Tuesday, January 31, 2023

HARMONY

                                                                        Harmony

God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, is the Trinity in eternal harmony. As earthlings, we would expect to discover as it were the fingerprints and footprints of the Creator all over His creation, including ourselves. Harmony, because it reflects God, is one flash of revelation of the Maker of the heavens and the earth in creation.

Perhaps when we think of harmony, we have music in mind. Choirs doing their thing, various musicians playing pleasing notes together. Harmony! When someone or something is out of tune it creates disharmony, like when I strike a chord on my guitar after my little grandkids have visited! When we study God’s creation, we see harmony and disharmony. If God created it all and declared it ‘very good’ (Gen. 1:31), then whence come the bum notes in the world? Well, the first off-note in the universe was played by Adam. Now, technically this is incorrect. Satan seduced Eve and got Adam to strike the first note of ‘dischord.’ It was then that the triadic music chord became out of whack. God, neighbour, and self were out of tune.

Adam blamed God and his nearest neighbour, (his wife), for the present disharmony. ‘The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate’ (Gen. 3:12b). This answer was in response to the LORD God asking him, ‘Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?’ (Gen. 3:11b). Adam is now aware that he stands naked before God, hence the fig leaves and his cover-up excuses, which is to say that his conscience has kicked in and is now accusing him (Rom. 2:15). God, neighbour and self in disharmony. God can either destroy or retune His creation. Thus, the gospel.

The gospel brings harmony between God, neighbour, and self. Those converted by the Spirit working with the Word in their hearts are now able to love God and their neighbour as themselves, i.e., to keep God’s law from a proper heart motive (Matt. 22:37-40). What’s the proper heart motive? ‘Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God’ (1 Cor. 10:31).

One of the statements of faith that brings all Christians harmoniously together is the Apostles’ Creed. It begins, ‘I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord … I believe in the Holy Ghost … the Resurrection of the body, and the Life everlasting.’ In harmony with Scripture, we see that the Creed is Trinitarian. And it speaks of God, creation, and us. To be resurrected is to be raised bodily from the dead, just as Jesus was. The resurrected believer will then experience perfect harmony with God, with neighbour, and with self. For the moment we catch only glimpses of that perfection, like when that perfect chord is struck or that attention-grabbing note is sung, yes, flashes.

It was firstly because Adam was out of sorts with himself that he blamed God and his neighbour for his demise. The cause was sin. Yes, original sin originated with Adam, but original sin means we have inherited Adam’s sinful nature. God sets apart and cleanses believers (i.e., sanctifies them) by giving them a new nature (2 Cor. 5:17), enabling them to love God and neighbour as themselves because their spirit and soul and body can now work in harmony. ‘Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1 Thess. 5:23).

Monday, January 23, 2023

CULTURE & LANGUAGE

Excerpted from our soon to be published book The Unfaithful Bride & The Faithful Groom (coauthored by D Rudi Schwartz). 

Culture & Language

Clava Stones, Inverness

Be Thou my Vision, O Lord of my heart:
Naught be all else to me, save that Thy art,
Thou my best thought, by day or by night
Waking or sleeping, Thy presence my light
Be Thou my battle-shield, sword for the fight, 
Be Thou my dignity, Thou my delight.
Thou my soul’s shelter, Thou my high tower
Raise Thou me heavenward, O Power of my power
High King of heaven, after victory won,
May I reach heaven’s joys, O bright heaven’s Sun! 
Heart of my own heart, whatever befall,
Still be my Vision, O Ruler of all.153

Language plays a major role in the development of any culture. Indeed, any culture that loses its native language loses its identity! One only has to travel to Scotland or Ireland to find a people suffering from cultural amnesia! Many of the hills, glens, towns and villages have Gaelic names of which many of the natives, because they have lost their native tongue, are unable to relate to placenames. Thus, they are (like those living in Babel at the time when the great Tower was destroyed), linguistically confused and have become somewhat detached from their environment. With the social fabric unravelling, the cultural cohesion thus weakened, and in many ways so too the idea of “belonging to the land” thus destroyed, it makes it easier for a disinherited populace to migrate.

According to the Old Testament historian Alfred Edersheim, using the Biblical chronology, Bishop Ussher dates the year of creation (at least the creation of man) as 4004 BC. Therefore barely 6,000 years have passed since God formed man from the dust of the ground. Ussher’s chronology is the view held by Christian orthodoxy (to which we adhere).154 He dates the great Deluge, when God wiped out all of mankind (bar the eight on the Ark), as 2348-9 BC.

