Faith, Part 3 - Redefining a Foundation

As we've looked at the word faith, we've seen how some understandings of it are misleading or incomplete. I also tried to formalize how I think most people understand the word. In the process, I suggested that perhaps one thing often overlooked is that faith is related to evidence. For this final post, I want to take a closer look at this concept, clarify what I mean and see how it better fits some scriptural contexts.

As I alluded to in Part 2 of this series, faith is predicated on proof (evidence). What would surprise most people is this is not only rooted in philosophical aspects I raised, but in the origins of the word itself. The word most often used in the NT that translated to faith was the Greek pistis. This word would most commonly be used in the 1st century to refer to what we call forensic proof. It was used of evidence that was convincing – for instance, to make a case in court.

When considered carefully, it should not surprise us faith carries this weight. If someone is convinced in reasons for their belief, are they more or less likely to commit themselves to a cause? Would they trust God with more or less? Consider looking at this another way - faith is the root of another word we use often in our culture – “faithful”. This word literally means “to be full of faith”. But what are ways in which we can be faithful to someone or something? Do they involve blind belief? Am I faithful (not just in a “non-cheating way” but in a sense of commitment) to my spouse because I must be, or because I have seen she is worthy of my trust? Are dogs faithful to owners because they must be, or because they’ve been taken care of by their owners? (Hint: dogs are not very faithful to owners that abuse them - they get agressive).

Therefore, it seems to me the mental or emotional aspects of belief associated with "faith" are more a byproduct of the real thing. One cannot blindly follow belief without facing eventual disappointment. (“I had faith God would heal my wife and He didn’t!”) What happens when such “faith” fails you? Where do our minds end up? We blame God. Does that sound like something an honest believer that respects God would do?

Another thing to consider about “belief” is what happens when it is wrong? Kids have “faith” (belief) in Santa Clause’s existence –does it make him as believable as God? When kids start to question the evidence, don’t they tend to stop that belief in Santa? Or consider unorthodox Christian groups. Some are told, above any proof they are given, all they need is a personal (subjective) witness – blind faith. Without a look at evidence, who can say they are right or wrong? Just as people are suspicious of these groups, we should be suspicious of our beliefs. After all, do we follow through on beliefs if we are not convinced by them?

For those that may still have trouble with this idea, has God not provided evidence? Is there not enough around us, as I’ve discussed in my series on God’sexistence?

If you don’t think evidence is important, I guarantee there is at least 1 piece of evidence you accepted before following God. It is at the core of your faith - the reality of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was the same for the apostles. In the first century, they preached solely about their eyewitness of a resurrected Christ. They were so convinced of its reality and were willing to die for its message. Would you be willing to die for your “belief” without evidence? True, not everyone may accept the evidence. They find reasons to reject it and explain it away. They are not seeking to submit to a higher power or acknowledge a life of submission is best for them. But that is not for lack of it being there, written down in history. Many skeptics have told me they WANTED to believe at some point, but weren’t convinced the belief was reasonable. And in most cases they were right - the beliefs they had about the Bible were founded in poor interpretation. But they were convinced they were right. What is to say they are wrong, if not evidence?

With these points made, it is time to put a new definition to the word "faith". In simple terms, faith might be better translated as "loyalty". No other word I can think of communicates this concept of obedience through trust and evidence. And if faith is understood to be loyalty, what does this tell us about lack of faith? Simply put, lack of faith, or "disbelief", is disobedience. It is lacking the loyalty owed to someone who has done enough to earn it. In Christ’s case, He took on your penalty for sin by suffering the most humiliating human experience in all of history. We owe him more than just our “belief” – we owe him a life of dedication.

Allow me now to turn to some scriptures on "faith" and address them in light of this understanding. There are more examples than I have time to cover here, but once you see the pattern you should be able to apply it to your studies.

When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him asking for help: “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible anguish.” Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.” But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. Instead, just say the word and my servant will be healed. For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I say to this one, ‘Go’ and he goes, and to another ‘Come’ and he comes, and to my slave ‘Do this’ and he does it.” When  Jesus heard this he was amazed and said to those who followed him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found such faith in anyone in Israel!"   Matthew 8:5-10, NET

First, the centurion shares his story with Jesus - why? To see how Jesus will react? To beg for help? No - a man of position like this would be implying to Jesus his wish to have the servant healed. Jesus even reads it that way and immediately agrees to the healing. The centurion came to the conversation trusting Jesus could deliver. For him to approach Jesus in those days, he better have a reason. He risked serious embarrassment if Jesus could not deliver. So what happens next? The centurion shares insight as to how "loyal" (obedient) his soldiers are to him – another hint of how honorable this man is. And Jesus responds how? By saying he has not found such “faith” from anyone in Israel. What kind of faith? The obedience just described! Can this really refer to anything else? Jesus will struggle his entire ministry for this kind of obedience, and he was cluing the crowds into that.

