I actually got a little confused on the different words too, so I tried looking them up again.

Ebed: Hebrew = Old Testament. It’s used all over the place, ranging from the Israelite slaves in Egypt to the bondservant reference in Leviticus (or even softer, like when a friend is indicating he’s submitted to another friend).

Doulos: Greek = New Testament. Again, seems to go either way.

So from a word for word translation, I don’t think this is going to help much. The meaning seems to shift depending on context. I’m way over my head in this, though.

I started into this primarily because of the reference in Romans 6, which we’ll hit on this week.

But here’s where I think I went wrong: according to the translation, it could literally go either way, slave or servant (or bondservant, bondslave, bondsman, etc.)… but in English and particularly in our culture today, the words (might) have different connotations.

I think I’ve already pushed the “slave” thing pretty far. I think I should have gone straight into the next post instead of pushing it further with this post, though the discussion’s been worth it.

I personally still like how “slave” holds up in a general sense, but I see a lot of the problems with it too.

Perhaps most deal killing of all, it’s really hard to get others on board with it. The divisiveness of the topic might be enough reason in itself to tread lightly.

And I’m not accusing you or anyone else of being divisive here – as I’ve said, I really appreciate the feedback… it’s why I love blogging so much. But I see the potential for division.

I’m going to try to update some of these posts to give a better definition of what I mean by slave/servant/etc. Hopefully that will help this flow together better and keep the original spirit of the series going.

-Marshall Jones Jr.

But, back to the point …

In the OT bondservant is ‘doulos’ which literally tanslates to slave as you state. However i’s meaning was always associated with bondservant and never just as slave.

Modernising that to teh NT we have ‘ebed’ in hebrew which translates as servant (not slave) and again implies / means bondservant.

This is the core of the issue for me. My reading of the translations from the original is not as you see it. And Bernard’s comment below mine hits the nail – it’s the use of slave without the bond. The bond implies willingness, whereas slave never does.

You say you like slave because you don’t have to make a choice. But where were we ever commanded to be slaves in our commitment to and love of God? Demands to obey, yes, but never a “you must” in the NT. And after all without dragging up a law or not argument we are now under grace.

I think your articles are excellent but let’s just replace the slave with servant and I’m with you. It’s not offensive, it’s not demeaning, it’s not demanding but it is willing, it is expectant, it is free will choice. So yes, saying slave as opposed to bondslave would have made a difference – I ‘d still prefer the bondSERVANT phrase though

And the one thing that sets us apart from other religions and animals is the free will choice we get to make.

Let me ask it a different way: do we have an option to NOT be under God’s authority without consequence?

For example…

-Option 1: obey God and be blessed, etc.

-Option 2: disobey God and receive the consequences of disobedience

-Option 3: disobey God and avoid the consequences of disobedience

Apart from salvation, I don’t think Option 3 exists.

We’re still playing by God’s rules no matter what we choose, just like a slave is still under the master’s authority whether the slave wants to be a slave or not. “Every knee shall bow – every tongue confess…”

That’s why I think the choice, in a way at least, is a choice of obedience/disobedience, not slave/not slave. Whether you agree or not, does it make a little more sense how I got to that conclusion?

-Marshall Jones Jr.

I’ll have to give your comment here some more thought before I respond more.

I like where you’re going with your point about Objection #1. But do you think we have a choice between serving God and not serving God? More specifically, isn’t that just a choice between either choosing to serve God or choosing to receive the consequences of not serving God?

-Marshall Jones Jr.

Pretty soon you’re going to have to confront the serious issue of works salvation that results from a perspective of slavery. Why on earth would someone have a slave if that slave doesn’t have to do anything?

And you’ve still not properly dealt with item #1 You maintain that because a slave CAN choose to disobey that he has a choice. However, that’s not the “choice” that is really at issue. The pertinent “choice” is the decision to be a slave or not. I do not know of ANY modern cultural situation where a true slave chooses slavery. The absence of any other possible direction eliminates the possibility of a true choice. You’ve answered the question about choosing slavery with a response that is pertinent only to obedience, not to the condition of being a slave.

I’ll be glad to shut up, I’m not meaning to be disagreeable or overly argumentative. You’ve obviously thought this through a lot, and I’m responding off the cuff, so my thoughts are not anywhere near as developed as yours.

-Marshall Jones Jr.

As I said somewhere up there, though, “bondservant” in the New Testament translates as “slave,” not as the Old Testament version of bondservant that you described. That’s where I wanted to make the distinction… which is coming in the next post about this.

Once a bondservant gets his ear pierced, he’s in… he can’t leave after that. This isn’t a promotion for a “once saved, always saved” position as much as it is for committing deeply and thoroughly to God.

I like “slave” because it means I don’t have to make the decisions. I just obey, I just follow, and I just fall into the relationship with God.

Admittedly, I went with “slave” because it’s provocative. Every Christian says “servant,” but few believe it. I think in general we’ve lost touch with what “servant” really means, at least lost touch with the commitment it implies. So that’s why I bring all this up.

As a question, though, would it have made much difference if I’d started with “bondslave” instead of just “slave”? In other words, is it the “bond” (the lack of choice) part that really causes the biggest issue? (I had planned to write about that in the fourth post, but I wonder if perhaps I should have started that way.)

I appreciate you sharing and responding, Stuart. Your thoughts, especially in this last comment, are fantastic. And I totally understand where you’re coming from.

-Marshall Jones Jr.

I can’t say I agree with most of what you’ve typed. Forget the #3 human rights slip , it’s just I can’t get past your “I’m sticking to this use of the slave word” approach.

That said I do applaud you for sticking to your guns but some of your points are tenuous at best!

Let me just say this in counter-debate:

Yes, God permitted slaves and / or the institution of slavery but He didn’t allow for the mis-treatment of them.

Additionally when you were a slave in the OT it was for a period of six years and after that you were to be released with enough to prevent you needing to re-sell yourself into slavery again. Note that there is a choice there to sell yourself into slavery.

Lastly, the bondservant bit kicks in after this. You’ve served your 6yrs. You’ve been released but you decide you want to remain – at this point your ear is nailed to a doorpost. This is a willing and free choice made after having already served a period of slavery (I’d love to emphasise the ‘served’ bit there) but then it is for life.

For me, my objections really boil down to this.

Slave – no choice
Servant = free will choice
Bondservant = free will choice to remain as a slave.