Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-25-2011, 07:29 PM

John MacArthur on being a slave of Christ

Quote:

It was probably four years ago or so that I was flying over to London. I had been given a copy of a book called Slaves of Christ by Murray Harris and I started to read this book and it began to dig into this issue. By the time I got over there and had followed the path of the book – the book deals with the word doulos which is the word in Greek for slave; every Greek dictionary will tell you it means slave, it doesn’t mean servant, it doesn’t describe a function; it always and only means slave. And yet it just wasn’t translated that way in any English version (of the Bible) so Harris was dealing with that issue.

I followed that up by trying to find some other studies on that, other information and I wound up looking at a journal article by a scholar from back in the 1960s in which he pointed out why the translators back in the 16th century didn’t translate the word slave. And he pointed out the fact that even back then there was so much stigma around slavery that they didn’t want to use that word. And so they started a trend and every other English translation up until today followed that trend. They will use the word slave if it refers to a physical slave, an actual slave or an inanimate slave like slave of sin or slave of righteousness. But whenever it refers to a believer, they wouldn’t translate it slave. So this just kept going and going.

...

When you think that the word “Lord” is used 747 times in the New Testament we all understand that all Christians say Jesus is Lord. That’s our common confession. But I don’t think people get it. That’s topside of the word doulos. If he’s Lord, I’m his slave. ...

The interviewer asked if this idea would lead to a revival or a mass exodus from the church. MacArthur said it would separate out the true believers, without answering the question.

MacArthur goes on to say that those middle eastern protestors are wrong, because the Bible says that all government is ordained by God, and that religious freedom is not a right - look at western Europe, their religious freedom has brought them to nonbelief. A little persecution is good for the church.

Petergdi · 02-25-2011, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

John MacArthur on being a slave of Christ

Quote:

I followed that up by trying to find some other studies on that, other information and I wound up looking at a journal article by a scholar from back in the 1960s in which he pointed out why the translators back in the 16th century didn’t translate the word slave. And he pointed out the fact that even back then there was so much stigma around slavery that they didn’t want to use that word. And so they started a trend and every other English translation up until today followed that trend. They will use the word slave if it refers to a physical slave, an actual slave or an inanimate slave like slave of sin or slave of righteousness. But whenever it refers to a believer, they wouldn’t translate it slave. So this just kept going and going.

When you think that the word “Lord” is used 747 times in the New Testament we all understand that all Christians say Jesus is Lord. That’s our common confession. But I don’t think people get it. That’s topside of the word doulos. If he’s Lord, I’m his slave. ...

He's right about the Kurios/Doulos pairing. But I think he is wrong about the early english translators' motives.

A quick look in a concordance shows that the KJV doesn't use the word "slave" to translate "doulos" at all whether it points to an individual or not. Some modern translations do make the odd distinction that he points out. My best guess, is that in the 1520s when Tyndale chose to translate "doulos" as "servant" he thought that it would be easier for his readers to understand. I'm not sure, but it seems to me that "slave" wasn't as common an English word as "servant" at the time.

It was quite clear to me reading the Bible as a child that the few times "hired servant" occurs in the Bible it is to make a distinction from the usual kind of servant who was not hired.

Peter.

stephan huller · 02-26-2011, 01:19 AM

The idea is a carry over from Judaism where the people are still held in bondage until 'redemption.' The Marcionites directed their message at Jewish proselytes and understood that they were 'purchased' or 'redeemed' from their previous owner - the Creator - 'at a price.' The Carpocratians had a similar ritual supposedly of branding the ear.

I don't know what is so surprising about this. It is a core Biblical concept. If someone is surprised to hear this imagery they obviously aren't that familiar with Biblical concepts.

Women are held in bondage to the elements every 28 days if they are lucky enough to have a regular cycle. Most men can't last without some sort of sexual release every few days. We are all held in bondage to something. We have to eat, make money, take care of family. Hardly a surprising revelation that those who gave up their lives to their Lord in heaven are so called.

andrewcriddle · 02-26-2011, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

John MacArthur on being a slave of Christ

He's right about the Kurios/Doulos pairing. But I think he is wrong about the early english translators' motives.

