1 Samuel Series Wk 2 - “One Spiritual Guide”

  Tell me if you’ve heard this one before: Pastor gets up every Sunday and preaches his sermons, he is well liked and everything seems to be going good with the ministry, then one day you hear through the grapevine that he ran off with the female music leader. Or maybe this one, the pastor is a great preacher, everyone enjoys his sermons, but he is found in his office with the pianist by one of the elders of the the church, but not everyone wants to see him go because he’s just too good at speaking. There are countless examples of pastors falling to sin. How about the pastor who, unknown to his congregation, was selling the church’s property out from under them. Or the pastor who keeps asking for his pay to be increased, at the expense of those around him. But it’s not just pastors. What about President Clinton in the 90s, Nixon in 70s, Kennedy in the 60s. What about the teachers who take advantage of their students, or the celebrities who are caught up in all sorts of acts of depravity?

The old saying, absolute power corrupts absolutely, is not quiet right. A better saying would be, power brings out corruption. Positions of influence and power allow the sin that corrupts us to flourish if not kept in check. No matter if you are a seasoned pastor, or just getting started as a YouTuber. If sin is given a blind eye, it will derail anyone’s life.  

And it’s this idea of the sin of a leader that brings us back to our summer series where we are picking it back up in First Samuel chapter 2, verse 12. As we open up to First Samuel 2:12, let’s look back on the first week and bring ourselves back up to speed on where we are. 

In our first week, we looked at where the books of Samuel come into the story of God’s redeeming work. God had brought the nation of Israel out of slavery in Egypt to the Promise Land by way of Moses’ leadership. Joshua then led the nation over the Jordan River, conquering the vast majority of the land. Then God used Judges to implement his judgment against the nations who continued in the area. However, these Judges mirrored the sinful spiral that Israel, as a nation, was descending into, which led to a civil war between the Hebrew Tribes. Yet God gave hope as he prepared the landscape for a redeemer was to come. 

The books of Samuel show us that narrowing work of God, as he continues to work in the short and long term with Israel and the world. This narrowing begins with the heartfelt desire of a woman. Hannah desired a son, and God granted her prayer. Hannah returned the boy to the Lord, singing of his greatness and showing how faithful she was. It is here that we pick our passage in First Samuel 2:12.

12 Now the sons of Eli were worthless men. They did not know the Lord. 13 The custom of the priests with the people was that when any man offered sacrifice, the priest's servant would come, while the meat was boiling, with a three-pronged fork in his hand, 14 and he would thrust it into the pan or kettle or cauldron or pot. All that the fork brought up the priest would take for himself. This is what they did at Shiloh to all the Israelites who came there. 15 Moreover, before the fat was burned, the priest's servant would come and say to the man who was sacrificing, “Give meat for the priest to roast, for he will not accept boiled meat from you but only raw.” 16 And if the man said to him, “Let them burn the fat first, and then take as much as you wish,” he would say, “No, you must give it now, and if not, I will take it by force.” 17 Thus the sin of the young men was very great in the sight of the Lord, for the men treated the offering of the Lord with contempt.

18 Samuel was ministering before the Lord, a boy clothed with a linen ephod. 19 And his mother used to make for him a little robe and take it to him each year when she went up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice. 20 Then Eli would bless Elkanah and his wife, and say, “May the Lord give you children by this woman for the petition she asked of the Lord.” So then they would return to their home.

21 Indeed the Lord visited Hannah, and she conceived and bore three sons and two daughters. And the boy Samuel grew in the presence of the Lord.

Our passage today comes in three parts: The sin of Eli’s sons, Eli’s realization of his sons’ sins, and God’s passing of judgment.

In the passage we just read, we see how deep the sin of the sons’ is. Now what we read is that they took more meat than what was allotted to them. This was a direct violation of Leviticus 7:31, and the provision that God had set out for them. To us, that might not sound that bad, all they were doing was taking extra food for themselves. But it goes deeper than that. The first word that describes Eli’s sons is that they are worthless. The Hebrew word is bliya`al (bel-e-yah’-al) and means wicked. In the book of Judges, it is a word that is used to connect the evil of people with the work of Satan. In other words, a person has become so evil, that they are of no worth for the community. They are destroyers to the goodness of what God is doing. The action of rebellion in taking more than God allotted is simply a symptom of the deeper depravity that is going on in their lives.

The next thing that describes them is that “They did not know the Lord.” This means they did not concern themselves with understanding, or seeking, or being in the will of God. Their desire was for themselves, and reveals that the evil of the Book of Judges was alive and well even in the priests of God. 

This is contrasted with Hannah and Samuel. Hannah receives a blessing from Eli and by God in having more children. Whereas Samuel grows in God’s presence, more on this in a little while.