Getting to where we want to go, Ussher dates the Confusion of Tongues at Babel as 2233 BC. Therefore barely 115 years had passed since the earth started to be repopulated by (Noah's three sons) Shem, Ham, and Japheth (and their respective wives). Of course, treating this as factual history tends to cause derision in those who operate under Evolutionary presuppositions. But be that as it may, we are here at the moment talking about the Christian view of history. Therefore, since we are dealing with a real historical event (as recorded in the historically dependable and therefore accurate Bible in Genesis 11), we can presume that the population that gathered to build the Tower of Babel would not have been that great of a multitude.

At this time, according to the Bible, at the time of the building of the Tower, “the whole earth had one language and one speech” (Gen. 11:1). The Hebrew has: “Now had the whole earth one language and words few.” (John Joseph Owens) The Hebrew word for “words” in this passage is of course “dabar-im” (the “im” ending in Hebrew being for the plural). Those at the Tower of Babel literally were men of few words!

Part of the Cultural Mandate given in Genesis 1:26-28 to mankind in Adam, and repeated when Noah et al exited the Ark (Gen. 9:1-7), is the cultivating of language, which necessarily includes the coining of new words. It should be remembered that God Himself in the very beginning, by merely speaking His Word, created things that are (e.g., space, time, and matter) from things that are not (Gen. 1; Heb. 11:3). Thus, when God confused the languages at Babel to spread man over the face of the whole earth, He was ensuring that man would cultivate the new language that each (family group?) had been given. It is at this juncture that we are faced with a problem – if our thesis (that Hebrew was the original or pre-Babel tongue) is to hold up.

We believe that when Moses wrote the Pentateuch (i.e., the first five books of the Bible – Genesis to Deuteronomy) he made use of written records of genealogies and such like that Noah had preserved from the Flood. E.g., pre-Deluge Genesis 5:1 states: “This is the book of the genealogy of Adam.” If Moses was able to read and utilise this book and such like records, then he was familiar with the original language. Since Moses wrote in ancient Hebrew, we believe that the pre-Babel spoken and written language was ancient Hebrew. Of course, all this only accounts for one of Noah’s three sons, i.e., the Hebrew-speaking Shem – from which we get the Semites. A descendant of Shem is, of course, Eber, from whose name we believe we get the title of the people referred to as the Hebrews (Gen. 10:21).

The three main clans then at the time when God confused the original language of the men of few words were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Here is what Alfred Edersheim has to say about this:

"In accordance with the general plan on which Holy Scripture is written, we read after the prophecy of Noah, which fixed the future of his sons, no more of that patriarch than that he “lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years” and that he died at the age of nine hundred and fifty years.

"Regarding the division of earth among his three sons, it may be said generally, that Asia was given to Shem, Africa to Ham, and Europe to Japheth. In the same general manner a modern scholar has traced all existing languages to three original sources, themselves, no doubt, derived from a primeval spring, which may have been lost in the “confusion of tongues,” though its existence is attested by constant and striking points of connection between the three great families of languages. The more we think of the allotment of Europe, Asia, and Africa among the three sons of Noah, the more clearly do we see the fulfilment of prophecy regarding them. As we run our eye down the catalogue of nations in Genesis 10, we have little difficulty in recognising them; and beginning with the youngest, Japheth, we find of those known to the general reader, the Cymry of Wales and Brittany (Gomer), the Scythians (Magog), the Medes (Madai), the Greeks (Ionians, Javan), and the Thracians (Tiras). Among their descendants, the Germans, Celts, and Armenians have been traced to the three sons of Gomer. It is not necessary to follow this table farther, though all will remember Tarshish or Spain, and the Kittim, or “inhabitants of the isles.”

"Passing next to Shem, we notice that he is called “the father of all the children of Eber,” because in Eber the main line is divided into that of Peleg, from whom the race of Abraham sprang, and the descendants of Joktan. The descendants of Shem are exclusively Asiatic nations, among who we only notice Asshur or Assyria, and Uz, as the land which gave birth to Job.

