In the year 2020, I have been forced as an American, as a human, and as a Christian to think about many pressing issues. The beginning of this year caused me to think about the future and my place in it. The Spring and Summer caused me to think about health and safety as it pertains to living in a pandemic. The Fall has now pressed me to think about the difference between national freedom and spiritual freedom.
The Bible addresses freedom in many different ages and historical contexts. In the beginning of Scripture, God imposes humanity’s free will to choose. He allows Adam to choose the names of every creature (Gen. 2:19, ESV). He gives freedom to eat of anything in the Garden of Eden except for one tree (Gen. 2:17). Here, in the beginning of canonical Scripture, the reader understands that man was intended by God to be free. Free to choose. Free to live. Free to love. Free to worship (that is, free to ascribe worthiness to). Free to multiply. Free to work. All of this was God’s intention, and none of it was considered a burden in the first days.
In what seems to be quite a short time, things change. Reading out of the printed Bible, in a matter of a couple of pages in the book of Genesis, freedom is relinquished from humanity and bondage is understood for the first time. In the third chapter, a serpent tempts Adam and Eve to exercise their freedom to disobey God. They became aware of the freedom they had, but they were tempted to have something more: divine knowledge. What they thought would be a higher, apparently less consequential sense of freedom proved to be damning. As God is true to Himself (2 Tim. 2:13), He did exactly what He said. In the moment they became autonomous, Adam and Eve began to experience death. And so, freedom became bondage. By disobeying God, man has enslaved himself to sin and flesh (Jn. 8:34, 2 Peter 2:19).
In order to understand what, in any sense, freedom is, one must understand what slavery or bondage or oppression is. This portion serves to discuss a Biblical history of both spiritual and physical slavery, bondage, and oppression. There are two types of physical slavery noted in Scripture, which in this aaddress will be called willing servanthood and oppressive slavery. Understanding the details of physical slavery will provide a clearer understanding of spiritual slavery. In beginning, it would be beneficial to review the Exodus from Egypt and much that it entailed concerning freedom.
In the book of Exodus, written by Moses, the Israelites are held captive in slavery by the Egyptians. This is the kind of slavery that exhibits oppression of a people. In Exodus 1:11, Pharaoh appoints taskmasters to afflict the people of Israel. In English translations of Scripture, the most common words used in this verse are, interchangeably, afflict and oppress. The Hebrew word for afflict in this passage is the transliteration “‛ânâh,” which carries the connotation of looking down upon. In Strong’s Concordance, correlating words are abasement, chastening, dealing harshly with, weakening, and so on (Strong’s H6031). It is clear that this slavery that will be known in the book of Exodus is oppressive in nature, unwanted by the people being oppressed. Oppressive slavery in the Old Testament is highlighted most commonly among the Israelites and their slavery to the Egyptians. There is a theological parallel to the oppressive nature of the Egyptians and the nature of sin. The Egyptian Pharaoh caused affliction and pain when he pressed his hand down upon Israel. In the same way, though he submits to it himself, sin has an afflictive and weakening influence on the person.
There are other passages in the Old Testament however, that show the contrast between oppressive slavery and willing servanthood. In fact, within the book of Exodus (the very book that introduces oppressive slavery) is written a set of rules about how to own and treat a slave. This is a compelling reason for the believer in Christ to know the distinction between these types of slavery. The rules of slave treatment are found in Exodus 21 and are quite specific in certain ways. The word “slave” in this chapter is the Hebrew “‘ebed” or “bond-person” (Strong’s H5650). This Hebrew word is closely related to “‘âbad” which means “one devoted to service” (Strong’s H5647). Within this Hebrew word is no connotation of oppression or unwillingness to serve. Rather, it is always used in the context of service as a voluntary act. As a side note, this understanding of slavery and servanthood answers the age-old question, “does the Bible endorse slavery?” with a resounding, “no!” The Author of the Bible sent His Son to free people from spiritual and, at least eventually if not before His Second Coming, physical oppression.