Similar instances of people coming to Jesus for healing are much the same, when viewed in full context (the woman with the issue of blood, for instance - for which only Mark provides enough information to get context). In many cases, you will find people sought Jesus just based on what they heard of him. While that doesn't sound like evidence to us, in the 1st century it was. Reputation was everything - it had to be earned and acknowledged by other people. News of events spread fast, but did not spread at all if not rooted in eyewitness testimony confirmed by peers.

Then Jesus rebuked the demon and it came out of him, and the boy was healed from that moment. Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, “Why couldn’t we cast it out?” He told them, “It was because of your little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; nothing will be impossible for you.”   Matthew 17:18-20, NET

 

This passage appears at first glance to scream that faith is quantifiable; if you have enough of it you can do anything! But immediately following in verse 21 (the authenticity of which is questionable), Jesus says prayer/fasting is what was needed to drive the demon out. The implication is that the disciple’s “little faith” was a failure to pray and fast. In essence, they failed to act as if God would do something on their behalf. It was not a failure of their belief, but a failure of their understanding (evidence) and action (loyalty)! Jesus is almost insulting the disciples - insinuating that even just a little obedience would have been sufficient to cast out the demon.

Finally, I will look at Hebrews 11 - the most prominent passage on "faith" as quoted by skeptics and believers alike.

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see.  Hebrews 11:1, NET

This is usually understood as a clear proof that faith has to do with what we can't see. If we can't see it, our belief is just blind, the thinking goes. This seems damaging to my case so far. But is it? First of all, note the first part of this verse - "being sure of what we hope for". Not only does it imply we should have some certainty (evidence) for our belief, it also helps clarify the examples given later in the chapter. As you read the rest of Hebrews 11, the "heroes of faith" are displayed to make Paul's case. But are they all examples of people who were going on no evidence?

Abraham left his homeland to go somewhere new. Was he just waiting to get up and go? Hardly! He heard God's voice audibly. Have you? And sacrificing Isaac on an altar? Having a child at age 100 should give him some reason to believe God could come through, even if he struggled with it. As a matter of fact, the thing "we do not see", as Paul’s scribe refers to, is fulfillment of God's promise. This is explicitly mentioned in verse 13 (Hebrews 11:13), but it is also implied as a theme underlying each example. Moses may not have seen the Promised Land (God’s promise to him), but do you think he had doubts Israel would get there? If so, count how many miracles God performed for Moses! Abraham never saw his descendants "number as much as the stars" (God’s promise to him), but did he doubt it would happen? Did got not give him some amazing experiences to build his “faith”?

With this insight, Hebrews 11 might better read this way: “Faith is being assured of what we hope for (God's promises to us) because we are convinced of their fulfillment.” And how are we convinced? By things God does in our lives! It is hard to see how "mental belief" applies to these examples, or even others given later in the passage. For example, Joseph's burial (Hebrews 11:22), Moses' parents (Hebrews 11:23), Moses leaving Egypt (Hebrews 11:27) - which the passage states he did so as if he could actually see God (evidence was there) - or Rahab protecting the spies (Hebrews 11:31). These things were done in “clear and present danger”. To have done them "blindly" would make little sense! The Bible may not give us the specific evidences each time (as with Moses’ parents), but we can safely believe they were very convinced of what God would do first.

In conclusion, I hope you have been challenged to see faith as something more than just blind belief, no matter how humble or well-intentioned. I hope you begin to see faith as an important part of obedience and trust. Why? Because we have a God who does help us through hard times, not because we have no other choice! Hope without reason is just a starting point for faith. This is why James says faith without works is dead (James 2:17). "Just believing" is nowhere near the same as acting on that belief, and that is difficult to do without trusting it is well placed. So start looking for reasons to trust God in your life, based on what he has done for you!  Stop living on just "hope" alone!

In the final part of this series, I will give some afterthoughts and address what implications this definition of faith might have for our daily lives. I will show how some fundamentals of our lives might be affected by this new understanding of faith, and give some more practical applications - if you haven't discovered some already!