"We have reserved Ham for the last place, because of the connection of his story with the dispersion of all nations. His sons were Cush or Ethiopia, Mizraim or Egypt, Phut or Lybia, and Canaan, which, of course, we know. It will be noticed, that the seats of all these nations were in Africa, except that of Canaan, whose intrusion into the land of Palestine was put an end to by Israel. But yet another of Ham’s descendants had settled in Asia. Nimrod, the founder of the Babylonian empire."155

Here I raise my Ebenezer 
Hither by Thy help I’ve come 
And I hope by Thy good pleasure 
Safely to arrive at home 
Jesus sought me when a stranger 
Wandering from the fold of God 
He to rescue me from danger 
Interposed His precious blood.156

Now, we spoke earlier of Ten Lost Tribes. Speculation as to where those tribes or individuals from those tribes disappeared to, should not detract us from the fact that after the Tower of Babel incident people started migrating. Many went westward, such as the “Scythians,” (see e.g., Col. 3:11). Our old friend, the late Rev Prof Dr Francis Nigel Lee, when writing, would hyphenate the word so that it read “Scyt-hians”. Some pronounce that beginning of that word as if it had something to do with a tool with a curved blade, i.e., a scythe. However, when talking about the Scythians Nigel Lee would make a connection between Scyt-hian and Scot-ian, and would make connections between the Celts and their stone monuments dotted all over Britain and Ireland (such as the Standing Stones of Callanish, the Clava Stones, Ballynoe Stone Circle, Drombeg Stone Circle and Stonehenge), and those in the Bible (e.g., Josh. 4), not to mention a connection between tartan and Joseph’s coat of many colours (Gen. 37:3).

Referred to by Edersheim are also, we believe, those who are mentioned as the forefathers of the Scots in the historical discourse in Scotland’s “Declaration of Arbroath” (1320), a letter the Scottish nobles sent to the pope. A portion of which gives a bit of a history of the Scots and reads as follows:

"Most Holy Father, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. It journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage peoples, but nowhere could it be subdued by any people, however barbarous. Thence it came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to its home in the west where it still lives today. The Britons it first drove out, the Picts it utterly destroyed..."

“Mind your Ps and Qs” could easily be applied to the P and Q Celts. P-Celtic refers to the Brythonic/Brittonic languages of the Welsh, Manx, Cornish, Bretons, et al, and Q-Celtic refers to the Goidelic/Gaelic languages, which include Irish (Gaeilge) and Scottish Gaelic (Gàidhlig). Thus, the Declaration of Arbroath is referring to the Q Celts coming from Ireland and driving out the Britons, i.e., the P Celts, from Scotland, and destroying them and the Picts who are believed to have been relatives of the Britons.

We won’t get side-tracked, but who hasn’t heard of the comic hero Astrix the Gaul? It is interesting to note that the Gauls (Latin: Galli; Ancient Greek: Γαλάται, Galátai) were a group of Celtic peoples whose homeland was known as Gaul (Gallia) where France is today. Then there were the Galatians. Says William Hendriksen,

"About the year 278 B.C. a large body of Gauls or Kelts, who had previously invaded and ravaged Greece, Macedonia, and Thrace, crossed over into Asia Minor ... they belonged to three tribes: the Trochmi, Tectosages, and Tulisbogii … All three tribes were Galli, that is, Gauls (“warriors”), also called Galatae, that is, Galatians (“nobles”)."157

But we mustn’t digress.

The stone under the throne upon which British monarchs are now crowned was the stone upon which, firstly, Irish kings at Tara and subsequently the Scottish kings at Scone had been crowned beforehand. It is known as the Stone of Scone, or the Stone of Destiny. This is what the Celtic Gaels call, An Lia Fáil, and what the English call, “the coronation stone.” Another name for this stone is “Jacob’s pillow” (Gen. 28:11). “And this stone which I have set as a pillar shall be God’s house” (Gen. 28:22a). What’s with the Celts and their setting up stone pillars all over the place and carrying stones, even Jacob’s pillow, all across Europe too? Cultural influence!

As people spread across the earth, so do their languages with them, influencing others with their preferred types of clothing, food, drink, and music and dance, and with their customs, such as setting up lasting memorials in stone. We use the word culture to describe how a people live. How they live is that people expressing their religion. Part of the religion of the Celts was to erect monoliths, like those dotted all over the Promised Land. However, there is one single stone that is the most important to have, Jesus Christ, because “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone” (Psa. 118:22; Matt. 21:42).

