Salvation within the functional hermeneutic
Posted on May 1, 2008
Filed Under creation, hermeneutics, kingdom living, theology
Building on the previous post about viewing the creation account of Genesis 1 from a functional hermeneutic rather than a structural perspective, I want ask some parallel questions, fast forwarding from Genesis to our life today.
The functional hermeneutic suggests that the things we view as structural objects to Creation, e.g. light, water, plants, animals, all have an overlying function or reason for their being. For example, the function of light was to establish time as an organizing principle of the universe. Rather than only viewing Genesis 1 as the definite creation of objects, of things, we should instead can perhaps also read it as God creating organizing principles of function and purpose where there was only purposeless chaos before.
Christ’s sacrifice is described in Revelation [13:8] and 1 Peter [1:19-20] as predestined from before the foundation of the world. This suggests that the function of atonement was also established during Creation, such that it would be Natural for mankind to need to be reconciled to God. After the inevitable Fall, the OT describes in much detail a (imperfect) sacrificial system established by God for the atonement of sins. Christ came later as the perfect fulfillment of that system.
Placing this system within the functional hermeneutic, is it not fair to say that atonement (or salvation or redemption) is an overlying function of God’s relationship to Creation, but that the actual sacrifice of atonement (aka expiation or propitiation) is a structure? We are saved/redeemed within the context of whatever structure God has made available for us: for the OT Jews, it was the sins were atoned for (expiated) by the physical sacrificial system; for Christians, the gift of grace through faith in Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection.
I would caution against the suggestion that this allows for the possibility of other redemptive structures in other religions. The point of a function-driven account of Creation is that the relationship between God and his people is set apart from other cultures and systems. The lineage of faith through the Bible establishes this remnant, not the population of the entire world. Salvation is a function of God’s Kingdom; those who live outside of His kingdom do not experience the purpose of redemption.
As those living within the Kingdom, should our focus be on the function or the structure? We are saved by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross to live in the Kingdom and give glory to God. That is our purpose, our function, as Christians. To fulfill that role, should we primarily be looking back at the cross or looking forward to Kingdom life? I suggest the latter, but that the observance of the sacrament of communion is our reflection on the structure and event of the cross.
The NT suggests this pattern as well. The gospels look back to the cross, establishing the reason and structure, the what, of our salvation. The letters and epistles are functional, answering the question of how we fulfill our purpose of living in the Kingdom. The apocalypse, Revelation, provides hope for the future of the remnant, answering the question of why we live in the Kingdom.
Comments
8 Responses to “Salvation within the functional hermeneutic”
Leave a Reply
The functional hermeneutic suggests that the things we view as structural objects to Creation, e.g. light, water, plants, animals, all have an overlying function or reason for their being. For example, the function of light was to establish time as an organizing principle of the universe. Rather than viewing Genesis 1 as the definite creation of objects, of things, we should instead read it as God creating organizing principles of function and purpose where there was only purposeless chaos before.
Elshaddai, great post! It’s hermeneutically challenging. I have a question: rather than viewing the hermeneutical of Genesis 1 as either/or, Is it possible for us to view it as a both/and.
I would caution against the suggestion that this allows for the possibility of other redemptive structures in other religions. The point of a function-driven account of Creation is that the relationship between God and his people is set apart from other cultures and systems. The lineage of faith through the Bible establishes this remnant, not the population of the entire world. Salvation is a function of God’s Kingdom; those who live outside of His kingdom do not experience the purpose of redemption.
Put another way: Don’t we need the structures of Genesis 1 before we can get to their functions, so much so that we understand them as literal within the Genesis narrative?
I do agree with your hermeneutic of redemption because of the signposts in Scripture.
TC, I like the both/and view this hermeneutic. We seem to separate views into two camps. Often, seeing things with a wider hermeneutic lens is more difficult but can also make sense. Being brought up with a literal interpretation of creation and now coming into more of a functional view has helped me make more sense in the 7 days of creation. I’m still struggling with this though and I appreciate learning about this. Great posts ElShaddai.
rather than viewing the hermeneutical of Genesis 1 as either/or, Is it possible for us to view it as a both/and.
Yes, I think so. Steve and Dave more or less came to that conclusion in the “Genesis 1 as functional creation…” comment thread. I’ve tweaked the language in that paragraph to be more accommodating.
Don’t we need the structures of Genesis 1 before we can get to their functions, so much so that we understand them as literal within the Genesis narrative?
I don’t know… it might depend on whether you mean “we” as humanity in general, across time, or as modern, post-Enlightenment people. Walton’s point seemed to be that our modern concept of thinking about objects or structures as the root of our interpretation would have been completely foreign to an ANE culture. This is new to me, so I don’t have the knowledge to adequately contrast the two - did you have a chance to browse his Genesis commentary that you said you had?
Kevin, after reading what Elshaddai wrote, I believe we need to keep the structures as our footing for the functional view.
Elshaddai, I’m out of town for a few days, so I haven’t come around to Dr Walton. I’ll have to wait for the weekend.
But I find this topic quite intriguing. I’ll really like to get my hands around this one. I’m looking forward to more posts on this.
ElShaddai wrote: “We are saved/redeemed within the context of whatever structure God has made available for us: for the OT Jews, it was the sacrificial system”
EE,
I always thought the more “orthodox” view was that the OT sacrificaial system wasn’t what saved them, but they were somehow saved through what Christ would eventually do. Any thoughts?
Dave
Good catch - I should have said that their sins were atoned for (or expiated) by the sacrificial system.
Your latter point, that “they were somehow saved through what Christ would eventually do”, does raise the question that, if salvation was a function established at Creation, were the Jews who died in atonement automatically saved since the sacrificial system was in reality a precursor to Christ, and both were/are structures of the same overarching function.
EE,
I think, to some extent anyway, that is THE question as far as pre-Christ Jews are concerned. I’ve heard a theory that they are given the choice of accepting Christ after they have died, but I don’t think there is any Biblical basis for that. Anyway, I don’t mean to veer this off topic
You’re not “off topic” in my book - this thread is about the function of salvation and I welcome your comments!