Let’s continue reading in verse 22,

22 Now Eli was very old, and he kept hearing all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who were serving at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 23 And he said to them, “Why do you do such things? For I hear of your evil dealings from all these people. 24 No, my sons; it is no good report that I hear the people of the Lord spreading abroad. 25 If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him, but if someone sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him?” But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the Lord to put them to death.

26 Now the boy Samuel continued to grow both in stature and in favor with the Lord and also with man.

  The worthlessness of the sons comes out even more. Not only are they taking additional food, but they are also engaging in immoral acts with women coming to the tabernacle. They were taking advantage of their spiritual office and committing acts with women who desired to be closer to God. 

Whether Eli brushed over their sin when he was younger, or it just became apparent as Eli grew older, he rebukes the sons, but they do not listen. They are already too deep into their depravity to hear him, and God has already passed his judgment on them. 

Yet, Eli sees a need for an interceder between man and God, but since there is none at this time, their is no one to argue on their behalf to God. God’s judgment then has no restraint and pours out on the sinful. This won’t be the last time the Scriptures point us to the need for an intercessor between God and man.

Again, this is contrasted with Samuel, who we’re told is growing; this time in physicality and in favorability in the sight of God.

We pick up the final section in verse 27,

27 And there came a man of God to Eli and said to him, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Did I indeed reveal myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt subject to the house of Pharaoh? 28 Did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? I gave to the house of your father all my offerings by fire from the people of Israel. 29 Why then do you scorn my sacrifices and my offerings that I commanded for my dwelling, and honor your sons above me by fattening yourselves on the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel?’ 30 Therefore the Lord, the God of Israel, declares: ‘I promised that your house and the house of your father should go in and out before me forever,’ but now the Lord declares: ‘Far be it from me, for those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed. 31 Behold, the days are coming when I will cut off your strength and the strength of your father's house, so that there will not be an old man in your house. 32 Then in distress you will look with envious eye on all the prosperity that shall be bestowed on Israel, and there shall not be an old man in your house forever. 33 The only one of you whom I shall not cut off from my altar shall be spared to weep his eyes out to grieve his heart, and all the descendants of your house shall die by the sword of men. 34 And this that shall come upon your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, shall be the sign to you: both of them shall die on the same day. 35 And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do according to what is in my heart and in my mind. And I will build him a sure house, and he shall go in and out before my anointed forever. 36 And everyone who is left in your house shall come to implore him for a piece of silver or a loaf of bread and shall say, “Please put me in one of the priests' places, that I may eat a morsel of bread.”’”

This is God’s judgment on Eli’s house. Since Eli didn’t correct his sons sooner, whether by indifference or lack of supervision, and has seemed to also been fine with eating the meat they bring to him, God has brought judgment on the whole household. This proclamation of judgment is brought to Eli by an unknown prophet, who beings to speak of God’s grace on the linage of Aaron. Yet, this grace will not be extended to Eli’s linage. 

Yet, there is still hope. A faithful priest will rise where there was none. Implying that the boy Samuel, who is growing in the presence of God. Who is becoming stronger physically, and who has God’s favor on him, will be that priest. And our passage ends with the destruction of Eli’s line assured by God.

Eli’s sons are not unique and we have similar abusers of authority today. We have pastors and teachers, evangelists and prophets, ministers and “apostles” who use their offices of authority to take more than they should from the people of God. They use their authority to coerce and manipulate women into immoral acts. They mesmerize and brainwash others by slick words and outgoing personalities. 

Right now, there is a man going viral on social media claiming to be the successor of both Jesus and Muhammed. He is claiming to be Al Mahdi, or the Islamic Messiah. He is claiming to be the true Pope of the Catholic Church. Yet, he is just another, in a long line of spiritual abusers just like Eli’s sons. However the trap is, we can point to people like that and easily see the depravity and falsity they do, but become blind to the one’s around us. Those that seek more and more money, who speak out of both sides of their mouths, who manipulate and denigrate those around them. 

This is what the Catholic Church did when they swept the sexual abuse of children under the rug. It is what the Alliance did when they did not confront Ravi Zacharias in his immoral acts. We cannot point to a leasder’s sinful acts, and turn a blind eye to the one’s around us and let it happen. 

Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:15-23 sound heavier with this situation, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. 21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’”

This is why we are not to trust in man for our spiritual connection to God. Man is not our interceder. Man is fallen apart from Christ’s work, and we should not place out trust into any one human spiritual leader as our end all, because they can become corrupted by the office they hold. Jesus is our one and only interceder.

Recently Pope Francis died and Pope Leo was elected. Millions mourned the passing of the one and celebrated the new, but this is a man who, though may or may not have spiritual wisdom, is just another man. 