With the information given as a foundation for understanding physical slavery in the Old Testament, it is appropriate now to transfix attention upon the definition of spiritual slavery in the Bible as a whole. Generally, the concept of spiritual slavery is more common in the New Testament. The reason for this is that most New Testament authors use slavery as a metaphor to convey a spiritual truth. Paul is notorious for using the concept of slavery in his epistles to various churches. It is seen in the book of Romans, when he says, “Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (Rom. 6:16, ESV). The word for “slave” in this verse, and in over 300 instances in the Septuagint, is the Greek “doulos,” meaning bondservant. This is in close correlation to the aforementioned Hebrew “‘âbad.”
There is great theological significance to Paul’s use of “doulos” rather than another word for slave that would imply oppression from another party. The point to be drawn from this is that the sinner is responsible for his sin. The sinner is individually accountable for what he is doing; for whom he is choosing to serve (Rom. 6:16). He is the one chaining himself to sin, or to Christ. Paul is making the subtle argument - at least subtle enough when read in the English translation - that this act of serving sin or Christ is an act done voluntarily by the individual.
In understanding the difference between these two definitions of slavery in the Bible, we can now move toward a right understanding of freedom. Simply put, physical freedom is the ability to serve whomever one pleases. Exodus 21 acknowledges this point when it says, “in the seventh (year), he shall go out free for nothing” (Ex. 21:1 ASV). The point of this verse is that someone will serve her term, but when she has served her term, she shall go free. She is able to serve herself, or whomever she desires. The spiritual implication is this: every man commits himself to a possibly lifelong term of slavery to sin. Every day, the heart of stone chooses fleeting, self-gratifying pleasures over the all-sufficient person of Christ. The only hope he may have in one day choosing the joy of the Lord as strength is if the Father, in grace and mercy, intervenes and replaces the heart of stone with one of flesh (Ez. 36:26). Until then, he will continually serve the bitter, oppressive master that is sin. So, the essence of biblical freedom is not contingent upon national status or a history of accomplishments, it is only reliant on right standing with God. The deciding factor is what the heart is (metaphorically) made of.
With the foundation poured, set, and hardened, it is now appropriate to move to the question at hand: how does one separate (or reconcile) national freedom in the United States of America and spiritual freedom in the heart of the believer? As a Christian American in the 21st Century, this has never felt like a more pressing question to answer. In a nation that has always been so torn between left and right and wrong and right, there seems to be little room for the Christ follower to rest. The Democratic Party is raging about many issues, important issues, that the Republican Party seems to overlook. The Republican Party is fighting for substantial freedoms that the Democratic Party deems outdated. There is constant tension in the political realm of the nation that only grows stronger each election year. The baffling truth of the matter is that both sides, juxtaposed, are fighting for what they define as freedom. So the question arises, who is right about American freedom?
In the American school system, the majority of high schools require students to read a book by George Orwell called 1984. This is a popular book written in the mid-1900’s about a dystopian future where English socialism runs its course. It is a powerful, overexaggerated example of what could happen to a country if socialism became a reality. Many Americans think that this would be the death of American freedom. The right to choose your job and the ability to keep your money for yourself is a big part of American freedom, and it would be taken away if socialism existed.
The freedom of speech has always been a prominent aspect of freedom in America. Not only do citizens have the freedom to protest, to debate, and share their beliefs with others, they also have the freedom to vote. The freedom to vote has never been so encouraged and nearly required by the American people than it is now. While one does indeed have the freedom to choose not to vote, it is frowned upon and almost despised in certain areas of the nation.
Pairing this understanding of national freedom as a right, privilege, and nearly a requirement with the understanding of biblical freedom can be dangerous. In the past, it has produced a lasting notion that the Christian way to be an American citizen is through voting. The Christian way to fight for freedom is by exercising national privilege. This is a severe misunderstanding of biblical freedom. Unfortunately, Christianity has become so westernized that a relationship with God is simply not enough. It has become God and patriotism. God and success. God and financial stability. America has so tainted the Gospel of grace that many Christians in the States feel God owes them some sort of freedom or provision other than the provision of His only son!
