From William Wallace to Aretha Franklin, freedom is a word that has resonated through many generations in a variety timbres and tones. Naturally speaking, freedom is the negation of slavery. The threat of death[1] is the most powerful device to enslave a person. A free person, on the other hand, is not enslaved by a natural threat of death. In the Scripture, the most potent form of slavery is slavery to sin, for its wages of death signify sin’s power. The ultimate freedom is power over sin and death through the salvation that is in Jesus Christ. Freedom is hinged on the death of Christ. For Christ rendered powerless the threat of death, and his resurrection signifies his actual freedom over death. The Bible defines and establishes freedom using specific sets of indicatives and imperatives. God, speaking to Moses on the mountain, gives the indicative: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Exo 20:2); then he gives the imperative: “You shall have no other gods before me” (v 3). God instituted freedom through his specific act of deliverance to initiate his covenant. God then gives a commandment by which freedom is upheld. God’s commandments are the covenantal terms given for the people’s glorifying response. God himself upheld these covenantal terms through sending his Only Begotten Son into the world as a man to perform God’s commandments all the way to the point of death. This final performance showed Christ’s perfect obedience through receiving the full wages of sin on behalf of his people. Therefore his people are free to obey without hindrance of guilt, possessing a surety of power over death. Since freedom has an application of obedience, various considerations are made for the Christian life: the commands of Scripture are many, our individual consciences can be complexly dynamic in relation to earthly authorities, and then there are matters not explicit in the Scripture that can create further dissension. From these complexities, one might tend toward a marked withdrawal from community as an attempt to establish an individual ideal of freedom. The scope of this writing is ultimately aimed at tackling the illusion of individualism that results from an undeveloped conception of Christian liberty.
Part I: Christian Liberty
As I have earlier introduced, Christian liberty is specifically defined through indicatives and imperatives in Scripture. The Scripture says, “be holy, for I am holy” (Lev 11:44). Jesus Christ alone obeyed God’s holy law to perfection. Jesus not only upheld God’s law in perfect obedience, but in doing so, he accomplished the salvation that qualifies true freedom. Christ also gave us a new commandment, saying, “love one another: just as I have loved you” (John 13:34). The imperative, “love one another,” is not altogether new. The command, “Love your neighbour as yourself,”[2] which summarizes the latter part of the decalogue, had clearly been established in the Mosaic law. But Jesus can say his commandment is new because of the indicative, “as I have loved.” Never has anyone loved his fellow man as Christ.[3] Hence, Christ’s command is truly new, because it is qualified by his final act of laying down his life for his friends. Out of love for his brothers did Christ freely obey his Father. His love is free because his obedience was unto death, free because death held him not.
Since Christ freely obeyed his Father, the Governor of all, we ought to obey the governing authorities out of our obedience to God. Since Christ is now seated at the right hand of the Father, we have comfort, because the one who was crucified by unlawful authorities is the same who was raised and exalted, who is ever interceding for us as Governor in the highest heaven. However, when Christ was tried before the authorities, he neither denied who he was nor did he forfeit the work he was authorized to do. He also sought not to justify himself merely by his former signs but testified of the glory he would receive through the work at hand. So we should not deny Christ in word or deed before the authorities, but seek to give him glory because it is Christ who possesses all authority. To deny Christ is to sin. And so, it can also be said: to sin is to deny Christ. However, for authorized commands that don’t require a person to sin, each member ought to obey earthly authorities, even those whose rule is corrupt, for Christian obedience is qualified by Christ, the same Christ who received an unjust sentence from the authorities yet whose perfect obedience rendered him free from corruption all the way to the highest heaven.