The passage we read today, points us to a greater priest who is incorruptible. In the short term, that was Samuel, but in the long term, we are being pointed to Christ. As the Hebrew writer reveals, “14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:14-16)”

Humans struggle with sin even when they come to Christ. To look to any singular human individual as the end all of spiritual guidance is to leave ourselves open to spiritual manipulation. There is only one spiritual guide we need, and that’s Jesus himself. Pastors are good to aid us in our walk, teachers are good to help us see things we haven’t before, but it’s only Jesus who saves, heals, and guides by the Holy Spirit to bring us ever closer to our Father and his will. When we have Jesus as our ultimate teacher, it will be easier to discern those that want to manipulate us, calling them out when necessary. 

My challenge for you this week is to ask yourself, is there a human spiritual teacher, or pastor, or guru, who you think can do no wrong? Do you follow this person in everything they say? If you do, you need to break free of that. I’m not saying they’re not a good teacher or pastor, but Jesus needs to be the only one who can do no wrong in our eyes. Seek the Lord to break you of this attachment.

If you do not have such an attachment, then pray for those who do. Those who are spiritual deceived by people like this Al Mahdi, and other false teachers, pastors, and prophets. Cult leaders love these types of people, but so do false pastors and teachers. Pray for them that God would break them of these sinful attachments.

Let us be Jesus people. With one Lord, and one confession of the only High Priest we need. Amen.

1 Samuel Series Wk 1 - “A Heart In God’s Will”

 There has been a lot of great mothers throughout the centuries. Mothers that have stood against impossible odds for their children, who have endured many hardships to care and provide for others as they go without. They are teachers, caregivers, and sometimes, bull dogs. God made women to bear many burdens, and because of this, a woman’s ability to care goes beyond their own biological children. 

One such mother was a woman named Monica. In the fifth century A.D. she gave brith to one of the most important theologians of the Church. In his younger days, he was a rascal. In his own words he was a thief and a fornicator. He lived from himself. But Monica was persistent in her love and care for her son. She wanted not only good for him in life, but she wanted him to know Jesus as his Savior. Though he would party, she would take him to task. Once he tried to sail away from his home, just to find her dogging him. Decades went by with no show of change in the young man’s life, until he finally went away and found that the life and beliefs he held failed compared to Christ. Monica was blessed to see her one desire fulfilled, her son became a Christian. That man was Augustine and went on to influence many of the doctrines we have today.

But it was Monica’s perseverance in pointing her son back to Jesus, whether he wanted to hear it or not, that stands as a testimony to all mothers who care for their children.

This brings us to our summer series in the book of 1st Samuel, where we’ll be picking it up in the first chapter. As we open up to 1st Samuel chapter 1, verses 1, let’s first talk about what we do in these summer series and then I’ll give a little background to the book before we begin.

First, these summer series are not to be an in-depth verses-by-verse treatments of the passages we will cover. Rather, these summer series are to see the bigger picture of how the passages connect with each other within the book itself and how they connect to the greater story that the Scriptures are telling us about God. So sometimes, like today, we will read only parts of the larger passages. That means your homework every week is to go back and read through the whole passage that we cover. Sometimes it my be looking at a handful of verses, other times it will cover multiple chapters. But we need to see the greater thought process of the Holy Spirit through his word, and these summer series are meant to do just that.

Next, we have to understand where the book is placed within the canon of Scripture. The first book tells of God’s creation, humanity’s fall, and God’s special work through the lineage of Abraham. The purpose of his work is to bring about a blessing for all people. It is also to break sin’s power through the seed of Eve. 

The next four books focuses the reader’s attention to the linage of Abraham: its brith, slavery, exodus, and covenant with God. These books end with the nation of Israel on the eastern banks of the Jordan River ready to enter God’s Promised Land. 

The book of Joshua then delivers on God’s promise that the Israelites would subdue the land if they followed him, which in a great amount, they do. The next book, Judges, opens to a new generation that is becoming rebellious to God’s rule over them. The individual judges show us the spiritual and moral decline of Israel over the course of a few hundred years. The book of Judges ends with the statement, “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. (Jdg. 21:25)” Israel was on the brink of civil war, because they had almost completely abandoned their covenant with God as their king and instead followed their own sinful desires. 

It is after Judges that we get a curious book. A story about a woman, who was not an Hebrew, but who was faithful to her Hebrew mother-in-law. This woman, Ruth, is then married to Boaz and produces a son, Obed, but the book quickly transitions to her great-grandson David.

Which half of 1st Samuel and the majority of 2nd Samuel focuses on. However, we must understand that the book of Samuel, that we cut up into two parts, is about God’s continued redemption of humanity through the seed of Eve and the linage of Abraham. What we will read over the next two summers is how that focus narrows, eventually leading to Jesus. If we see this underlying story of God’s redemption work at play, then everything will make sense as we make our way starting, not with David, who was the last thought in Ruth, but with Hannah, another woman who is a faithful servant of God. Let’s read together her story, starting in 1st Samuel 1:1.

1 There was a certain man of Ramathaim (Ramathigh-aim)—zophim (zo-f-im) of the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Elkanah the son of Jeroham, son of Elihu, son of Tohu, son of Zuph, an Ephrathite. 2 He had two wives. The name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other, Peninnah. And Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.