A quick look in a concordance shows that the KJV doesn't use the word "slave" to translate "doulos" at all whether it points to an individual or not. Some modern translations do make the odd distinction that he points out. My best guess, is that in the 1520s when Tyndale chose to translate "doulos" as "servant" he thought that it would be easier for his readers to understand. I'm not sure, but it seems to me that "slave" wasn't as common an English word as "servant" at the time.

It was quite clear to me reading the Bible as a child that the few times "hired servant" occurs in the Bible it is to make a distinction from the usual kind of servant who was not hired.

Peter.

According to the OED (simplified); in Middle English servant is a perfectly good rendering of slave/doulos/servus and is used as such by the 'Wycliffite' and related ME translations from the Vulgate.

This usage is continued in Tyndale and other early modern translations down to the AV/KJV, although by this time slave had largely replaced servant as the usual term for a bondservant.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman · 02-27-2011, 04:09 PM

Quote:

CP: You’ve long expressed your frustrations with contemporary Christianity. Do you think what you’ve discovered pretty much gets at the root of what the problem is in the churches?

John MacArthur :

I really do. That’s such a good perception on your part because I think this is it.

Until you understand what it means that he is Lord and I’m his slave,
you're going to get all kinds of things wrong.

It’s what I’ve been saying for years. I wrote books – The Gospel According to Jesus, The Gospel According to the Apostles, and Hard to Believe and Reckless Faith – all these books attempting to get at the issue.

But the issue really comes down to this idea that
we understand what it means that he is Lord and I’m his slave.

That is the most clarifying, far reaching paradigm because everything fits into that.

Not everything fits into that paradigm for all people.
And where do the ministers and priests fit in?
As intermediatories between the slaves and the slave master?
Where is this leading?
Where did it start?

Chili · 02-28-2011, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

John MacArthur on being a slave of Christ

Quote:

I followed that up by trying to find some other studies on that, other information and I wound up looking at a journal article by a scholar from back in the 1960s in which he pointed out why the translators back in the 16th century didn’t translate the word slave. And he pointed out the fact that even back then there was so much stigma around slavery that they didn’t want to use that word. And so they started a trend and every other English translation up until today followed that trend. They will use the word slave if it refers to a physical slave, an actual slave or an inanimate slave like slave of sin or slave of righteousness. But whenever it refers to a believer, they wouldn’t translate it slave. So this just kept going and going.

When you think that the word “Lord” is used 747 times in the New Testament we all understand that all Christians say Jesus is Lord. That’s our common confession. But I don’t think people get it. That’s topside of the word doulos. If he’s Lord, I’m his slave. ...

A quick look in a concordance shows that the KJV doesn't use the word "slave" to translate "doulos" at all whether it points to an individual or not. Some modern translations do make the odd distinction that he points out. My best guess, is that in the 1520s when Tyndale chose to translate "doulos" as "servant" he thought that it would be easier for his readers to understand. I'm not sure, but it seems to me that "slave" wasn't as common an English word as "servant" at the time.

Peter.

I think that slavery is the better choice of words in that it denies any sense of righteousness which is the filthy rag believers like to flag and so is the 'richess of the rich man' to abandon which is not possible because it is entrenched into the soul and so beyond our reach to which the 'banquet call' speaks.

aeebee50 · 02-28-2011, 09:52 PM

We have to be politically correct and not hurt anyone's feeling.

mountainman · 02-28-2011, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeebee50

We have to be politically correct and not hurt anyone's feeling.

History requires political accuracy. The New Testament was written by authors in possession of "slave mentality". It was a product of the age of slavery.