Institutional authorities are ultimately accountable to Christ for upholding Christian liberty. The civil magistrate bears the sword to establish boundary lines and uphold justice for citizens under their domain. The husband as head of the household provides sacrificial love to his wife, and, together with her, raises children in the fear and discipline of the Lord; and whether a commoner is free or a bondservant, each has a duty to fear God and keep his commandments. The church presbyter bears the Word of God in the administration of the sacraments for God’s glory in public worship. Thus, the church is the most articulate authority for upholding the terms of faith and worship, particularly in the preaching of God’s Word, yet all three domains are accountable to God for upholding Christian liberty in subjection to the rule of Scripture. So then, Christian liberty ensures us that no authority, not even the church, has the power to bind the conscience on matters of faith and worship over and against the Scripture.
To summarize thus far, Scripture has made it clear that both authorities and subjects have a duty to the commands. And, as demonstrated by Christ, the sin of those authorities does not necessarily determine the sin of the subjects, for each domain and individual person is accountable to God. Now we can discuss matters of wisdom as it pertains to the moral conscience of the individual. Since the commands of Scripture are imperatives correlated to indicatives, its terms are binding to the conscience for matters of faith and worship. But matters of wisdom may not necessarily bind the conscience to this degree. Some matters may be unclear and may seem morally indifferent. I cannot, however, hold unclear matters to be strictly separate from Scripture’s commands. One “indifferent” activity may have a different moral weight depending on the circumstances of its use. And it may be that one activity is called for in one instance and the same is uncalled for in another. For Solomon says, there is “a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing” (Eccl 3:5). So there is at least some level of relationship between unclear matters and the explicit commands; the closer the relationship, the more weight can be given to the matter. There are even sayings that are not explicitly expressed in Scripture that are equivalent to the commands. When a presbyter says, “worship the Triune God,” he is not quoting a specific Bible verse, but he is saying a clear command which pertains to faith and worship since such an imperative can be deduced from Scripture with equal correlation to the first commandment. Yet the category of wisdom extends to less essential matters. For instance, when a farmer is determining the proper time to sow a seed into the earth, there is little cause to be dogmatic about the terms of sowing as it pertains to faith and worship. But if this farmer repeatedly persists in sowing against conventional wisdom with failed results, it may signify a weightier matter. If this sower is forsaking his responsibility to provide for his household, then there is a greater neglect of his moral duty as compared to the hobby farmer who fails in the same activity. So two similar activities of improper sowing could have a different moral weight depending on the circumstances of the action. Thus, by this example we can perceive the varying degrees of relationship between unclear matters of wisdom and the explicit terms of Scripture.
The Scripture also shows that if the conscience is bound to imperatives apart from the indicatives, it cannot freely speak to matters of faith and worship. If we were to endeavour to love one another without knowing how Christ loved us, the command would be asserted in vain as the impossibility of its performance would appear. Paul, knowing that practical obedience is rooted in doctrine, gives the Philippians a set of encouragements and commands, that is properly understood in consideration of what was demonstrated by Christ:
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
— Philippians 2:1-11
In the preceding passage, there is a crucial bridging of the imperative to the indicative in verses 5-6: “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” The activity and mindset that Paul is commanding would be corrupt if it were not understood through Christ. So the commands of the Scripture, even that of the Old Testament, are meant for obedience in correlation to Christ’s gospel. In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he condemns those who would advocate the necessity of the ceremonial law to preserve the believer’s adopted status in Christ. Paul rebukes them, explaining that the believer’s free status in Christ is not hinged upon the ceremonial work of circumcision, exclaiming, “for freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery … if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you” (Gal 5:1,2). Since Christ is on a higher plain, no law of Scripture should be used to bind the conscience away from the freedom of Christ’s gospel.
Aside from the free commands given to all believers, there are some who would use Scripture’s providences and/or God’s speaking to the individual prophets to make laws for themselves and others. They might say, “Since Elijah raised the dead, we ought to raise the dead; since David’s kingdom prospered, we ought to prosper.” If healing and prosperity are not occurring, they might say it reflects poor faith. They are then equating signs with faith,[4] for these signs then become laws that undermine Christ’s free gift to all who would believe.