3 Now this man used to go up year by year from his city to worship and to sacrifice to the Lord of hosts at Shiloh, where the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were priests of the Lord. 4 On the day when Elkanah sacrificed, he would give portions to Peninnah his wife and to all her sons and daughters. 5 But to Hannah he gave a double portion, because he loved her, though the Lord had closed her womb. 6 And her rival used to provoke her grievously to irritate her, because the Lord had closed her womb. 7 So it went on year by year. As often as she went up to the house of the Lord, she used to provoke her. Therefore Hannah wept and would not eat. 8 And Elkanah, her husband, said to her, “Hannah, why do you weep? And why do you not eat? And why is your heart sad? Am I not more to you than ten sons?”

9 After they had eaten and drunk in Shiloh, Hannah rose. Now Eli the priest was sitting on the seat beside the doorpost of the temple of the Lord. 10 She was deeply distressed and prayed to the Lord and wept bitterly. 11 And she vowed a vow and said, “O Lord of hosts, if you will indeed look on the affliction of your servant and remember me and not forget your servant, but will give to your servant a son, then I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life, and no razor shall touch his head.”

12 As she continued praying before the Lord, Eli observed her mouth. 13 Hannah was speaking in her heart; only her lips moved, and her voice was not heard. Therefore Eli took her to be a drunken woman. 14 And Eli said to her, “How long will you go on being drunk? Put your wine away from you.” 15 But Hannah answered, “No, my lord, I am a woman troubled in spirit. I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have been pouring out my soul before the Lord. 16 Do not regard your servant as a worthless woman, for all along I have been speaking out of my great anxiety and vexation.” 17 Then Eli answered, “Go in peace, and the God of Israel grant your petition that you have made to him.” 18 And she said, “Let your servant find favor in your eyes.” Then the woman went her way and ate, and her face was no longer sad.

19 They rose early in the morning and worshiped before the Lord; then they went back to their house at Ramah. And Elkanah knew Hannah his wife, and the Lord remembered her. 20 And in due time Hannah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Samuel, for she said, “I have asked for him from the Lord.”

Walking through Hannah’s story we see a man from the area of Ephraim. The last time we heard about Ephraim in Scripture it wasn’t good. In the book of Judges, we read a story about a Levite journeying into the land to find his concubine, and after finding her, experienced the same sin of Sodom. In the end the concubine was murdered and a civil war began. So to have a man from Ephraim begin this book, we are returning, in a sense, to a place of horrible sin.

Though this man himself is in sin by having multiple wives, he seems to be trying to be faithful to God by going to participate in the yearly sacrifice to the Lord. It is on these long treks that we learn that there is strife in the household. Like Rachel and Leah in the book of Genesis, the man loves one wife more than the other, even though the loved wife has bore no sons. Yet due to he infertility, Hannah is ridiculed and treated poorly by her husband’s second wife. Even though he professes his love for her and makes sure she is taken care of, the societal shame of not having children weighs on her. 

This is when she goes to the tabernacle of God and prays. It is a prayer of the heart poured out to God. It is a pleading from a person in distress. Eli, the priest is there, but he doesn’t recognize the anguish in Hannah. She is there late at night, just moving her lips, so he thinks, she must be drunk. 

But no, she is there out of desperation and he softens towards her. He directs her to go in peace with a blessing and she does. Soon after Hannah conceives and Samuel is born.  

  Hannah’s story is like many in the Scriptures. Sarah could not conceive, yet the promise child Issac was eventually born. Rachel could not conceive, yet Joseph and eventually Benjamin were born from her. Hannah’s conception is heartbreaking and yet has purpose. To be barren in the ancient world was to be cursed by the gods, but not necessarily so with the God of the Bible. We may wonder why God holds back those who desire to have children, while others are blessed when they do not want them. Jesus answered this type of question when his disciples ask about why a man was born blind, was it his or his parents’ sin? Jesus said this, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. (John 9:3)” Though we might not understand why a certain situation occurs, God works his purposes out in all situations, and we must trust in that. 

However, that should not stop us from seeking our heartfelt desire before God. If they are not sinful wants, then we should bring them to God as we see Hannah do. Seeking God in our desires that are not found in sin, are never something that is rejected by God. Yet we must seek his will in our lives above even our purest of wants. 

Hannah would go on to fulfill her vow to God that if he would give her a son, she would give him back to his service. Dropping down to verse 24 we read, “24 And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, along with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour, and a skin of wine, and she brought him to the house of the Lord at Shiloh. And the child was young. 25 Then they slaughtered the bull, and they brought the child to Eli. 26 And she said, ‘Oh, my lord! As you live, my lord, I am the woman who was standing here in your presence, praying to the Lord. 27 For this child I prayed, and the Lord has granted me my petition that I made to him. 28 Therefore I have lent him to the Lord. As long as he lives, he is lent to the Lord.’ And he worshiped the Lord there.”

