Wednesday 5 November 2008

Faith - A Hebrew Perspective (thanks to Dwight Pryor)

We are 'justified by faith' (Romans 5:1). But what does the term faith mean? Is it just 'firm belief'?
The first appearance of the word faith (Hebrew 'emunah') in the Bible is to be found in Exodus. The Israelites have just come out of slavery in Egypt by the power of God's saving acts, lead by Moses and Aaron, when they are suddenly attacked by Amalek. Joshua leads the host of Israel into battle while Moses stands by with his staff raised towards heaven.
Exodus 17:1-2: 'Whenever Moses held up his hand, Israel prevailed; and whenever he lowered his hand, Amalek prevailed. But Moses' hands grew weary; so they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat upon it, and Aaron and Hur held up his hands, one on one side, and the other on the other side; so his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.'
The word 'steady' here in 17:2 is 'emunah' or faith. His hands were 'emunah' until the sun went down. Obviously to translate the passage his hands were faith until the sun went down makes no sense. The meaning of the word emunah in Hebrew is firmnness, steadfastness, fidelity. It is better translated not as faith but faithfulness. Matthew 17:29 - when Jesus talks of the faith of the mustard seed He's speaking of the seed's determination and persistence to grow in even the most barren climates - its faithfulness.

Romans 1:17 says: 'For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed … that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.” '
When Paul states that from first to last the gospel is about faith, he has in mind firstly the faithfulness of God in keeping covenant promises to the patriarchs, then the faithfulness of Jesus in His atoning death on the cross and the faithfulness of those who believe this good news and walk in it's light. The text quoted in 1:17 is originally from Habakkuk and is literally translated: 'the righteous shall live by His faithfulness.'

If we read the word faith in the New Testament as the Hebrew 'emunah' it gives a much fuller meaning to certain passages. For example:

But now [the mystery] is disclosed
… to all the Gentiles, according to
the command of the eternal God,
to bring about the obedience of
faithfulness — to the only wise God,
through Jesus Christ, be the glory
forever! (Rom 16:26)

Without faithfulness it is impossible
to please God. (Heb 11:6)

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision
nor uncircumcision is of any
avail, but faithfulness working
through love. (Gal 5:6)

Look to Jesus the pioneer and
perfecter of our faithfulness. (Heb
12:1)

This is the victory that overcomes
the world, even our faithfulness. (1
Jn 5:4)

We give thanks to God always for
you all … remembering your work
of faithfulness and labour of love
and steadfastness of hope in our
Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thes 1:2-3)

When the Son of Man comes, will
he find faithfulness on earth?" (Lk
18.8)

Here is a call for the endurance of
the saints, those who keep the
commandments of God and the
faithfulness of Jesus. (Rev 14:12)

Biblical faith signifies more than intellectual assent to true propositions - it encompasses this, obviously, but goes beyond it. Remember that even the demons believe in God (James 2:19), but they do not have faith. It is when our faith leads to faithfulness that we truly honour the God of Israel.

Monday 3 November 2008

the psychological relevance of logical laws

In his excellent little book C.S. Lewis' Dangerous Idea Victor Reppert outlines several different versions of the 'argument from reason' against physicalism. Besides some of the more well known ones, such as the problem of mental causation and Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (see here for a Plantinga lecture outline on the topic), there's an interesting one to do with the psychological relevance of logical laws. In essence what Reppert argues is that rational inference involves employment of the laws of logic, something which the physicalist cannot give an account for. These logical laws aren't physical (they pertain across all possible worlds, including ones with no physical objects) and they tell us what must be true in every possible world (i.e. the law of noncontradiction holds in all possible worlds). If this is the case then it appears one who accepts the laws of logic (which has to be done if you're to rationally infer one belief from another) must then accept some kind of non-physical, non-spatial, non-temporal abstract entities (at the very least some kind of Platonic forms).
It also has to be assumed we know these laws. But the physicalist can only accept some kind of causal interaction between the brain and the objects of its knowledge. If this is the case then the laws of logic must be physical (or how else can the brain causally interact with them?). But this can't be the case if these laws are, as already argued, non-physical, non-spatial, non-temporal entities. As Reppert points out some philosophers have given this kind of argument as to why we should be non-realists about numbers - we cannot be causally connected to them in a physical way either (numbers are prime examples of abstract objects). If we take this argument and apply it to the laws of logic neither should we be realists about them. But if we are going to contend that the laws of logic do not exist the glaring problem is, as Aristotle pointed out millennia ago, we cannot coherently assert that this is so without presupposing the laws we're trying to deny the existence of (i.e. the law of noncontradiction). So, to quote Reppert: "philosophical naturalism undermines the laws that are presupposed in the very assertion of philosophical naturalism."
More on this later.