Prayer and Faith (Part 5): Faith, The Title Deed

I’ve been talking about how the Greek word “assurance” in Hebrews 11:1 conveys the idea of a title deed:

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

In 2005, we moved from California to Ohio. Now, escrow closed on our old house on the Friday that we left town to head for Ohio. But escrow on our new house didn’t close until Monday. So from that Friday to the following Monday, we were officially homeless. Yet we didn’t fret and agonize whether we were going to have a home to live in or not. Even though we couldn’t see the new house and we didn’t possess it yet, we had “the assurance (i.e., title deed) of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Heb 11:1)

But here’s the other thing: we never would have taken complete ownership of the house had we not showed up to sign the final papers at the escrow office on Monday morning. Remember the “blank check” analogy both both Boyd and Sittser used? Doesn’t the legal aspect of a title deed described by hypostasis more closely fit Boyd’s view than Sitter’s?

I believe it does.

Incidentally, after we signed the paperwork, they gave us the keys to the house.

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. -Matthew 16:18-20

Prayer and Faith (Part 4): Faith, The Title Deed

Photo by .A.A.

In my previous post, I talked about how the Greek word assurance in Hebrews 11:1 conveys the idea of a title deed:

The word “assurance” in this verse is the Greek word hypostasis. It commonly appears in ancient papyrus business documents, conveying the idea that a covenant is an exchange of assurances which guarantees the future transfer of possessions described in the contract. Moulton and Milligan suggest rendering this verse as: “Faith is the title deed of things hoped for.” (Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 1963, p. 660).

Wikipedia defines title deed as “documents showing ownership, as well as rights, obligations, or mortgages on the property,” and “a formal document that serves as evidence of ownership.”

Title deeds do not necessarily imply possession. Possession is a right that accompanies ownership, but just because you possess it does not necessarily prove that you actually own it. In other words, possession is the actual holding of a thing, whether or not one has any right to do so.

For example, if you buy a car, your name is on the title, but if you give that car for your teenage son to use, then he has possession.If you bought the car with a loan, then the bank holds the title as security, but you possess the car. If the car gets stolen, the thief now has possession (albeit illegally). In these examples, the rightful owner of the property could retake possession, using the title deed to enforce his or her rights.

Does that sound familiar? In my earlier post, I quoted Greg Boyd saying that “prayer is not just a two-way transaction – it also involves the principalities and powers that hinder what God is able to do on the earth.”

When Satan enticed Adam and Eve to sin, he usurped the legal authority of the planet. But when Jesus died on the cross, he returned the title deed of the earth back to us. So anything Satan possesses, he does so illegally. He may possess something, but that does not signify ownership. According to the definition of possession, he may hold a thing without any right to do so.

So title deed suggests that, even though you are the legal owner or have legal rights to a thing, you may not acutally possess it. When you look at it that way, it puts prayer in a whole new perspective, doesn’t it?

In 2005, we moved from California to Ohio. Now, escrow closed on our old house on the Friday that we left town to head for Ohio. But escrow on our new house didn’t close until Monday. So from that Friday to the following Monday, we were officially homeless, but we didn't fret and agonize whether we were going to have a home to come to. Even though we couldn’t see the new house and we didn’t posses it yet, we knew that we had “the assurance (i.e., title deed) of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

But here’s the other thing: we never would have taken complete ownership of the house had we not showed up to sign the final papers in the escrow office on Monday morning. Rememebr the “blank check” analogy that has been used by both Boyd and Sittser? Doesn’t the legal aspect of a title deed described by hypostasis more closely fit Boyd’s view than Sitter’s?

I believe it does.

Incidentally, after we signed the paperwork, they gave us the keys to the house.

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. -Matthew 16:18-20

Prayer and Faith (Part 3): Praying According to Covenant

“This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

In The Better Covenant, Watchman Nee expresses the idea of praying “according to his will” within the context of our covenant relationship with God. Rather than a God who is reluctant to answer our prayers, Nee sees God as taking delight in our “requesting Him to perform according to all His promises in the covenant.” Using a similar blank check analogy as the previous authors I quoted, he says:

May we all remember that we have the right to pray according to covenant. We may ask God to act according to His covenant. But if there is no faith, our prayer will be of no avail. God has reserved everything in the New Covenant in just the way a person deposits his money in a bank. If the person believes, he can draw it out continually.

It’s no coincidence that all three of  these authors liken prayer as a type of financial transaction, for God himself expresses the spiritual transaction between himself and Man in similar terms:

What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. (Rom 4:3-5)

He goes on to say (v. 23-24) that God will also credit righteousness (i.e., equity) for us as well. (See my earlier blog post, The Economics of Self Worth.)

Hebrews 11 is a commentary on the function of faith in relation to the covenant of God:

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

The word “assurance” in this verse is the Greek word hypostasis. It commonly appears in ancient papyrus business documents, conveying the idea that a covenant is an exchange of assurances which guarantees the future transfer of possessions described in the contract. Moulton and Milligan suggest rendering this verse as: “Faith is the title deed of things hoped for.” (Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 1963, p. 660).

Nee puts it like this: “…all who know what a covenant is know how to pray – they may ask God with boldness.” (pp 33)

So God responding to our prayers becomes a matter of his covenant, not his sovereignty. It’s not even based on grace.

Prayer and Faith (Part 2): “Lord, teach us to pray...”