Hannah’s desire was in keeping with the purposes of God. When God’s will and our desire align, mighty works are done in the presence of both the individual’s life who is blessed, and those around them. From here, Hannah breaks out in a worshipful song, about God’s faithfulness and greatness. She begins with, “1 My heart exults in the Lord; my horn is exalted in the Lord. My mouth derides my enemies, because I rejoice in your salvation. (v.2:1)” The song ends with, “9 He will guard the feet of his faithful ones, but the wicked shall be cut off in darkness, for not by might shall a man prevail. 10 The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces; against them he will thunder in heaven. The Lord will judge the ends of the earth; he will give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointed.”

And this is where we must zoom out form Hannah’s story to the overarching story of God. See Hannah may not know it, but she is prophesying in her worship. Similar to the women who broken out in blessing at the birth of Ruth’s son, when they shouted, “Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without a redeemer, and may his name be renowned in Israel! (Ruth 4:14)” These women spoke of God’s redeemer, Hannah is speaking of his anointed.

At this time there was no king in Israel, but God himself. No redeemer but God, and though there would be a human king to come, it is God continues to be King over all, and the world’s Redeemer. 

Yet it’s that very Kingship that Israel will reject, seeking to be like those who’s god isn’t the God of Israel. Yet in this moment, God is working our redemption through Hannah, and though she doesn’t see the full scope, she sees that the Lord is working in her life, redeeming her from her perceived shame, and because of that, she worships him and rejoices in his saving work. 

God is calling us to be like Hannah laying the desires of our hearts before him and desiring to be in his will. When our desires match his, we will see his great work in our lives. This is what Paul is talking about when he writes in Romans 12:1-2, “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”

As Christians, our minds are to be renewed, this leads to us being transformed by God and not conformed to this world. This leads us to then know God’s will to which we then desire for our own lives. In this type of living sacrifice, we are giving up of ourselves, and by doing so, we are engaging in true worship. Our desires conform to God’s will and the mighty things God desires to do happen in our lives. 

Hannah gave herself up to God, pleading for what she desired. This aligned with God’s will and he moved a mighty work in her. She then responds with more worship and fulfilling her oath to God in returning her son to be his servant. 

My challenge for you this week is to write down your heart’s desire. Once you do that, ask the Lord if it is a sinful desire or a one that would be within his will. If it is sinful, ask for it to be taken from you, we need a transformation of our desires to be away from sin, so when we recognize that a desire is sinful, we need to seek God to cut it out of our lives. If it isn’t sin, then leave it before the Lord. Leave it there and be satisfied in the peace of God that if it is fulfilled you will praise him, and if it is not, you will praise him. The key to this whole thing is to understand that we should desire the will of God above all things, even our purest desires. It is God’s work we should want, so let’s not let our desires supersede his.

Instead, let us be a people who understand we can bring our heartfelt desires before the Lord, and at the same time, seek his will above all other things, worshiping him not matter what the outcome. Amen.

The Relationship Between Faith and Reason - A Scholarly Paper

Introduction

A cartoon by Bob Englehart from February of 2006 depicts an older man in a lab coat with science in capital letters underneath his pocket protector. The scientist is tied to a stake on top of a wood pile, with an angry man in a friar’s cloak holding a Bible in one hand and a lit torch in the other. The thought bubble above the angry man states, “For the crimes of abortion, birth control, evolution stem cell research ….” Englehart’s cartoon is meant to invoke the idea that the religious decry and destroy those that employ logic and science. This belief has its roots in Enlightenment sentiments such as Voltaire, who wrote, “It was loudly exclaimed that Mr. Locke intended to destroy religion; nevertheless, religion had nothing to do in the affair, it being a question purely philosophical, altogether independent of faith and revelation.” However, the notion that faith and reason are either at odds or necessarily independent of one another is not what is found in the biblical text; in fact, the opposite is true. The God of the Bible has called humanity into a relationship based on reasonable faith. A state of relationship that employs both the reason capabilities of the intellect with the trust of obedience.