Edersheim (above) says that “a modern scholar” (we do not know who) traces all existing languages to three original sources (Shem, Ham, and Japheth?), “no doubt, derived from a primeval spring.” Thus, according to Edersheim (and other reputable scholars), there is evidence of a linguistic “primeval spring.” We venture that this primeval spring (as we noted above) is ancient Hebrew. Thus, one would expect to find a residue of the ancient Hebrew spoken by those pre-Babel men of few words (dabar-im) even in contemporary languages. Says Nigel Lee:

"From the Ancient-Irish Leabhar Gabhala (alias The Book of Invasions), we glean that at least some of the early inhabitants of Ireland had come from Iberia alias Spain. They called their new habitat ‘New Iberia’ alias ‘Hibernia’ – later abbreviated first to ‘Ierne’ or ‘Erne’ and then to ‘Eire’ and ‘Erin.’ The feasibility of the above claims can to some extent be seen in the ancient languages concerned. Quite apart from the Celtic source of many ‘Later-European’ words, one should also consider the grounds there may be for tracing many Hebrew words to an origin similar to the source also of Celtic. Both Proto-Celtic and Proto-Hebrew can to some extent be seen to derive from common roots – either Pre-Babelic or Early-Postbabelic. Thus Crawford’s Ereuna – subtitled: Investigation of the Etymons of Words and Names, Classical and Scriptural, Through the Medium of Celtic. Moreover, as Crawford further remarks, Japheth shall be found to dwell in the tents of Shem. Genesis 9:26f. In Herodotus, the oldest of historians, it is mentioned that the Celts were the most western people of Europe. They had, in fact, penetrated to the most remote recesses of the British Isles. Colonists from Phoenicia were the founders of States in Greece – and even as far as Britain. Doubtless they brought their customs and language with them. The early language of Phoenicia seems to have been understood by Abraham, who conversed with her inhabitants without an interpreter. Consider the identity or similarity of some of the commonest words in Hebrew (H), in Anglo-Saxon (A), in Irish (I), and in Welsh (W). There is: ab (HI), father; adon (HW), lord; and ain (HI), eye. Ish (H) is comparable to aesc (A) & eis (I), man. Asaf (H) and osap (I) both mean: gather. Arur (H) and airire (I) mean: curse. Ben (H) and bin (I) mean: son. Then there is berith (H) and breith (I), meaning: covenant. Dag (HI) means: fish. Dad (H) and did (I) mean: breast. Gever (H) and gwr (W) mean: strong man. Tan (HA) means: basket. Malal (H) and maelan (A) mean: speak. Phar (H) and fear (A) means: bull. rosh (H) and reswa (A) mean: chief. And ur (HI) means: fire."158

At the heart of all languages, one would also expect to find revelation of Christ the Word (Hebrew Dabar) Himself, for it is He that gives all words (dabar-im) their true meaning (John 1:1; Col. 1:17). “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). The Spirit of Christ goes with us. Abraham Kuyper could, perhaps, be called a Theologian of Culture. He poetically writes:

"The word is the material with which poetry is created, yet the word itself is not spiritual, but it is the material garment of the spiritual thought."159

Tuesday, January 10, 2023

SAUL, DARK, & HANDSOME

Stock image: May be subject to copyright
The following is a sample of an upcoming book I am presently working on as coauthor with D Rudi Schwartz called The Unfaithful Bride and The Faithful Husband.

Saul, Dark, and Handsome

Though Israel as a people and nation already had a king, as in God – who they rejected so that they could have a king like the other nations – they became the Kingdom of Israel when God gave them their first human king.

As per usual, the unfaithful bride of Christ is thinking in terms of the worldly, fallen flesh, the sensual. Thus, her evil suitor has convinced her that she needs a king. Here she rejects the advances of Christ for those of Satan. However, this is simply the guard (Christ) cutting the guard dog (Satan) some slack to bring His bride back into line. Remember what God said of this people? “They have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them” (1 Sam. 8:7b). God knew what would appeal to the unfaithful bride:


“There was a Benjaminite man named Kish son of Abiel, the son of Zeror, the son of Becorath, the son of Aphiah of Benjamin. Kish was a prominent person. He had a son named Saul, a handsome young man. There was no one among the Israelites more handsome than he was; he stood head and shoulders above all the people” (1 Sam. 9:1-2).

