. (One could argue that this present world is ruled by angels: Satan Eph 2:2; 1 John 5:19). Rather the world to come is going to be ruled by mankind- he cites Psalm 8. God subjected everything to mankind, even though we cannot see it yet. In this scheme Christ is seemingly playing "second fiddle" until we recognize that Christ as Man will restore everything that mankind was "intended" to be in the fall. This passage confirms what Barker was saying. Add a little union with Christ to this and you might have something!
Although there may not be a "grammatical" device to mark it out in the Hebrew, the fact that in the creation account nothing else is made in the image of God seems to marks it out. Also, the author employs the "Let Us..." language marking it out from the rest of the account. Finally, the poetry in the midst of the narrative also sets it out as important.
I think these thoughts may help confirm some of what Dumbrell was saying. If I am way off let me know.
I was just following some links, and found my way here. My comments usually have all the significance of the braying of an ass, but anyway, here goes:
I appreciate the centrality of the theme of man's dominion over the earth, as analogical of the rule of God. And I certainly appreciate the theme of Christ, the true image of God/perfect man as being the ultimate fulfillment of that original design. But might we not phrase the concept so as to make Christ (and his rule/display of the invisible nature of God) primary. I'm thinking, first, of passages such as that in Revelations which speaks of Christ's being slain "before the foundation of the world"; and second, of the concept that we start to see in the NT, that the original features of creation were, from the beginning, designed to display something about the person/work of Christ (e.g. Ephesians 5 and marriage). So what I'm saying is, perhaps in the Divine design, the ultimate plan was for the display of the nature of God, in his dominion, justice, mercy, etc.; and that he accordingly designed a plan in which the second person of the godhead, Jesus, the Son of God, might the most poignantly display those godly attributes. Which included a creation mandate for a divine image-bearer, the fall of man, Christ's redemptive work, etc. Maybe the distinction is subtle, but I think it's vital that we recoginize the primacy of Christ in every way, even in the original intent of creation/revelation.
Blessings from the Cross,
Pitchford
Good dispatch and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Thanks you as your information.
Post a Comment