Since the Scripture can be improperly used to bind people once again to the yoke of slavery, how improper is it to make laws out of the shifting shadows of the world? To assert a law against God’s creation of male and female has grave consequences for society, and even graver consequences when it is brought into the church. Yet, aside from these obvious shifts from sound doctrine, subtler messages which may sound like “don’t let anyone tell you what you are” and “no one can walk your journey but you” can take on a variety of legal forms. Such messages not only undermine God’s created design, but also his providential governing of the world. The result is not only lawlessness, but such lawlessness then becomes the new law.
Part II: Individualism
Up until now, I have not mentioned the term individualism. But I will profess to have been speaking about it all along. It might be helpful to define the term. Individualism, in the primary sense, is the illusion that a person is not completely and perpetually reliant on God. Secondarily, it is the illusion that a person is not finally reliant on other humans. For the second, one may argue that it is fathomable for a man to become self-sufficient from other humans if he can rely solely on his dominion over inferior creatures. Yet it is obvious that such a state would be temporary at best, since all but the first man were born of a woman. So Adam may have been in that state for a time, but God said that it is not good for man to be alone. After not a helper suitable was found from all the creatures, God created the woman, who was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.[5] When the woman sinned, the man also sinned. Yet he was spared from the full death that was owed to his sin. Jesus Christ, who was the Son of promise, born of the woman’s seed, received that final death, but as a completely sinless man. He was raised due to his righteousness and ascended to the right hand of the Father to govern all things. Therefore all things, and all men in particular, rely on Christ who is truly God and truly man.[6] Individualism is then completely and perpetually impossible.
Therefore it is neither necessary nor ideal for Christians to live outside civil society, even if such individuals would desire to live a righteous life. The civil governments who inflate themselves beyond their God-given capacities do weaken themselves, for they need to break God’s law in order to establish and maintain their inflated domain. When their weakening occurs, those under their domain ought to remain obedient to Christ’s law so to maintain their strength and give opportunity for the lawbreakers to be exposed. Thus, if ever there was a true individualism, it would be one’s obedience under her corrupt superiors. Our obedience is united to Christ’s obedience, therefore we are free. And we are free to obey Christ when earthly superiors command against what Christ has clearly commanded. Because Christ did not deny himself before the authorities to so give rise for Christ’s authority to be revealed over all the earth, so being under earthly authority gives rise for Christians to testify of the Christ who reigns over all authorities. We should then not use our freedom as a covering for evil, because God is our master (1 Pet 2:16). Because we are united to Christ, we are covered and hid with him. So it is not ideal to raise our sign of obedience while running outside the domain of corrupt authorities, for God sees obedience under the corruption, for thus he raised Christ. Under Pontius Pilate, under the High Priest did Christ freely die; he willingly went to Jerusalem; and though he was driven and crucified outside the camp, he ascended to the innermost sanctuary, which is the Holy of Holies. We know then that governing authorities don’t have any authority outside of God’s authority.[7] So there is always freedom in Christ, and freedom is granted by Christ alone.
Since freedom in Christ unbinds the chains of death, and the chains of death were broken by his obedience, true freedom is a freedom to obey. When a person claims that there are unclear matters that are completely free from a commanding God, that person has turned freedom against obedience. Although this person might claim that such matters were designed by God, they would deny his governing authority over it. This doesn’t mean we need to consider each matter rigorously; it is rather quite the contrary. Though the requirement of obedience is not excused when matters are unclear, it does give us reason to relax. Freedom of conscience is a freedom to obey, and it is also a freedom to act in faith, that is, without the need for clear signs. The difference between red or blue socks to the tourist may be yes and amen if it is chosen in faith. If it is not chosen in faith, it is a superstition against obedience. Two roads diverged in a wood may not themselves represent the biggest difference. The bigger difference rests in the faith associated with the choice. Faith for unclear matters should require a person not to fret. There may not be clear signs as to what the best choice is, but two opposing choices would both be made disobediently if they are not made in faith.