Let’s take a quote from another publication:


“What comes to mind whenever you think of Jesus? Some longhaired bearded guy all robes and sandals? Would it surprise you to learn that nowhere does the Bible tell us what Jesus looked like? Yet most movies and books picture Him as if He were a blue-eyed hippy left over from the 60s cultural revolution! The Bible says of Him, “He has no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him.” (Isa. 53:2). But Jesus is usually depicted as a handsome man in the movies.

One is left wondering where the contemporary picture of Jesus comes from, as most people see Him depicted in pictures … I don’t know about you, but I suppose I would like Jesus to be tall, dark and handsome with movie-star looks. Why? Because isn’t that the way a hero, the star of the Bible, is supposed to look? Well, maybe not. The Bible is full of paradoxes, “the last shall be first”, “the meek shall inherit the earth”, “you must lose your life to find it” etc. Jesus is the Bible’s biggest paradox!

Let me repeat that verse: “He has no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him.” This is not exactly the Hollywood version of a hero!”[1]

The long list of kings that began somewhere around 1020 BC with Saul ends with Christ, the King of kings and Lord of Lords (Rev. 19:16). The people of God, like the builders of the city of Cain, are thinking in fleshly terms. Even at the time of Christ they were waiting for God to send them a saviour to subdue the occupying Romans and establish an earthly kingdom. In all of this, one is reminded of what Jesus said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men” (Matt. 16:23).

Yes, Christ’s kingdom will reign on earth, but it is the everlasting Kingdom of Heaven that Christ is building, not something that will rise and perish like that of the other nations. Notice also the covenantal reminder here, harking back to the giving of His Ten Commandments (Exod. 20):


“Then Samuel called the people together before the Lord at Mizpah. He said to the Israelites, “This is what the Lord God of Israel has said, ‘I brought Israel up from Egypt and I delivered you from the power of the Egyptians and from the power of all the kingdoms that oppressed you. But today you have rejected your God who saves you from all your trouble and distress. You have said, “No! Appoint a king over us.” Now take your positions before the Lord by your tribes and by your clans.’”

Then Samuel brought all the tribes of Israel near, and the tribe of Benjamin was chosen by lot. Then he brought the tribe of Benjamin near by its families, and the family of Matri was chosen by lot. At last Saul son of Kish was chosen by lot. But when they looked for him, he was nowhere to be found. So they inquired again of the Lord, “Has the man arrived here yet?” The Lord said, “He has hidden himself among the equipment.”

So they ran and brought him from there. When he took his position among the people, he stood head and shoulders above them all. Then Samuel said to all the people, “Do you see the one whom the Lord has chosen? Indeed, there is no one like him among all the people.” All the people shouted out, “Long live the king!” (1 Sam. 17:17-24).

Here we see the truth of the proverb, “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD” (Prov. 16:33). The unfaithful bride gets the foolish desire of her eyes, as the faithful Groom sovereignly guides it all in wisdom. Where was the first and temporary king? “He has hidden himself.” The last and eternal King? “Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”; and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.” So shall it be! Amen” (Rev. 1:7).

Saul, when contrasted with Christ, epitomizes the theme of this book, viz., the unfaithful bride and the faithful Groom.


“So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against the LORD, because he did not keep the word of the LORD, and also because he consulted a medium for guidance. But he did not inquire of the LORD; therefore He killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse” (1 Chron. 10:13-14).

God sees the end from the beginning. The long list of kings was simply God working out His purposes. Indeed, it was immediately upon the fall of man in Adam that God the Son entered His creation as Mediator between God and man. William Symington provides us with a helpful bit of a summary of what we already know:


“The administration of mediatorial rule existed from the time of the entrance of sin into our world. The Son of God then entered on the administration of all his mediatorial functions; on this, as well as others. The voice of the Lord God, walking in the garden in the cool of the day, announced him as a prophet: the institution of sacrifices, which there is reason to think was coeval with the fall of man, exhibited him as a priest: and the warfare betwixt the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, which then commenced, unfolded his regal character. In this latter capacity, he never ceased afterwards to act. The formation of the church in Eden; the translation of Abel’s righteous soul to glory; the re-organisation of the church with Noah; the covenant made with Abraham, and renewed with Isaac and Jacob; the establishment of the Jewish Economy under Moses; the many interpositions made on behalf of the armies of Israel, by which they were rendered victorious over their enemies; the appointment of judges; and the raising up of kings in the line of David, to dispense the benefits of civil government to God’s ancient people—are all so many regal acts of Prince Messiah. Accordingly, when he came in the flesh, he was recognised, not as entering upon, but as in the full possession of, royal prerogatives: ‘Where is he that is BORN KING of the Jews?’ (Matt. 2:2).[2]

