Is the Christian faith completely blind?

It’s a verse that atheists and religious critics have committed to heart because they think it demonstrates how anti-intellectual Christianity is.

You know the story. The Bible describes in John 20:26–29 how, after Christ was raised from the dead, Thomas declared he would not believe it until he had seen Jesus with his own eyes. Jesus obliges him and after Thomas declares Jesus’ divinity comes the verse in question:

“Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed” (John 20:29).

Get Our Latest News for FREE

Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.

“See there!” cries the skeptic, “You Christians have a ‘faith’ that is blind belief without evidence, which even Jesus Himself affirms, but I only believe things based on proof. Checkmate.”  

Sometimes they’ll quote another well-known verse in Scripture that they think adds more weight to their point: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1).

The critic’s negative position on these verses can be summed up by the philosopher Frederick Nietzsche who wrote, “When faith is thus exalted above everything else, it necessarily follows that reason, knowledge and patient inquiry have to be discredited: the road to the truth becomes a forbidden road.”

But is that really the case? Is Jesus and the writer of Hebrews commending a belief with no reality-based reason or foundation for that conviction?

Not at all.

Faith and truth      

Let’s start with how the Bible defines the word “faith,” which is used nearly 400 times in Scripture. The Hebrew word is aman and signifies something firm, trustworthy, and safe. The Greek term is pistis, which comes from the verb peitho which means “to be persuaded,” and denotes trust, confidence, conviction, reliability, and something worthy of belief.

Both words denote a proactively thinking trust in something with meat on the bones, i.e., good grounds for assuming that position of faith.

Next, let’s remember faith has a twin nature to it and that there is a distinction between faith that and faith in. The writer of Hebrews calls this out when he says, “And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is [faith that] and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him [faith in]” (Heb. 11:6).

As an example of the differences, when I say I have faith in my wife, I’m sure you don’t think I’m saying I believe in her existence, but rather I trust and believe in her character and what she says. And I’m sure you understand that I have good reasons for that faith although I can’t show you physical evidence supporting that trust.

So how does all this factor into what Jesus and the writer of Hebrews say about faith?

When it comes to the resurrection narrative in the Gospels, remember that even though poor Thomas has historically been drawn and quartered for his lack of faith, none of the disciples expected Jesus to rise from the dead even though He had told them what would happen multiple times (e.g., John 2:19–22; Luke 18:33-34; Mark 9:31-32). Not one of them said after His crucifixion, “It looks bad now, but remember, Sunday’s coming!”

The only one we’re told about who believed without physically seeing Jesus after He was raised is John who saw the empty tomb with Peter: “So the other disciple … saw and believed” (John 20:8). And his belief started with faith that the resurrection took place which led to faith in what Jesus had previously told them about His Person, death and resurrection.

I think C. S. Lewis sums up well what Jesus was referring to about believing without seeing when he writes:  

“The saying ‘Blessed are those that have not seen and have believed’ has nothing to do with our original assent to the Christian propositions. It was not addressed to a philosopher enquiring whether God exists. It was addressed to a man who already believed that, who already had long acquaintance with a particular Person, and evidence that that Person could do very odd things, and who then refused to believe one odd thing more … It is a rebuke not to skepticism in the philosophic sense but to the psychological quality of being ‘suspicious.’ It says in effect, ‘You should have known me better.’ There are cases between man and man where we should all, in our different way, bless those who have not seen and have believed. Our relation to those who trusted us only after we were proved innocent in court, cannot be the same as our relation to those who trusted us all through. Our opponents, then, have a perfect right to dispute with us about the grounds of our original assent. But they must not accuse us of sheer insanity if, after the assent has been given, our adherence to it is no longer proportioned to every fluctuation of the apparent evidence.”

Further, most commentators will tell you that Jesus was looking ahead to all those who (like us today) would not see him physically but still believe for other good reasons as Peter says in his first epistle: “… and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory” (1 Pet. 1:8).

When it comes to what the writer of Hebrews means about faith, all you need do is read the rest of the chapter to understand his definition is focused solely on trust in God’s promises. William Lane Craig describes it this way: “As the author’s many examples in that chapter illustrate, what he’s talking about are events in either the past or in the future which are not observable by the five senses. Faith is said to be confidence in such non-present realities. Many of the persons mentioned in the chapter had good reasons for what they hoped would happen in the future.”

This dovetails perfectly with our faith today. We can’t see our promised salvation and future eternity spent with God, but we believe in what God has told us about it because of a previously working faith that, which consists of reasonable foundations.

So, no, neither Jesus nor the writer of Hebrews likens faith to belief without evidence. Instead, they are commending a faith that trusts in God and His Word.

John MacArthur combines both concepts of faith when he says this: “The only faith that makes any sense is faith that has an object that can deliver what you expect.”

Anyone care to argue with that?