The truth is in fact in total contrast to this. Understanding spiritual freedom gives the believer the ability to surrender all earthly freedoms or rights as well. Paul makes this clear saying, “Nevertheless we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:12). He goes on to show the difference between being free from all binds and relenting those freedoms for the sake of the Gospel in verse 19. This is the prime example of the way Christians in America should discern spiritual freedom and national privilege. It is obvious that the Bible does not address how to live in America as a Christian or what political party to identify with, but there are many passages like this that show the posture that the believer in Christ Jesus should have and the way that she should conduct herself in many situations that would relate to the ones previously mentioned. The life of the Christian should be one of complete surrender. Jesus devoted Himself to service. He lowered Himself to a place where He could lift people up. He did not count equality with God as something to be grasped or something to hold onto, but rather came as a servant and died as the Savior so we could have freedom to do the same (Phil. 2:6-9). As Christians, the outward example of spiritual freedom is the act of chaining oneself to Christ, and letting go of all the rest. Rid your mind of the notion that freedom involves no chains or binding. It involves such things. Spiritual freedom, though, consists of one’s willingness to chain himself to something good. Good for himself, good for his peers. Good for the glory of God.
Many argue that it is the American’s civic duty to vote and engage in politics. I agree, but think that it is just that. It is a civic duty that yes, many fought and died for in the Revolutionary War primarily, but it is not a requirement by law. In order to balance the two ideas of national privilege and spiritual freedom, one must understand clearly what is mandated in Scripture by God for the believer. Paul says, “submit to governing authorities” (Rom. 13:1), Jesus Himself says, “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” followed by the more important commandment is to “render to God what is God’s” (Matt. 22:21), the implication being that believers must subject the whole self to God. This does not discount, though, the importance of submitting to governing authorities. They have been established by God to restrain evil, so that is something that we mustn’t take lightly. In the context in which Paul is writing this, though, there was no democracy. There was no right to vote for kingship or presidency. So, what is one to make of the election process in America today? It would be appropriate to conclude that voting is a national privilege that should be exercised with wisdom and humility.
It is vital to look at the end of days as outlined in Scripture to understand what to think about the world now. The Revelation of Jesus Christ to John serves as the framework for biblical knowledge of the end times. Filled with images and signs that are too complicated to understand fully, the book offers much information about the events that will take place as the Lord Jesus Christ returns in the Second Coming. It is outlined that the Antichrist will appear and have dominion over the earth, he will attempt to overthrow Jerusalem, but Christ will intervene and enact judgment on the Antichrist. The general idea of the book of Revelation is that Christ is both the perfect Lamb sacrificed for the redemption of the Church and the Lion with fangs that will surely sink into the unrepentant hearts of man. This understanding of things to come paired with the biblical understanding of spiritual freedom and willing servanthood to Christ produces a sense of holding onto America, this life on earth, family, money, accomplishments, and anything that is not Christ, with a loose grip. The only thing that will remain in the last days is Christ and His kingdom. Therefore, the worst that could happen to America (i.e. socialism, communism, fascism, etc.) is nothing compared to what will happen in the last days. In fact, destructive things are supposed to happen before the King restores earth (Rev. 6).
In an attempt to bring about a conclusion, the biblical frameworks for slavery and freedom are set. The understanding of civic duty in comparison with surrendering rights and privileges for the sake of the Gospel is clear. If one were to argue that Americans should vote and be active in politics because if not, the worst will come about, then that would put too much pressure on the Christian to try to stop something that is already bound to happen. This is not to say that the Christian cannot or should not fight for virtuous things, it is an appeal to say that the Christian can do this without putting a ballot in the Presidential Election. This is by no means an attempt to generalize the aspects of such a multifaceted topic. There are many things addressed in this essay that do not encompass the whole of every argument for the Christian and how he should vote, speak, and live in America. I do hope, however, that as you finish reading this, you will have a better understanding of slavery and freedom in the Bible, you will have better knowledge of how to vote well or refrain from doing so in certain pressing times, you will understand the beauty and necessity of separating national privilege from spiritual freedom, and, most importantly, you will have the strength to surrender your rights to the King of Glory, Jesus Christ.
ความคิดเห็น