The preincarnate Christ was the Mediator even before the Word became flesh. Since the fall He has held the threefold office of prophet, priest, and king. The Old Testament prophets, priests, and kings, therefore, typified the Christ to come. Yes, some of the types were clearer than others. However, God the Son was working behind the scenes, using and guiding these three offices towards their climactic fulfilment in Jesus, THE Prophet, Priest, and King in the new covenant. We are, of course, focused mainly on His kingly role at the moment.

The list of kings under the old covenant is lengthy, and became two long lists when, under Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, somewhere around 930 BC, the country separated into two kingdoms: the Kingdom of Israel (with the ten northern tribes) in the north and the Kingdom of Judah (with the tribes of Judah and Benjamin) in the south, whose seat was Jerusalem.

This list begins with Saul, then David, and then Solomon. Then the split between the north and the south came with Rehoboam. The following epitaph could be inscribed on Saul’s tombstone:


“So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against the LORD, because he did not keep the word of the LORD, and also because he consulted a medium for guidance. But he did not inquire of the LORD; therefore He killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse” (1 Chron. 10-13-14).



[1] Neil Cullan McKinlay, Jesus for the Layman, Weemac Publishing, (Scotland), 2019, 12.

[2] William Symington, The Unabridged 1881 Text of Messiah the Prince, An American Spelling Edition, Edited by Matthew Smith, The Warfield Institute, Third Printing 2019, 34.

Friday, January 6, 2023

LOVE & LIBERTY

                                                                   Love & Liberty

Liberty is the most difficult concept for human beings to understand. Without the help of God Almighty, we just don’t get it. Like a newly released time-served prisoner, we have a hard time settling into our new-found freedom because we have become institutionalized. It is a spiritual problem. It manifests itself, for example, when people vote for known authoritarians in free elections. True liberty begins with personal freedom.

Perhaps one of the best statement of liberty is found in the American Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’ Liberty is indeed a self-evident inalienable right endowed by God. It is built in. He designed us that way. Picture an eagle in a birdcage or a dolphin in a fish tank or a lion in a pen. These environments restrict what God created these great creatures to be. Yet man, the greatest of all of God’s creatures, would rather live in bondage in the service of tyrants than accept the liberty God offers through His Son. Try the following example of this where Jesus says, ‘If you love Me, keep My commandments’ (John 14:15). How can we be free if we are to keep commandments? Aren’t rules and regulations, laws, the stuff of bondage? Of course not! Paradoxically freedom comes from keeping God’s Law. Do you think driving your car on the wrong side of the road is loving God and your neighbour as yourself? Cheating on your tax form? Cheating on your husband or wife? Dishonouring your parents? Lying? Inventing gods to replace God with? Ignoring Him? We could go on, but it’s not hard to see that keeping the Ten Commandments makes for a better society in which to live. No one is at liberty to break the law, especially God’s Law. So, why do we break it? It’s because we don’t love Him as we ought.

The preamble to the Ten Commandments handed down from God on Mt Sinai is, ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage’ (Exod. 20:2). God could have easily said the following before He listed the Decalogue, therefore ‘If you love Me, keep My commandments.’ If you love the One who set you free from your slavery would you not show your gratitude by striving with His assistance to keep His commandments or would you murmur and complain about it for forty years? Would you long for the prison food? You felt safe and secure in the land of slavery, the house of bondage? Yes, some who taste liberty spit it out again. ‘What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire” (2 Pet. 2:22). Thus, they reject God’s Ten Rules for Freedom and instead return to the Rules for Radicals in the house of bondage.

Jesus said, ‘And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?” Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed’ (John 8:32-36).

True liberty comes only with true love for the truth. How so? Because Christ is the truth (John 14:6). Therefore, if your heart is yearning for freedom, ‘Repent, and believe in the gospel’ (Mark 1:15).