Faith is

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Heb 11:1).

We've heard that one before. It is frequently viewed as the biblical definition of faith. But when I read it, I don't see a definition. I see a function.

The reason people often see it as a definition is because of the word "is". "Faith is ..." There, you see, a definition. But "is" doesn't always require that something is a definition. To say, for instance, that "the Sabbath is made for Man" doesn't mean that the Sabbath is defined as "made for Man", but that there is that particular aspect of it. I see the same thing in Hebrews 11. I see the first verse as an explanation of the function of faith, not a definition. In fact, when I've seen the verse used as a definition ... I haven't come away with any definition. Let's look again. The King James puts it in this more familiar way:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Yeah, that's more familiar. The terms "substance" and "evidence" are more popular. To me, they throw more of a wrench in the works, but let's just go with them.

If this verse is intended to be a definition, then "substance" and "evidence" (or "assurance" and "conviction") would be the point. So what substance and what evidence is faith? It is, indeed, as the critics suggest, none. Faith is "believing in something for which you have no reason to believe." Faith is believing in something that normal thinking would tell you not to believe. Faith is, as the critics suggest, foolish, irrational nonsense. And if Hebrews 11:1 is the definition, we'd have to agree that faith is "irrational nonsense" while denying the "foolish" part. (Note: "Irrational" means "apart from reason" and "nonsense" means "not based on sense". Thus, it is apart from reason and not based on sense.)

But let's back up a step and see if this might not be a definition. What if it's a functional statement? In my example above, I said (essentially) that the statement "the Sabbath is made for Man" makes a functional statement about the Sabbath, not a definition. The function of the Sabbath, in this statement, is to benefit humans. If Hebrews 11:1 is a functional statement rather than a definition, what is it saying? In this approach, we might reword the verse this way: "When it comes to the things we hope for, we can be assured of them because of faith, and when it comes things of which we're sure even when we can't see them, we can maintain our conviction because of faith." You see, the term "faith" in this instance remains undefined, but you can clearly see how it functions.

I got an illustration of this the other morning, thanks to my cat. My cat operates like an atheist, while I operate like a theist. If I walked into the bedroom and saw a body-sized lump under the covers and heard heavy breathing and knew that my wife had gone in there an hour before, I would conclude, without seeing her, that my wife was in that bed. The other morning, my cat jumped onto the bed in the wee hours of the morning looking for attention. It was chilly, and my wife and I were bundled up under the covers. The cat looked around, saw no people, and left again. "They're not there," she concluded. (I know ... we can't actually know what a cat thinks. Bear with me. It's just an illustration of the point.) You see, I had "faith", while my cat only believed in what she could actually see. I was assured that my wife was there and, even though I couldn't see her, maintained the conviction that she was there because I had "faith". My cat had none.

Silly illustration, I know, but faith is not devoid of reason and, as such, cannot be defined as "irrational nonsense". The Greek word means "to be convinced" and includes the thought of "by evidence". That is not "without reason". Instead, it is simply intended to convey the substance by which we take that which we can certainly confirm to the next step, that which we can reasonably surmise. Let me give a biblical example of a faith-building exercise that will explain.

When Moses returned to Egypt from 40 years in the desert, the people of Israel were not yet ready to walk across the Red Sea. There was a process required. There were, in this case, 10 steps. We call them "the 10 plagues of Egypt". The process, basically, was "God says it", then "God does it". After the 4th plague, the Egyptians suffered while God's people didn't. In the last case, they had a clear warning and specific steps to perform that we now call "Passover" to bring about the passing over of the angel of death. So when the tenth plague had passed and Pharaoh said, "Go!!!", the people of Israel were ready to go. They were no longer in need of questioning. They had seen God work specifically and dramatically. Sure, they were frightened when Pharaoh came after them with his army, but when the Red Sea opened for them, they walked through it. Would you? If you didn't have a series of events that proved to you that God was at work and you came across an opening in a large body of water, would you walk into it? But they didn't hesitate. Why? They hoped that it would stay open for them until they got to the other side even though they didn't see what kept it in place (the two elements of the function of faith), but it was their faith-building exercises that enabled them to say, "Well, if God did all that, then I'm sure He can do this." They had assurance and conviction. They had faith that formed the substance of what they hoped for and was evidence enough for them to go. It was not "blind faith" -- an irrational belief. It was faith built on evidence.

I don't think Hebrews 11:1 was ever intended to be a definition. I think it provides a functional statement instead. It says that faith, properly understood, provides the assurance that we need that God will do what He promises even when we don't see how at the moment. That doesn't demand irrationality. It is, in fact, the most rational thing we can conclude, given the proven track record of the Sovereign Lord of the Universe.