Hebrews 11:1
Hebrews 11:1:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen Some translations say "assurance of things hoped for." |
|
|
The Christian concept of “faith” is often either misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented by skeptics and critics of Christianity. Christians are not called to believe blindly. In fact, the Christian worldview is an evidential worldview grounded in the eyewitness testimony of those who saw Jesus provide evidence of His Deity. Sometimes Christians contribute to the misunderstanding by failing to see the evidential nature of Christianity and the reasonable nature of “faith”. As I teach on this topic around the country, Christians often offer this passage in the Book of Hebrews to defend a definition of blind faith:
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval. Is the writer of Hebrews commending a form of blind faith in which we simply hope for “things not seen”? No. The author is encouraging his readers to continue to trust in the promises of God, in spite of the fact they haven’t yet been fulfilled (and might not even be fulfilled in their lifetimes). This trust in “things not seen” is not unwarranted, however. The promises of God are grounded in what God has already done. In other words, the author of Hebrews is asking his readers to trust what can’t be (or hasn’t yet been) seen, on the basis of what can be (or has been) seen. To make this point clear, the writer of Hebrews offers a short list of historic believers who trusted God’s promises for the future on the basis of what God had done in the past: Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are described as believers who “died in faith, without receiving the promises” (verse 13). The promises of God were yet “things not seen”. In spite of this, these believers held firm to the promises of God on the basis of what they had seen. The author of Hebrews demonstrates this point with perhaps the best example of a believer who possessed a reasonable, evidential faith: Moses. Hebrews 11:24-27 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen. Exodus 13:3 Moses said to the people, “Remember this day in which you went out from Egypt, from the house of slavery; for by a powerful hand the Lord brought you out from this place. Deuteronomy 5:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day. Deuteronomy 7:18 You shall not be afraid of them; you shall well remember what the Lord your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt: Deuteronomy 15:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today. Deuteronomy 24:18 But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and that the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing. Moses was the supreme example of a man who had a deep, reasonable trust based on the evidence God had provided him. His faith wasn’t blind, it was evidentially reasonable. He had seen God in the burning bush, watched how God used him in front of pharaoh, saw miracle after miracle, and witnessed the power of God. On the basis of this evidence, his confidence grew and Moses was ultimately transformed from a coward to a champion. Christianity is grounded in the evidence of the eyewitness gospel accounts. These documents make claims about the history of the First Century and the birth, life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. As such, these claims are both verifiable and falsifiable. As we grow in our confidence related to the reliability of the Gospels, our reasoned trust in what they claim (and what they promise) will also grow. The gospels describe many “things not seen”. God is immaterial and invisible, and many of the promises of God are yet unfulfilled. But we can trust the things we can’t see on the basis of the things we can. We can move in faith toward the future on the basis of what God has demonstrated in the past. |
It has been said that he who defines the terms, wins the debate. Skeptics know this and take advantage of it. Witness some of the famous definitions of "faith" provided by unbelievers. Mark Twain, for example, quipped, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." Closer to our own day, the atheist author Sam Harris defined faith as "the license religious people give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail." Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous atheist of our generation, claims: "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."
The one thing all of these definitions have in common is the explicit or implicit idea that faith is in conflict with reason. Unfortunately, some Christians in the history of the church have said things that have provided support for this view of the relationship between faith and reason. Martin Luther, for example, made very strong negative statements about reason, many of which are quoted by skeptics in their attempts to prove that Christianity is inherently irrational. Luther called reason "the Devil's greatest whore." He said in a number of different contexts that reason should be destroyed. The context is crucial, because in these instances Luther was talking about the arbitrariness of unaided human reason to discern divine things. Still, his tendency toward hyperbole has played into the hands of skeptics. The vast majority of Christians throughout history, however, have not rejected the right use of reason. This stems from their attempt to be faithful to the teaching of Scripture, which itself provides reasons to believe. John wrote his entire Gospel to provide reasons to believe that Jesus is the Christ (John 20:30–31). John, Peter, and Paul appeal to evidence for the claims they make (1 Cor. 15:5–6; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1–4). All human beings believe certain things based on the testimony of others. Christians believe what they believe based on the testimony of the Apostles. Such faith is a gift, but it is not divorced from reason. --Keith Mathison: Faith and Reason |
|
From J. I. Packer, a summary of what the book of Hebrews says about faith.
- Faith is “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1 NIV) — the emphasis being, as always in Scripture, on the reality of faith’s objects rather than the degree of confidence we feel about them.
- Specifically, faith honours and pleases God by taking His word about things (creation, 11:3; rewards 11:6; God’s faithfulness to His promises, 11:11; this life as a journey home, 11:13-16; the fact that obedience always makes sense, even when it looks like nonsense, 11:17-19, etc.).
