The Bible agrees. Humans are not free. Paul writes,
Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? (Rom 6:16)Everyone is a slave. You can be a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness, but everyone is a slave.
In that same passage Paul says, "For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness." (Rom 6:20) That's interesting, isn't it? He talks there about being free, but the freedom he talks about is freedom from righteousness. What does that mean? This goes to the basic concept of obligation. Obligation is the opposite of freedom. If you have obligations, you aren't free. And all of us have obligations, so no one is actually free. In this case, however, Paul is talking about being free from the obligation to be righteous. Because, as he explained earlier, "No one does good, not even one." (Rom 3:12) Slaves to sin.
I came across this interesting verse in 1 Peter.
Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. (1 Peter 2:16)Now there's a contradiction for you, right? "Live as people who are free," he says "as servants of God." People who are free are servants of God. Submitting yourself to righteousness (Rom 6:18) is freedom.
We can't escape obligation in this life. That means that our perception of freedom doesn't actually exist. If you define it as Scripture does, true freedom is found in being God's servant. So live as people who are free.
7 comments:
i was wondering if:
slave to sin is not a metaphor, but slave to righteousness is.
slaves to sin; actually suffer under a tyrant master. they have no hope.
slaves to righteousness, is a play on words within the context ; to create a contrast between good and evil.
The children of God are both free and servants. we are free to serve God for his glory.
everybody has to serve somebody..Bod Dylan
We tend to think of the "master-slave" relationship to be a "tyrant-downtrodden" one. Not necessarily so, even among humans. Not all masters are tyrants. For example, our Lord.
I'm not arguing the point, but how do we reconcile the difference between slave and child when talking about out relationship to God?
Reasonable question, Craig.
Logic dictates that a thing cannot be "A" and "not A" at the same time and in the same sense. In that light, "slave" and "child" might sound contradictory, but we're talking about "slave" in one sense and "child" in another, so there is no real contradiction. I also need to point out that this "slave" in biblical terms is not the "evil white masters dominating the poor, downtrodden, kidnapped blacks" kind of "slave" that we all call to mind the first moment we hear it. Considering our Lord, who would not want to bow the knee in love and gratitude?
Stan,
Again, I'm not disagreeing, and I understand the point that you are making, but it seems like a slave wouldn't share in the inheritance while a child would, additionally the child has a position in the family that the slave doesn't.
I do understand that slavery that we see in the Bible is not what we've seen later in history. I also understand that this slavery your post is talking about is (in a sense) voluntary.
I'm spending a lot of time in 1st John and he's definitely focused on the adopted children view so it's top of mind.
Craig, you're right ... if we're talking at the same time in the same sense. Think of a coin. One side is heads and one side is tails. "Now, hang on. How can a coin be BOTH heads and tails??" It's not. At one time in one sense it is heads and at another time in another sense it is tails. "Slaves" and "children" are ways of looking at us coming at it from two different angles. In Romans 6, for instance, Paul says we are either slaves of sin or slaves of righteousness. So I have heard Christians say, "Well, I'm not a slave." No, Paul didn't leave that option. The question isn't ARE you a slave. The question is WHICH slave you are. But that's asking from the aspect of whom you serve. Looking at it from a relationship aspect, the question is "Whose child are you?" The Pharisees, for instance, were "sons of your father, the devil." We are not. Different angle. Different aspect. Different question.
That makes sense.
Also, it seems like we live in a society that focuses on freedom to the exclusion of obligation.
Post a Comment