If one needs to be completely determined by clear signs, clear in the way that one could tell good and evil from the sign alone void of a commanding God, one is enslaved to the sign.[8] Enslavement and the illusion of individualism go hand in hand. When the woman in the garden of Eden partook of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the sign alone gave no indication that the tree itself was defiled. It was neither shrouded in darkness nor was it ugly nor was it poisonous; the serpent took advantage of its potential usefulness and its beauty in order to entice the woman.[9] It was the command of God that rendered the eating from the tree to be evil. A murderer may envision a mortal wound caused by a sword thrust through his victim, an adulterer may empirically know that he does not belong to the one he is pursuing, but true disobedience is pure rebellion against a commanding God.[10] Conversely, a man’s true faith acts purely in obedience to a commanding God, rather than being completely determined from natural signs. The visible signs point to a greater invisible reality, for they are marks of true communion with the covenanting God. After Adam and Eve sinned, they covered themselves in the presence of one another and hid themselves from the presence of God, signalling a two-way loss of communion. They were the first to attempt the impossible task of individualism. When they were found by God, now facing the impossibility of individualism, the man blamed the woman as if his sin was determined formally by the sign of her eating, and the woman blamed the serpent in the same manner. Therefore, when individualism is found to be impossible, the blame-game ensues, and determinism is attributed to the formality of the sign as an attempt to avoid human responsibility.
Theologians have put the act of sinning into two categories: sins of omission and sins of commission. At the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, man omitted the duty of obedience to God’s command and committed treason against God in an attempt to gain independence. When David committed adultery and murder against Uriah the Hittite, he also omitted the honour that was due to a fellow made in God’s image, also the honour due unto a soldier who fought his battles. Thus, sins of omission are always sins of commission and vice versa. The temptation for the individualist is to say, “because I am not committing murder, I am free from being accounted for sin.” Yet John says, “if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?” (1 John 3:17). This sin of omission is murder on a smaller scale. It is also a sin of commission because it is falsely saying, “as long as I am not demonstrating the clear signs of murder, then I am accounted as obedient to Christ.” To claim obedience merely from the absence of “committed” sin is an act of treason against God’s Son. The person making this claim is marking his independence from Christ’s blood.
True obedience depends on the blood of Christ. Man’s obedience cannot be merited as a pleasing aroma to God independent from Christ’s atoning work. The obedience of Christ is the positive object of our obedience. If we hold up our obedience independent of Christ, it would be accounted as filthy rags.[11] Sins of omission omit the necessity of Christ’s finished work that continues working on behalf of the sinner; sins of commission do crucify him with evil intent; these sins are one of the same. It is Jesus Christ who is the sole individual through whom the whole world is accounted righteous, and that through his obedience unto death.[12]
The resurrection of Jesus was a sign to the righteousness that accounted many righteous, but it was not the final vision.[13] At the time present, Christ’s seat at the right hand of the Father continues for us as an invisible reality. The imperatives of Scripture appeal to this invisible reality signified by the indicatives. The beginning of the letter to the Hebrews testifies to the indicatives: “After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb 1:3). Toward the end of the book, the author gives a few more imperatives such as, “let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near” (Heb 10:24-25). The author is here showing us that it is vital not to omit encouraging one another toward love and good works, which requires meeting together. This command testifies the signs of the coming age, the hope of the invisible reality becoming visible, that is when we finally see the Lord Jesus Christ in his full and glorious body.