- Faith approaches God boldly through Christ (4:16; 10:19-22) to find help and strength for the winning of the moral, spiritual and circumstantial victories (11:32-38; 4:16) and for the enduring of hostility both from within and from outside oneself (sin within, 12:1-4; ill-treatment from without, 10:32-34; 12:3).
- Faith interprets trouble as God’s discipline of his child (12:5-11) and, so far from being daunted, rejoices to think of it as proving one’s sonship to God and preparing one for peace and pleasure to come.
- Faith takes courage from examples of living by faith which the “great cloud of witnesses” have left us (12:1; 13:7), from thoughts of their present happiness (12:23), and from knowing that when we come to God here on earth we plug into the present worship and fellowship of the heaven that will be our own home one day (12:22-24).
- Faith battle against temptations to unbelief, apathy and disobedience, sustaining against them the quality sometimes called “stickability” (Canadians say, “stick-to-it-iveness”), and referrred to in the letter as patience and endurance (Greek, hypomone) (6:11f.; 10:36; 12:1). Faith in God produces faithfulness to God.
Does faith precede reason or does reason precede faith?
It is first helpful to clarify what one means by “faith.”
Some may cite Hebrews 11:1 and snidely conclude that faith is simply “hope.” In fact, in his manual for talking people out of their unreasonable commitments to “the faith virus,” Peter Boghossian has defined faith as “pretending to know things you don’t.”
Greg Koukl clarifies this position; "Simply put, faith and knowledge are functional opposites. The only place for faith, then, is in the shadows of ignorance . . . . Ironically, this same perspective has been promoted by Christians themselves. ‘If I know that God exists,’ they challenge, ‘or that Jesus rose from the dead, or that Heaven is real, then where is room for faith?’” But this is obviously incorrect. “The opposite of knowledge is not faith, but ignorance. And the opposite of faith is not knowledge, but unbelief."
The notion of faith as religious wishful thinking may accurately characterize some worldviews, but it is not reflective of an accurate understanding of classical Christianity. First, consider 1 Pet 3:15, which commands believers to be able always to defend (apologia) the reasons for their belief. The common biblical word for faith is pistis, which represents an active trust that is grounded in one’s convictions—which are based in understanding, not hope. It might be helpfully clarified that both hope and faith look to the future with a sort of longing or expectation, but hope is unable to move beyond desire without the aid of conviction. I may hope to get a PS4 for my birthday, but I’ve no reason to have faith that this will be the case.
Conviction, then, is the grounding of faith. And, as Dr. Tim McGrew has pointed out, “faith,” rightly understood, ventures action in wager of conviction. That is, one does not have faith that chickens exist, because nothing is ventured. However, one who jumps from a plane has faith that their parachute is properly packed.
A second helpful point is that the term used for “hope” often (as in Heb 11:1) has a specific reference—a salvific expectation. We hope to be saved, and we have confidence in our expectations for salvation because of our understanding of God—not to mention an amazingly cumulative case of evidences (assuming that we remove our proclivities toward a naturalistic presuppositional bias).
Hebrews 11:1 is too often misrepresented to mean that faith is “hoping in things without evidence.” In actuality, however, that is not what it says. It reads; “Now faith [pistis] is the assurance [hypostasis; lit. “foundation” or what Plantinga might call a properly basic belief] of things hoped for [elpizō; a trust in salvation], the conviction [elegchos; “proof”] of things unseen [blepō; of the bodily eye]. Clearly, the author is certain that faith is not an ungrounded wishful emoting, but a conviction, based on a proof, concerning a truth that must necessarily surpass the natural limitations of a closed empirical system.
Koukl expounds upon the biblical themes of knowledge, action, and evidence: In Exodus 3, Moses was told to perform miracles “That they might know there is a God.” When people witnessed the power of the Lord, they “feared the Lord, and they believed” (Exodus 14:31). In Mark 2, Jesus forgave sins and then proved His authority with evidence via supernatural healing. In Acts, on the day of Pentecost, Peter appeals to 1) fulfilling of prophesy; 2) eye-witness accounts of Christ risen; and 3) the effects of the Holy Spirit that could be clearly seen and heard on that day. Finally, 1 John begins by appealing to what had been heard, seen, beheld, handled, and manifest, “that you may know.” Upon such careful reflection, a distinct pattern emerges: 1) evidence reveals 2) knowledge of God, in whom 3) active trust is placed.
Returning to the question then, as to whether faith precedes reason, the question seems misguided. Experience precedes reason; reason informs conviction; and conviction guides action. All of this is faith. While one does not actually have it until the final step—i.e., the point at which one would be willing to venture one’s actions accordingly—one cannot have it without the former steps. Therefore, “faith” is not one of the steps, but the holistic understanding.