Defining Faith and Reason 

In order to understand the partnership of reason and faith that the God of the Bible calls his people into, one must understand the terms. First, the word for faith in the New Testament is the Greek word πίστις, which is defined as “Faith, belief, trust, confidence, fidelity.” The cultural background of the word in the Roman-Greco culture reflected the personal trust and reliability of a person within the context of personal and social circumstances. In addition, this reliability was referred to as a guarantee that a person was trustworthy to keep their word. Within the Jewish culture, πίστις is rooted in the covenant that Israel had with God, which affirmed trust through God’s fulfilled promises. In the New Testament, πίστις refers to confidence in what God has done through Christ Jesus and understanding of what God’s will for his people is. In this understanding of faith, blind belief is nowhere to be found. Instead, faith is built on trust, which is found in an individual’s previous actions. John Bishop and Daniel J. McKaughan recognize that faith is rooted in trust when they write, “Uses of ‘faith’ and ‘faithfulness’ closely parallel ‘trust’ and ‘trustworthiness’ and these are often used interchangeably.” When applied in the Greco-Roman culture, person A could trust person B based on how person B had conducted themselves in past situations. This is similar to what Western society would call a person’s reputation or character. A person can trust or have faith in another based on the reputation they have built as a trustworthy person. When applied to God, this trust is in the fulfilled promises of what God has accomplished in the past. It is, therefore, interesting that God invites this type of reputation trust by calling the Israelites to remember what he had done in Egypt. Therefore, a definition of faith is trust in the consistent conduct of past actions. It is not the type of faith that simply believes out of one’s desires to believe something no matter the proof, as Herbert McCabe and Denys Turner argue against.

In reference to the definition of reason, the Cambridge Dictionary cites several possible definitions. One of these possible definitions is “the ability of a healthy mind to think and make judgments, especially based on practical facts.” John S. Uebersax sees reason as mental faculties in either a lower state, a person’s ability to think linearly through issues, and a higher state, in which a person perceives areas such as mathematics and logic. Uebersax also includes moral and religious truths in this high state of reason. For others, such as Alan G. Padgett, reason is the human ability to think. A synthesis of these various degrees of understanding is the reason for the purpose here, which is the ability of humans to make judgments based on the various modes of evidence they have access to. This definition focuses on a human’s ability to think rather than on an animal’s basic ability to make judgments on an institutional level. This definition also adds an evidentiary aspect to reason that sees the practical facts of the Cambridge definition and Uebersax’s higher logic. Finally, the reason is to think through the various modes of evidence, including natural and metaphysical ideas. It is this idea of reason that will be referred to below. 

Prudent Biblical Passages

In looking at both faith and reason in the Bible, it can be easily thought that the Bible condemns the use of reason. Passages such as Colossians 2:8 reject the idea that reason and faith live together in the disciple’s life. Early Church fathers such as Tertullian also seem to deny the use of reason in understanding God. However, as Carl A. Raschke notes about Tertullian, the issue is not with reason but with substituting human philosophy for biblical faith. As several Scripture passages show, God calls his people to a trusting faith and a reasoned mind. 

Leviticus 19:17 states, “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. (ESV)” In God’s words, prohibiting hatred towards one’s brother and neighbor, the opposing people should converse and work through their issues. The Hebrew word יָכַח is used, which carries the meaning of rebuke, argue, and judge to conclude. The cultural connotations of this idea are meant to be understood as a means to correct a person through argumentation or presentation of evidence. In Job 6:25-26, יָכַח is used by Job in the context of wanting to be taught so that he might understand his plight. In Isaiah 1:18, God speaks to the prophet using the word יָכַח when he talks to the nation of Israel about showing them how “… though [their] sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow …” This type of reasoning by way of evidential argumentation is a way in which the Israelites were to maintain their covenantal faithfulness. Therefore, it can be understood that God intended his people to reason with him, engaging their ability to think rationally about situations so that they may continue in their faithful trust of him.

In the New Testament, Jesus tells his disciples, “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment. (Jn. 7:24)” The word used, κρίνω, is the Greek parallel to the Hebrew, יָכַח. κρίνω carried with it the idea that whether in one’s personal opinion or a court of law, people are to make determinations that lead them to act. In the case of John 7:24, Jesus points his disciples to make δίκαιος or righteous judgments. Here, the judgment was to be made to live up to the standard of God. These right judgments would have a practical effect when Paul would write, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God“ … (2 Cor. 10:5)” The argument that Paul is speaking of is, λογισμός, or reasons that others believe in opposition to God. These arguments, or reasons, are then juxtaposed with the idea of knowledge, or γνῶσις, which is the Greek word for understanding or perception. In this way, Paul is pitting man’s reasoning against God’s. This is similar to Jesus’ idea of judging by the proper standard of God rather than making judgments by human ideas. In both the Old and New Testaments, reason within the bounds of God’s knowledge is how God’s people engage in reasoning. It is within these bounds that God’s disciple grows their faith, trust, and obedience to the knowledge of God over the knowledge of man.

Models of Faith and Reason

With the terms defined and the biblical foundation set, many philosophers and theologians have developed models to separate or join concepts of faith and reason. These models are varied by the nuances individuals focus on within the discussion. Peter Holmes wrestles with seven models, which Avery Dulles discusses in his work, The Assurance of Things Hoped For: Propositional, Transcendental, Fiducial, Affective/Experiential, Obediential, Praxis, and Personalist. Richard C. Taylor, on the other hand, dives into four Medieval models of faith and reason as they pertain to the interaction between Christianity and Islam through individuals: Augustine, Ghazālī, Averroes, and Aquinas. As editor of Faith and Reason: Three Views, Steve Wilkens brings together three contributors who seek to tackle the issue: Carl A. Raschke

Alan G. Padgett, and Craig A. Boyd. Then, there is Montague Brown, who sees two models within Anselm’s theology. Due to the volume of differing models that could be discussed, three of the six models that Wilkens presents in his Models of Faith and Reason, provide a general understanding of the issues in how faith and reason are discussed. It is these three models that will be discussed here.