Yet, in his first appearance, Jesus showed his love by humbly dwelling among us; so we are to humbly dwell with one another. Jesus performed a specific sign in washing his disciples’ feet. During his washing, he spoke of an indicative matched to an imperative: “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet” (John 13:14). Jesus here is not instituting a sacramental sign[14] but is showing that we should, like Jesus, humble ourselves one to another, stooping to the lowest degree for the sake of another’s cleanness.[15] For Paul says, “though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all” (1 Cor 9:19), also saying, “to the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak” (v 22). This humble love correlates with Christian liberty, as Paul is content to lay aside his freedom. His doctrine, for instance, renders him free to partake of all food, but he lays aside this freedom for the sake of those whose consciences are weakened by customs that consider certain foods to be unclean. He instructs us: “if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died” (Rom 14:15).
Since there is no hiding place from Christ, who laid down his life for his friends, a person cannot claim a hiding place for himself away from Christ’s body and especially away from the Holy Spirit. Ananias and Sapphira, in attempting to measure themselves to the sign of the times, showed themselves to devote the whole sale of their property to the works of God. Yet they hid hell’s portion of their money, and in lying to the Holy Spirit were struck dead.[16] This event serves as a warning to all who would knowingly attempt to hide from God and man. However, there are many of our sins so hidden from us that we cannot confess them specifically, yet Jesus has washed us, for through the Holy Spirit we are hid in Christ. Many of these sins are hidden between Jesus and the one person and are covered by his blood. However, engaging in community does bring to light sins which would never be exposed if one is alone. For the sake of freedom, no known sin should be hid by an individual at all costs against exposure (Eph 5:11-13), even in the company of one another, for the ultimate cost might be deadly. James encourages us to confess our sins to one another and pray for one another (Jam 5:16). It is however possible to get in the unruly habit of examining smaller sins as a covering for more looming ones. But no sin is too small that it couldn’t injure another enough to necessitate a confession. Then, in confessing our sins, instead of shifting blame, forgiveness ought to be granted to those who seek it. Freedom in Christ is freedom in forgiveness; forgiveness is mandatory for the faithful.[17] And we can trust the work of the Holy Spirit to bring to life all the signs of Christ’s ministry on earth;[18] so that the church is holy as Christ is holy, and so there is no cause to seek a hiding place, for the Holy Spirit searches all things;[19] and “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor 3:17).
To finally conclude,
No one has a claim on Christian liberty aside from picking up one’s cross and following Jesus.[20] And yes, this calling is individual, but it is never hidden from the Father’s plan, from Christ’s atoning work, and from the searching and sanctifying of the Holy Spirit. Also, Christian liberty always raises our vision to the communion of the saints for the glorifying of Christ. Christian liberty is freedom from the chains of death, for our sins have been forgiven, so we are then enabled to walk freely in obedience for the reward of eternal life, that is a life of endless communion with Christ.
[1] This can be an actual death, or a sign of death such as pain, disease, or any other deficiency.
[2] Leviticus 19:18
[3] John 15:13: “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.”
[4] With this view, faith would be determined by signs alone. But then it is not faith but sight.
[5] Genesis 2:23
[6] We are not reliant on man alone, but God became man so that our dependence on man, namely Jesus and the church, would signify our dependence on God.
[7] John 19:11
[8] Signs are meant to point us to something greater, rather than function as a governing rule unto themselves
[9] Genesis 3:6, “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.”
[10] Psalm 51:4, “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight”
[11] Isaiah 64:6
[12] This is not to say that every individual in the world is accounted righteous, but those from every tribe and nation who are predestined for salvation.
[13] When Christ appeared to the disciples in his resurrected form, this appearance did not embody the final heavenly vision.
[14] The act of washing the disciples’ feet is not to be instituted in a literal fashion as compared to the administration of the bread and wine
[15] Matthew Henry, “To wash one another’s feet is to stoop to the meanest offices of love, for the real good and benefit one of another.” (Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (p. 2007). Peabody: Hendrickson.)
[16] Acts 5:1-6
[17] Matthew 6:14-15
[18] Christ’s earthly ministry was a sign to his greater ministry in heaven.
[19] 1 Corinthians 2:10
[20] Matthew 10:38
word.rest 