Apply this to a naturalistic worldview. One experiences the empirical world and reasons that there can only be empirically verifiable things. From this conviction, one is willing to live one’s life as if there is no authority to which one will ultimately be held accountable—i.e., they have faith that they can live according to their own autonomy and face no possibility of eternal penalty.
This is what Pascal was attacking when he posed his famous wagering consideration: To believe in the God of Christianity would be to embrace the potential for infinite gain or only finite loss, whereas choosing not to believe in God ventures a wage of only finite gain, but the potential for infinite loss. Both positions are wagering.
Faith is not wishful thinking. It is the holistic process of conviction informing action.
--Ratio Christi
It is first helpful to clarify what one means by “faith.”
Some may cite Hebrews 11:1 and snidely conclude that faith is simply “hope.” In fact, in his manual for talking people out of their unreasonable commitments to “the faith virus,” Peter Boghossian has defined faith as “pretending to know things you don’t.”
Greg Koukl clarifies this position; "Simply put, faith and knowledge are functional opposites. The only place for faith, then, is in the shadows of ignorance . . . . Ironically, this same perspective has been promoted by Christians themselves. ‘If I know that God exists,’ they challenge, ‘or that Jesus rose from the dead, or that Heaven is real, then where is room for faith?’” But this is obviously incorrect. “The opposite of knowledge is not faith, but ignorance. And the opposite of faith is not knowledge, but unbelief."
The notion of faith as religious wishful thinking may accurately characterize some worldviews, but it is not reflective of an accurate understanding of classical Christianity. First, consider 1 Pet 3:15, which commands believers to be able always to defend (apologia) the reasons for their belief. The common biblical word for faith is pistis, which represents an active trust that is grounded in one’s convictions—which are based in understanding, not hope. It might be helpfully clarified that both hope and faith look to the future with a sort of longing or expectation, but hope is unable to move beyond desire without the aid of conviction. I may hope to get a PS4 for my birthday, but I’ve no reason to have faith that this will be the case.
Conviction, then, is the grounding of faith. And, as Dr. Tim McGrew has pointed out, “faith,” rightly understood, ventures action in wager of conviction. That is, one does not have faith that chickens exist, because nothing is ventured. However, one who jumps from a plane has faith that their parachute is properly packed.
A second helpful point is that the term used for “hope” often (as in Heb 11:1) has a specific reference—a salvific expectation. We hope to be saved, and we have confidence in our expectations for salvation because of our understanding of God—not to mention an amazingly cumulative case of evidences (assuming that we remove our proclivities toward a naturalistic presuppositional bias).
Hebrews 11:1 is too often misrepresented to mean that faith is “hoping in things without evidence.” In actuality, however, that is not what it says. It reads; “Now faith [pistis] is the assurance [hypostasis; lit. “foundation” or what Plantinga might call a properly basic belief] of things hoped for [elpizō; a trust in salvation], the conviction [elegchos; “proof”] of things unseen [blepō; of the bodily eye]. Clearly, the author is certain that faith is not an ungrounded wishful emoting, but a conviction, based on a proof, concerning a truth that must necessarily surpass the natural limitations of a closed empirical system.
Koukl expounds upon the biblical themes of knowledge, action, and evidence: In Exodus 3, Moses was told to perform miracles “That they might know there is a God.” When people witnessed the power of the Lord, they “feared the Lord, and they believed” (Exodus 14:31). In Mark 2, Jesus forgave sins and then proved His authority with evidence via supernatural healing. In Acts, on the day of Pentecost, Peter appeals to 1) fulfilling of prophesy; 2) eye-witness accounts of Christ risen; and 3) the effects of the Holy Spirit that could be clearly seen and heard on that day. Finally, 1 John begins by appealing to what had been heard, seen, beheld, handled, and manifest, “that you may know.” Upon such careful reflection, a distinct pattern emerges: 1) evidence reveals 2) knowledge of God, in whom 3) active trust is placed.
Returning to the question then, as to whether faith precedes reason, the question seems misguided. Experience precedes reason; reason informs conviction; and conviction guides action. All of this is faith. While one does not actually have it until the final step—i.e., the point at which one would be willing to venture one’s actions accordingly—one cannot have it without the former steps. Therefore, “faith” is not one of the steps, but the holistic understanding.
Apply this to a naturalistic worldview. One experiences the empirical world and reasons that there can only be empirically verifiable things. From this conviction, one is willing to live one’s life as if there is no authority to which one will ultimately be held accountable—i.e., they have faith that they can live according to their own autonomy and face no possibility of eternal penalty.
This is what Pascal was attacking when he posed his famous wagering consideration: To believe in the God of Christianity would be to embrace the potential for infinite gain or only finite loss, whereas choosing not to believe in God ventures a wage of only finite gain, but the potential for infinite loss. Both positions are wagering.
Faith is not wishful thinking. It is the holistic process of conviction informing action.
--Ratio Christi