making sense of "hope"

I believe the word that has lost its original meaning to modern culture more than any other is the word "hope". In today's discourse we say things like "I hope it rains" or "I hope we win." This use of the word "hope' includes a great degree of "wishing" which is anchored in uncertainty.

In Scripture the Greek word for hope "elpis" means assurance. Both meanings are futuristic in orientation, the difference is a wish is uncertain and hope is not.

One of my favorite scriptures is Romans 4 where Paul is recounting Abraham. Paul writes in verse 18 "against hope in hope he believed." That is, Abraham was promised by God that he would be the father of many  nations. Yet, at a very old age, he was not even the father of one child. As I age it is more apparent to me the "impossibility' of fathering a child in my 80's :-)

So without any physical evidence (against certainty), Abraham was certain God's promise would one day come true. This is why Abraham is called the father of faith, which is trusting that which we cannot see and that which is uncertain by physical evidence is in fact certain. (this kind of relates to the previous post on making sense of "if", the difference in  meaning is in the certainty).

So, the basis for hope is found in the essence of faith, trusting in what we have no evidence for. But what is central to faith? Is it our ability to muster up enough of "it" for "it" to work for us and give us the guarantee? Interestingly, in Romans 4 we often overlook the verse, "because of this faith, according to grace" (Ro 4: 16). NO, faith is validated only by the object of the faith.

The problem we  (as humans) have with hope and faith is that our nature is in bondage to equilibrium. Everything in nature seeks a balance (economics - supply and demand; relationships - social exchange). Mankind seems obsessed with fairness (I have written about this in earlier post), and fairness is based in equilibrium - equality or equity (get what we deserve). Over 100 years ago Thorndike theorized the Law of Effect, which posits that peeps continue to do what brings them favorable results and quit doing things that do not. In other words human behavior is actions by peeps to maintain equilibrium between what we do and the outcomes from doing it. In fact, law itself is action/consequence equilibrium. Romans 4 is primarily drawing a contrast for us between the equilibrium seeking, law abiding  nature of our flesh (carnal mind) and living in faith because of grace.

The key component of Grace that makes it foreign for humans to accept is that Grace is based on disequilibrium. Grace exist when the giver is "superior" to the receiver. In other words, when it is impossible for the receiver to make restitution to the giver for the gift. There is no equality, no equity. For Jesus to receive Grace from God and establish it for us, He had to empty himself of his privilege to be God and not consider himself equal to God (philippians 2), although he was in the Godhead (Trinity).

So until we peeps can disrobe from the bondage of equilibrium, we cannot appropriate the Grace that has been set for us and "hope" remains a wish (uncertain). This is CERTAINLY living beneath our privilege.

Maybe this is what Jesus really meant when He said, "I am the truth and the truth will set you free." Have you ever thought, "free what what?" My sense making says, "free from the bondage of equilibrium (the source of our carnal sense making)".

Something to think about .....