Christianity and slavery in the New Testament (WIKI)

Quote:

Avery Cardinal Dulles points out that "Jesus, though he repeatedly denounced sin as a kind of moral slavery, said not a word against slavery as a social institution", and adds that the writers of the New Testament did not oppose slavery either.[38]

In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, as to the Lord, and not to men[39][40][41][42][43]. Masters were also told to serve their slaves in the same way[44]. Slaves were told that their suffering was similar to the suffering that Christ endured [45]. Paul puts forward that "in Christ there is no longer male or female, slave or free."

The Epistle to Philemon has become an important text in regard to slavery, being used by pro-slavery advocates as well as by abolitionists[46]. In the epistle, Paul writes that he is returning Onesimus, a fugitive slave, back to his master Philemon. Paul also entreats Philemon to regard Onesimus as a beloved brother in Christ[47]. Cardinal Dulles points out that, "while discreetly suggesting that he manumit Onesimus, [Paul] does not say that Philemon is morally obliged to free Onesimus and any other slaves he may have had."[38]

According to tradition, Philemon did free Onesimus, and both were eventually recognized as saints by the Church. T. David Curp asserts that, "Given that the Church received Philemon as inspired Scripture, Paul's ambiguity effectively blocked the early Fathers of the Church from denouncing slavery outright." Curp points out that St. John Chrysostom, in his sermon on Philemon, considers Paul's sending Onesimus back to his master a sign that slavery should not be abolished.[4]

In the Epistle of Paul to Titus, Paul appears to support the servitude of slaves: "Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior." [48]

aeebee50 · 03-01-2011, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeebee50

We have to be politically correct and not hurt anyone's feeling.

History requires political accuracy. The New Testament was written by authors in possession of "slave mentality". It was a product of the age of slavery.

Christianity and slavery in the New Testament (WIKI)

Quote:

Avery Cardinal Dulles points out that "Jesus, though he repeatedly denounced sin as a kind of moral slavery, said not a word against slavery as a social institution", and adds that the writers of the New Testament did not oppose slavery either.[38]

In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, as to the Lord, and not to men[39][40][41][42][43]. Masters were also told to serve their slaves in the same way[44]. Slaves were told that their suffering was similar to the suffering that Christ endured [45]. Paul puts forward that "in Christ there is no longer male or female, slave or free."

The Epistle to Philemon has become an important text in regard to slavery, being used by pro-slavery advocates as well as by abolitionists[46]. In the epistle, Paul writes that he is returning Onesimus, a fugitive slave, back to his master Philemon. Paul also entreats Philemon to regard Onesimus as a beloved brother in Christ[47]. Cardinal Dulles points out that, "while discreetly suggesting that he manumit Onesimus, [Paul] does not say that Philemon is morally obliged to free Onesimus and any other slaves he may have had."[38]

According to tradition, Philemon did free Onesimus, and both were eventually recognized as saints by the Church. T. David Curp asserts that, "Given that the Church received Philemon as inspired Scripture, Paul's ambiguity effectively blocked the early Fathers of the Church from denouncing slavery outright." Curp points out that St. John Chrysostom, in his sermon on Philemon, considers Paul's sending Onesimus back to his master a sign that slavery should not be abolished.[4]

In the Epistle of Paul to Titus, Paul appears to support the servitude of slaves: "Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior." [48]

You did not hurt my feelings.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-26-2011, 01:19 AM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The idea is a carry over from Judaism where the people are still held in bondage until 'redemption.' The Marcionites directed their message at Jewish proselytes and understood that they were 'purchased' or 'redeemed' from their previous owner - the Creator - 'at a price.' The Carpocratians had a similar ritual supposedly of branding the ear. I don't know what is so surprising about this. It is a core Biblical concept. If someone is surprised to hear this imagery they obviously aren't that familiar with Biblical concepts. Women are held in bondage to the elements every 28 days if they are lucky enough to have a regular cycle. Most men can't last without some sort of sexual release every few days. We are all held in bondage to something. We have to eat, make money, take care of family. Hardly a surprising revelation that those who gave up their lives to their Lord in heaven are so called.

02-28-2011, 09:52 PM	#7
aeebee50 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Texas Posts: 5,810	We have to be politically correct and not hurt anyone's feeling.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.