The Enlightenment or Rationalist Model is the first of these approaches that their infancy sought to give faith a firm foundation in reason. The rationalists sought to anchor faith in the natural world, which was seen as the only way true religion could be understood. This model stripped away the miraculous from Christianity, which eventually led to a moralistic form of the faith. Done away was the idea of virgin birth and resurrection, which made way for an emphasis on God as primarily a Lawgiver and humans as moral agents. Following this, reason became more critical than faith since faith was a belief in the super-rational that could not be observed and, therefore, could not be grounded in the natural world. In the end, this model led to a suppression of faith as defined above to a purely academic view rooted in the primary senses rather than in the self-revelation from God outside the system. In a sense, the Enlightenment model sought to emancipate people from faith. This is similar to early Greek philosophy which Terence Penelhum observes “… philosophy’s early development among the Greeks was due to deliberate and self-conscious emancipation from the mythical thought forms in which Greek religious life was expressed.” 

The second of these models is the “separate spheres.” In this model, unlike the previous one, there is a conscious decision to see faith and reason as unique from each other but not allow that uniqueness to break the tension between the two. This is seen as viewing God as outside of the created order; therefore, human reason cannot grasp him. As Wilkens states, “If human beings know anything that is true of God, it is not because reason has discerned God’s logic, but because God has willed us to know.” In this model, reason can only work in the created order; it is the arm of making the tool and studying effects. Reason’s failure is that it cannot understand things outside of the created system; therefore, it must work within that system.

On the other hand, faith comes by way of God from the outside, revealing himself to humanity on the inside. God’s self-revelation from outside creation is the only way humanity can know anything about God. Therefore, reason seeks to know about the things of this world, whereas faith aims to know the who of the personal God. Reason helps create propositions of the observable world, while faith understands God on the limited information he shares. The separate spheres model gives faith and reason their own purpose while seeing their contribution to the other in areas they do not speak to. Writing from a educational point of view, Wilkens sees this model as being a way to foster “… openness to academic views from all sources, secular and Christian.” Wilkens makes his case that, in academia, the separate spheres model would impose no single framework onto students and faculty. This would force faith and reason to have their  limits in what the can and cannot speak to. 

It is Thomas Aquinas that a synthesis is tried to reach between faith and reason. Aquinas is famous for seeing various elements from the Christian faith in the natural order. In this way, Aquinas considers the ability of humans to reason through what God has placed in the natural world. His “Five Ways” to know that God exists uses Aristotelian precepts of studying the natural world to understand that there must be a deity that created the world around us. However, this understanding that God’s work can be observed within the created order does not mean that Aquinas falls solely on the side of reason. It is in the self-revelation of God in the Scriptures and both the Church’s doctrine and tradition that Thomas sets as the key to true knowledge. Yet, within the concept of reason, Thomas sees God’s grace in breaking down obstacles that would be set against faith in him. Reason, then, is not doctrine but rather the entry point where faith steps in and the fullness of God can then be understood. In Scott D. G. Ventureyra’s work, he notes that Norman Geisler sees Aquina’s view as “… faith uses reason and that reason is incapable of functioning without faith.” Therefore, reason is a prelude to faith for those who have intellectual barriers to faith in God. In understanding faith and reason this way, Aquinas sees reason as an entry point to launch one’s faith.

Synthesis of Faith and Reason in the Modern Church

As can be observed in the biblical model, faith and reason should not be seen as at odds with one another. They are not two individual athletes competing against each other for the prize but rather a duo working side-by-side to accomplish a goal. As Cortés, Pablo, and Vigil, see can happen in the realm of medicine. The tension between the two is the tension that was within the garden. Faith, trusting action, was required of Adam and Eve. Their ability to reason through that faith is evident in the fact that Eve was able to communicate God’s prohibition and that “… the woman saw … that the tree was to be desired to make one wise … (Gen. 3:6)” Though her reasoning was faulty, leading to her sin and failure of faith, it was still there. In this way, God still calls his people to reason through his actions. 

