The Freeman’s Intuition

Human freedom has always been achieved by choice.

But that’s not something that’s recently been disclosed in a New York Times Best Seller paperback. These pathetic cycles from enslavement into liberation and back into bondage over the past 6000 years are evident to anyone willing to read history.

The pagan world consistently separates any belief concerning religious freedom from that of civic freedom, envisioning the two as oil and water. On the other hand, I’m convinced that every faithful disciple of Jesus Christ perceives freedom as possessions in aggregate rather than in categories.

He knows that some measure of moral liberty must prevail in every box he creates for himself–otherwise he isn’t really free.

By reading the Bible, he can discover a common thread of thought that’s woven throughout all the texts: Men who eventually become aware of their weakness and depravity are summarily drawn to a mindset that seeks to rightfully abolish any form of bondage that might otherwise enslave them.

For them, freedom is a state of mind—a way of life.

The Lord God created human beings in His own image that He might offer them the choice of whether or not to seek fellowship with Him. As a consequence, their freedom to choose that fellowship doesn’t appear to be optional. They either accept it or reject it.

But only because of Christ’s death is the foundation for all forms of freedom established.

Yet, somehow we’ve been pursuaded that the freedom that Jesus offered to mankind isn’t relevant to every aspect of His disciples’ lives. A sermon preached in a registered [501c-3] congregation today is likely to suggest that “Jesus didn’t get into politics.” But, in fact, Jesus Christ was the most “politically” polarizing force that ever walked on the Earth.

[(political: of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government) The Merriam Webster Dictionary also defines “politic” as an adjective, suggesting such synonyms as advisable, desirable, expedient, judicious, prudent, tactical and wise.] [see also: Isa. 9:6]

He did indeed tell the Pharisees to give Caesar back his coins [Matt. 22: 17-22]. But I’d do well not to read too much into that. Even though indentured servitude was [and is] sometimes a circumstance to endure, Jesus never encouraged His disciples to willfully submit to unrighteous rule.

It seems to me that my freedom from the bondage of sin because of Christ should be the basis upon which I seek to liberate myself from anything that tries to subjugate me.

Though a slave to Him, I am otherwise created as a sovereign in my responsibility of self-determination.

Sound familiar?

“It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.” [Gal. 5:1]

Print This Post Print This Post

3 Comments on “The Freeman’s Intuition

  1. “For them, freedom is a state of mind—a way of life.” 🧡

    Great gratitude for your ministry in instruction and encouragement!

  2. Great post, Jack! I agree: the freedom Christ has accomplished for us is the basis of any kind of right freedom.

    What do you make of the passages in the epistles that call us to subject ourselves to various authorities? I’m thinking of passages like Romans 13:1-5; 1 Cor. 16:16; 1 Peter 2:13,18, 3:1, 3:5, 5:5; Titus 2:5,9, 3:1; Ephesians 5:21,24, Colossians 3:18.

    • Hi Benjamin, thanks! I’m thinking that, if we—meaning the Body, choose to accept what Paul wrote in his letter to the saints in Rome as a doctrinal foundation to build upon, it seems to me that these other passages you’ve listed support something that’s very evident to me in Rom. 13:1-7. By definition, wouldn’t this word “authority” [ἐξουσία, used in the Septuagint as well] cited either directly by the Lord in some places or through inspired text in others ONLY be capable of describing something that’s legitimate? After all, Paul said, “For there is no AUTHORITY EXCEPT from God, and those which exist are established by God.” If I agree that the only Real Authority first established a system of self-governance in His people Israel, then that principle of limited civil authority would surely be would be woven throughout the Scriptures as a common thread. Peter’s suggestion to wives in 1Pet. 3:1 was to submit to their husbands, even if they were unjust, as a means to the husband’s repentance seems similar to what Paul wrote to Titus regarding submissive obedience to a slave’s master. But these both address personal relationships rather than civil authority. Yes, we submit to authority, but only if it’s legitimate, right? And it would seem only to be legitimate if it’s limited—I think that would be the only way God wants it to be! What do you think? Am I rambling….? 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *