Verses put forward in support of thesis;
1 Corianthians 1:18-20&27; 2:5
John 20:29
Romans 14:23
Hebrews 11:1
Psalms 14:1
Proverbs 3:5-6
This is a semi-comprehensive list that has been used and could be used in support of the claim that to believe the Bible teaches truth, one is committed to “check his brain at the door” or only be permitted to use reason to a limited extent.
Is faith irrational according to the Bible?
Hebrews 11:1 (ESV)
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
Before we begin we need to establish a few things about faith and how the authors of the New Testament are defining it. The word used for faith here and everywhere else in the N.T. is “pistis” which means “persuasion, credence, confidence in, trust, loyalty etc… (1)” this is a far cry from the modern definition of believing in something despite evidence to the contrary. Indeed the terms grace and faith (pistis) were often used in the ancient world to describe client-patron relationships, where the patron would give underserved favor (grace) to the client and the client would reciprocate by being loyal to and trusting (faith) the patron (2).
Given this background we can analyze Hebrews 11:1 by replacing faith with loyalty; "Now loyalty is the the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." So does this verse mean that our loyalty to God is our assurance and proof of God's existence and our hope for eternal life? Obviously not, the rest of the chapter records many prophets and leaders of the Old Testament who saw God and experience His power. So what does this verse mean by assurance and things unseen? Well the word for assurance used here is, "hupostasis" which as a noun refers to the concrete essence or abstract assurance (Strongs Greek/Hebrew Definitions, NT:5287). In addition the word hope, "elpizo" literally mean to expect so the first part of this verse can be understood as; our loyalty and trust in God is the essence of our expectations of God's continuing favor towards us. The second phrase, the evidence of things not seen, also makes sense given a client patron relationship where loyalty is a result or consequence of the grace given by the patron. This means that "things not seen" is better understood as the continual favor of God as our patron.
Having established that faith can be easily and comfortably defined as trust in the context of Hebrews 11:1 the question arises, is this trust rational or irrational?
Proverbs 3:5-6
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.”
If we are to trust in God and not our understanding does this not mean that we should only believe that which God has told us to be true and ignore our own reasonings?
Well no, first note we are dealing with proverbial literature here. Therefore, this passage should be read in the same way we read, “practice makes perfect”. It obviously isn’t true that mere practice of an activity will make you perfect at it, but it is true that practice is a necessary condition of such a goal. Similarly it isn’t true that we should ignore the fact that 2+2=4 because God hasn’t explicitly revealed it to us but trusting God when it comes to how to live our lives, particularly when it His wisdom comes in conflict with our own is a necessary condition of being a servant of God. Even then, such conflicts in ideas between us and God do not require us to just stop thinking and accept what God says, certainly it is within the realm of trust to seek answers as to where we went wrong and/or if we are misunderstanding God’s command (3).
But what about John 20:29?
"Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed;blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”’
So Jesus is speaking to Thomas here, who asked Jesus to show the holes in his hands and allow Thomas to feel them to know that they were real. Is Jesus, then, saying that those who desire evidence are less blessed than those who don’t? A few considerations have led me to question that interpretation.
For one thing, Thomas clearly had seen, observed and listened to quite a bit of evidence of the truth of Jesus’s claims before this. He had the testimony of 11 men whom he trusted dearly, he had seen Jesus perform many miracles, he even saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead. So perhaps Thomas was not being accused here of seeking evidence, but seeking excessive evidence.
In addition, as Jesus points out, converts of the future won’t have as much evidence as Thomas did. However, I would argue that they would have sufficient evidence given that they could confirm with witnesses of Jesus resurrection, what the apostles were claiming and they could even see the miracles of the apostles. Even further down the road philosophical arguments for God’s existence and the truth of Christianity would be developed, including new arguments for the resurrection. Thomas’s attitude, however, seems to be that if he can’t see or touch something, he can’t believe it to be true, leading him to treat Jesus like a puppy, performing tricks on command.
Lastly there is the word blessed. In the greek it is Makarios which has no english equivalent. The most accurate phrase that could be given to it, would perhaps be “a state of honor or contentment.” In this case, it seems Jesus is saying that those who don’t demand more evidence than is sufficient are more honorable than those like Thomas (4, also see Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes, p. 75).
Is all men’s wisdom and knowledge irrational according to the Bible?
1 Corinthians 1:18-20 (NIV)
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”
At first glance this passage appears to be saying that 1 Christianity is irrational to a secular mind and 2 God is hostile to all the knowledge and wisdom humanity has attained. This interpretation, being heavily influenced by modern sentiments of secular society and human intelligence Is not representative of the topic being discussed in this passage. In 1 Corinthians 1 Paul is addressing a dissention of loyalty among his brothers and sisters in Christ between him and Apollos. This was a tradition of men in Corinth and elsewhere to declare exclusive loyalty to a single leader. Hence Paul paraphrases Isaiah 29:14 which speaks of God destroying such foolish traditions and pseudo-wisdom of men. Again given that it is a paraphrase of poetic/proverbial literature this can't be taken absolutely, God is not intending to destroy all of our scientific knowledge and make us like apes (5).
In regards to 1 additionally the concept of wisdom and foolishness has to do with moral and practical issues more than philosophy and head knowledge. Given this, 1 Corinthians 1:18 seems to be saying to the same people who practice such silly traditions of men as declaring loyalty to a single man the idea that someone died for them on the cross is moronic and stupid. Verse 18 does not then say that according to man-made philosophies and logic the cross is necessarily irrational. Its not even clear the v 18 commits a believer to hold that all non-believers see the cross as stupid and silly as again, proverbial literature is never meant to be taken in absolutes, despite the fact that many Christians desire to do so.