When the Church participates in Communion, the words of Christ, “Do this in remembrance of me. (1 Cor. 11:24)” This is an act of faith, of trust, in what has occurred. Because of the act of the cross and the resurrection, which Jesus prophesied, one can then reason that Christ’s words of his return are also accurate. Reasoning is employed to bolster faith in what has and will occur. Reason is also a stepping stone for the inquirer to faith. Peter writes, “… always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you … (1 Peter 3:15)” The word for defense is ἀπολογία, which is what a defendant would do in a court of law. This was a sound, reasoned argument as to the defendant’s innocence. Christians are, therefore, to reason through their faith as a means to defend it or give answers to those asking questions. In this way, reason can be the first step into faith.

Yet faith is not simply the end goal of reason but also is reason itself. Trust moves a person forward even when the outcome is uncertain. D-Day, which turned the tide of World War II, should not have worked. It was a gamble with many working parts that went beyond pure reason. If the Germans had positioned their troops differently, if the weather had been unfavorable, if the ploys of the Allies did not work, all the preparation would have failed. Yet, a strong trust in the abilities of others led to winning the day. Faith is a trust in what has happened that moves us to the next step when reasoning might hold us back. When they work together in the Christian’s life, a deeper understanding of who God is and their relationship with him is achieved.

In the modern Church, we must capture the synthesis of such models as Aquinas put forward. The Church needs a view of faith that works together with reason, neither supplanting another nor excluding each other from the believer’s relationship with God. A synthesis where believers reason out what God has revealed and walk in an ever-growing trust. Faith that is not blind and reason that is not devoid of trust. Only when both are joined in a harmonic work will the Church be able to show its faithfulness to its Savior and respond to the question from within and the attacks from outside.

Conclusion

How some theologians and philosophers see the relationship between faith and reason might elicit a boxing match. Two opponents slugging it out until one overcomes the others. This dichotomy leads to a skewed understanding of God’s intention to trust in him and think through his creative work. The Christian needs to grasp the reality that the God of the Bible calls his creation to reason with him in a relationship based on trust. When a disciple sees faith and reason as something that God intends his people to use, a deeper trust that engages both the will and the intellect can be achieved, fulfilling Jesus’ words, “… love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. (Mark 12:30)”

                                                                                                    Bibliography

Bishop, John and Daniel J. McKaughan. “Faith,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Winter 2023 Edition. ed. Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman, December 9, 2023, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/faith/.

Brown, Montague. “Faith and Reason in Anselm: Two Models,” The Saint Anselm Journal 2.1, Fall 2004, https://www.anselm.edu/sites/default/files/Documents/Institute of SA Studies/4.5.3.2i_21MBrown.pdf.

Cortés, Manuel E., Juan del Rio Pablo, and Pilar Vigil. “The Harmonious Relationship Between Faith and Science from the Perspective of Some Great Saints: A brief comment,” The Linacre Quarterly, vol. 82, 1 (2015).

Earle, Neil. “D-DAY! The Untold Story,” Plain Truth Magazine, July-August 1984, vol 49, 7. Herbert W. Armstrong Library, https://www.hwalibrary.com/cgi-bin/get/hwa.cgiaction=getmagazine&InfoID=1335617045& GetMag=PT.

Englehart, Bob. “Religious Nuts Hurt Us All.” Cagle Cartoons, February 28, 2006, https://www.cartoonstock.com/cartoon?searchID=EC261656. 

Faith and Reason: Three Views. ed. Steve Wilkens, Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014.

Holmes, Peter. Models of Faith and Reason. The University of Notre Dame Australia, May 28, 2010, https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/theses/50.

McCabe, Herbert and Denys Turner. Faith Within Reason. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2007.

Penelhum, Terence, and Emeritus. Reason and Religious Faith. Oxford, ENG: Taylor & Francis Group, 2019.

“Reason,” Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge, ENG: Cambridge University Press & Assessment, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/reason.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Bible Hub, 2004-2025, https://biblehub.com.

Taylor, Richard C. “Faith and Reason, Religion and Philosophy: Four Views from Medieval Islam and Christianity.” Philosophy Faculty Research and Publications, 1991, Marquette University, https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1890&context=phil_fac.

Tertullian. De Praescriptione Hereticorum 7.9, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3. ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1903.

Uebersax, John S. “High Reason and Lower Reason.” November 3, 2013, https://www.academia.edu/3815459/Higher_Reason_and_Lower_Reason.

Ventureyra, Scott D. G.. “Thomas Aquinas’s Understanding of Faith & Reason: Jacques Maritain and Norman Geisler in Dialogue,” The American Journal of Biblical Theology vol. 24(38). September 17, 2023, https://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/VentureyraS11.pdf.

Voltaire. “Letters on the English: Letter 13 On Mr. Locke,” Internet Modern History Sourcebook Voltaire (1694-1778): Letters on the English or Lettres Philosophiques, c. 1778. ed. Paul Halsall, Fordham University, New York. https://origin.web.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1778voltaire-lettres.asp.

Wilkens, Steve. Models of Faith and Reason: Marginalization, Coexistence, or Integration. Azusa Pacific University, https://www.apu.edu/files/models_of_faith_and_reason.pdf.