In my previous post, I talked about two different authors’ opposing worldviews on how prayer and the spirit world operates:

Gerald Sittser believes everything that happens fits into God’s secret plan, a divinely ordained blueprint, which is hidden from us. Our prayers, he says, may not always be answered because God’s sovereign will may dictate otherwise.

Gregory Boyd believes in a warfare worldview, in which Satan is actively thwarting God’s will. He says that principalities and powers – not God’s sovereign will – is what hinders what God is able to do, and that prayer is about cooperating with God to help accomplish his will.

According to Boyd, the problem with Sittser’s blueprint worldview is that...

“...it is difficult to pray passionately that the Father’s will would be done ‘on earth as it is in heaven’ (Mt 6:10) if one believes that the Father’s sovereign will is already being done in bringing about the very thing against which one is now praying.” (pp 370)

When American troops were deployed in Viet Nam in the 1960’s, they were not sent there to fight and win a war - they went there to “contain” communism and prevent it from spreading. Contrary to what they’d been trained for, the military was not empowered to act or go on the offensive, because it might conflict with the government’s agenda of containment.

As a result, the soldiers lacked a clear sense of what the war was about... why are we here? As one history professor observed: “In the field – ‘in country’ there seemed to be no secure places – the enemy was everywhere.”

I can’t help but see the similarity to – and the results of – Sittser’s worldview: Christians lacking a clear sense of direction... the enemy seems to be everywhere, but we’re not sure of exactly how to pray or act...  because it might conflict with God’s true agenda.

Because of this, the church is too quick to accept unanswered prayer as the norm. Yet, if we are to take verses like 1 John 4:14-15 at face value, then prayer which lines up with the Word is to be answered, isn’t it?

This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us – whatever we ask – we know that we have what we asked of him. -1 John 4:14-15, Italics Mine

Prayer and Faith (Part 1): “Lord, teach us to pray...”

Photo by Lel4nd

Chapter 11 of the Gospel of Luke starts out with Jesus praying in a certain place and, when he finished, one of his disciples asked, “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.” It seems that, over 2,000 years later, we still can’t quite figure it out.

In his book, When God Doesn’t Answer Your Prayer, Gerald Sittser uses the analogy of prayer being like a “blank check.” He writes:

We know we can’t ask God for just anything. We must make reasonable requests. In short, we must pray according to God’s will. If prayer were a blank check, we would need two signatures to cash it in. One would be our signature; the other would be God’s signature. God himself must sign off on our requests. He must give final approval. (pp 124)

Gregory Boyd, in his book, Satan and the Problem of Evil, also uses the blank check analogy:

God’s will is like a business check that must be cosigned in order to be validated. We the church are the cosigning party, and prayer is our signing. Hence the essence of prayer is, as Jesus taught, to align our will with the Father’s will—to cosign his will, as it were—so that his rule is established “on earth as it is in heaven”. (Mt 6:10) (pp234)

Although they use the same analogy, Boyd sees God as giving us a blank check – already signed – in order to empower his people to act in his behalf. We are the co-signing party which finalizes the spiritual transaction. Sittser, on the other hand, sees God as withholding his signature until he’s certain we’re spending it responsibly.

Jerry Sittser holds a master of divinity degree from Fuller Theological Seminary. Greg Boyd holds a master of divinity degree from Yale Divinity School and a Ph.D from Princeton Theological Seminary. If two bible scholars such as these cannot agree on something so fundamental to Christianity such as prayer, what hope is there for the rest of us?

The reason why Sittser and Boyd do not agree is because each one has a different view of how the spirit world operates. Sittser believes that everything that happens on the earth somehow fits into God’s secret plan – a divinely ordained blueprint, which is hidden from us. Although we ought to pray for things like a friend’s healing or that a loved one’s life be spared, God’s sovereign (i.e., hidden) will may dictate otherwise. Therefore, he may withhold his signature on the blank check.

Boyd, on the other hand, believes in a warfare worldview, in which Satan is actively (and often successfully) thwarting God’s will. For this reason, Boyd views prayer as fundamentally a warfare activity. Quoting another author, he says that prayer is not just a two-way transaction – it also involves the principalities and powers that hinder what God is able to do on the earth. God wants his will carried out on the earth, but he wants it carried out in cooperation with him. His will is not accomplished unless we are in communication with him on it.

There are plenty of issues Christians do not agree on... and when these are non-salvation issues, then I think we ought to agree to disagree. But when it involves an issue as vital as prayer, I find it difficult not to weigh in. What do you think? Can God’s will can be hindered in any way? Or is everything that happens divinely ordained? Your worldview, be it Boyd’s or Sisster’s, will affect how you pray.

Stay tuned... I’ll weight in on this topic in Part Two.

Unanswered Prayer

Photo by One From RM

Why do prayers sometimes seem to go unanswered? I know there’s been volumes written on that, but here’s a thought… What if what we are doing is not prayer at all?

Proverbs 15:29 says, “The LORD is far from the wicked but he hears the prayer of the righteous.” Are you a “righteous person?” If you think that you’re not, could this be the real reason for unanswered prayer?

It is only through salvation in Jesus Christ that we become righteous before God. But if we’re praying with a sin-consciousness rather than a righteous-consciousness, could it be that we are, in a sense, putting ourselves back under the law and allowing the consequences of Proverbs 15:29 to overflow into our prayer life?