All this being said, a retort might rightly be given that the Hebrew conception of wisdom did relate a great deal to knowledge in a theoretical sense (aka head knowledge) even though such theoretical knowledge certainly doesn’t seem to be the main focus of the term. Ecclesiastes 8:16-17 is a good example of this sense in that it describes factual knowledge as wisdom, even the knowledge that one cannot know something. But as Jacobus Gericke points out the majority of the themes present in the Hebrew conception of wisdom revolve around practical or moral knowledge (6).
1 Corinthians 1:27
"but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong"
Much of what has been discussed above applies to this verse as well. What is implicit here is who Paul is speaking about, those who put traditions of men before the commands of God. Another point to make here is that Paul would not have the ideas of rhetoric or reasoning in mind when writing this verse. Most of Paul's writing is rhetoric and argumentation for various positions. Rather Paul is speaking about how people view things as foolish errantly or hastily. For example, the common assumption at the time that a divine man would never die such a shameful death on the cross. This assumption hardly seems obvious but is based on the further assumption that a divine being in the flesh would prioritize honor and not mercy. Thus even wisdom as factual knowledge often speaks of the traditions and assumptions of men and not their ability to use reason to come to logical conclusions or conclusions based on sound reasoning.
1 Corinthians 2:5
"so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.” (NIV)
This verse combines what we’ve discussed about faith and wisdom and thus we can apply what’s been said about those two concepts here by paraphrasing thusly; “so that your loyalty might not rest on human traditions, ideas and ways of living but on God’s power.” It is also important to add some context to this verse by quoting the verse before it; “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power.” This by itself casts doubt on any anti-rational interpretation as Paul was clearly interested in proving to his audience that what He taught was true.
Nevertheless, what does Paul mean when he says that our faith might not rest on human wisdom but God’s power? Given the popular rhetoric of the day it is plausible to suppose that Paul is speaking of wisdom here in the sense of merely what seems appealing or persuasive to men such as an impressive or inspirational speech. Thus Paul is telling his followers to not put their loyalty in men but in God as well as to not be persuaded by Paul's words but by the acts of God performed through Paul.
Conclusion; while this is by no means a complete scholarly exposition of these verses nor Biblical and ANE conceptions of wisdom and faith, it is clear from what has been discussed above that there is little evidence to support the idea that the Bible is anti-rational.
1. http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=692In regards to 1 additionally the concept of wisdom and foolishness has to do with moral and practical issues more than philosophy and head knowledge. Given this, 1 Corinthians 1:18 seems to be saying to the same people who practice such silly traditions of men as declaring loyalty to a single man the idea that someone died for them on the cross is moronic and stupid. Verse 18 does not then say that according to man-made philosophies and logic the cross is necessarily irrational. Its not even clear the v 18 commits a believer to hold that all non-believers see the cross as stupid and silly as again, proverbial literature is never meant to be taken in absolutes, despite the fact that many Christians desire to do so.
All this being said, a retort might rightly be given that the Hebrew conception of wisdom did relate a great deal to knowledge in a theoretical sense (aka head knowledge) even though such theoretical knowledge certainly doesn’t seem to be the main focus of the term. Ecclesiastes 8:16-17 is a good example of this sense in that it describes factual knowledge as wisdom, even the knowledge that one cannot know something. But as Jacobus Gericke points out the majority of the themes present in the Hebrew conception of wisdom revolve around practical or moral knowledge (6).
1 Corinthians 1:27
"but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong"
Much of what has been discussed above applies to this verse as well. What is implicit here is who Paul is speaking about, those who put traditions of men before the commands of God. Another point to make here is that Paul would not have the ideas of rhetoric or reasoning in mind when writing this verse. Most of Paul's writing is rhetoric and argumentation for various positions. Rather Paul is speaking about how people view things as foolish errantly or hastily. For example, the common assumption at the time that a divine man would never die such a shameful death on the cross. This assumption hardly seems obvious but is based on the further assumption that a divine being in the flesh would prioritize honor and not mercy. Thus even wisdom as factual knowledge often speaks of the traditions and assumptions of men and not their ability to use reason to come to logical conclusions or conclusions based on sound reasoning.
1 Corinthians 2:5
"so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.” (NIV)
This verse combines what we’ve discussed about faith and wisdom and thus we can apply what’s been said about those two concepts here by paraphrasing thusly; “so that your loyalty might not rest on human traditions, ideas and ways of living but on God’s power.” It is also important to add some context to this verse by quoting the verse before it; “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power.” This by itself casts doubt on any anti-rational interpretation as Paul was clearly interested in proving to his audience that what He taught was true.
Nevertheless, what does Paul mean when he says that our faith might not rest on human wisdom but God’s power? Given the popular rhetoric of the day it is plausible to suppose that Paul is speaking of wisdom here in the sense of merely what seems appealing or persuasive to men such as an impressive or inspirational speech. Thus Paul is telling his followers to not put their loyalty in men but in God as well as to not be persuaded by Paul's words but by the acts of God performed through Paul.
Conclusion; while this is by no means a complete scholarly exposition of these verses nor Biblical and ANE conceptions of wisdom and faith, it is clear from what has been discussed above that there is little evidence to support the idea that the Bible is anti-rational.
2. http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html
3. http://skipmoen.com/tag/proverbs-35-6/
4. http://www.tektonics.org/gk/john2029.html
5. http://www.tektonics.org/af/follywise.html
6. http://www.academia.edu/1489237/The_concept_of_Wisdom_in_the_Hebrew_Bible_-_a_philosophical_clarification
No comments:
Post a Comment