Everybody Is A Slave
Jan 03
To the Greeks becoming a servant or a slave was repulsive. Freedom was their most prized right, and one of their goals of life was to be independent of others and to live as one chose. To be a servant involved surrender of such freedom. Slavery meant subjection to another’s will. To a Hellenist, who was convinced that a man was morally obligated to develop his own potential, to give himself to the service of others was more than alien. It was contemptible. {1}
That quote led me to think about how true this is in America. You see freedom is very important and very personal in America. The great atrocity of African slavery has and will always be scar in our history to remind of us the depravity of humanity and even the sin that Christians may find themselves overtaken in.
However slavery is very prominent today in America and across the globe. The slavery today has actually looks like freedom, yet nothing is further from the truth. Every single person who has breath in their lungs is a slave. Though they walk around as free as every. You see one group know that they are slaves (or should know, more on that later) while the other group believes they are free and happen to be in the worst type of slavery humanity has ever endured!
Here is what Jesus says:
31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” 33 They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?”
34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.”
You see there were a group of religious men who swore they were free! Yet Jesus calls them “slaves”. Sin is slavery. A slavery that will eventually lead to an eternal death where those who are slaves to sin will be utterly destroyed by the wrath of God (John 3:31-36). However today as throughout history, people believe they are free. Free to live as they please, go where they want, talk how they want. They believe that it is “freedom” that is allowing them to have such liberties, however they are under a tough task master! A slave driver who consumes them yet sells them a lie that they are free to live as they please.
What is also important about this text is that these men were not void of religion. They were up to their eyeballs in religion. They said the right things, went the right places (church/synagogue), they fasted, prayed, paid their tithes, they knew the religious lingo, yet they are called slaves to sin. They felt their birthright had given them a special place before the face of God, as if God was somehow obligated to accept them based of their relationship to other spiritual men and women. We do that today. There are many who believe they have a special place before God because they grew up in the “church”. Yet they are slaves to sin. But there is also a second type of slave.
As Paul is writing to the Romans, he gives them a slave theology. It is found in Romans 6:
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? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.
In this section of scripture Paul contrasts two types of slaves. One is the slave to sin! The other is a slave to “righteousness”. Both are slaves but only one leads to eternal life (Romans 6:22-23). Here is another problem. In this section Paul is defending his position on grace vs law. Many people had a problem with Paul’s preaching of grace and so they attempted to throw a curve ball. It probably sounds like this today: “hey Paul if I no longer have to earn God’s favor by doing the right thing, nor can I earn His favor by doing the right thing why not do the wrong thing even more so that I can earn more of God’s favor”. This could have been a trap question or an honest inquiry as those familiar with the Old Covenant have introduced to the Salvation by Grace through Faith.
Paul combats that notion by saying “we have been set free to become slaves of righteousness”. Only when we becomes slaves of Christ can we now do the right things that are pleasing to God, apart from that, our works are futile and maybe even false worship as some have put it. However, righteousness is an expectation of true faith. We have died to our old selves and have been raised with Christ as Paul says earlier in Romans 6. Grace those not give us a green light to live in sin, it gives a green light to walk in righteousness.
However there are many teachers today who will say otherwise. There is a doctrine called “carnal Christians”. Which says one can profess faith in Christ, sign the card, get baptized and yet still be a Christian with no evidence of life change, and since God does not take His salvation back they are secure. There is no such three headed monster in scripture. This is a false gospel and only ensures and seals people’s damnation not their salvation. I am not saying we are not secure nor am I saying that Christians do not sin, both are far from the truth; however, to give someone security in someone/something other than a living relationship with Christ is reckless at best and even condemning at worst!
However today as I surf the web and interact with Christians they believe that they have the right to make their own decisions yet say they are of Christ and when you tell them that their decisions are diametrically opposed or in other words that what they are saying is not Christian you are labeled judgmental. Many of churches today opened their doors encouraging the non-regenerated (those who are not saved) to come back next week while giving them an encouraging message for the New Year. Many did not proclaim Christ, righteousness, enslavement to Jesus, or sanctification through Christ. We have to teach the slavery motif in scripture. To the lost we need to tell them the slavery they find themselves in and the consequences of that slavery, to those who profess Christ, we have to proclaim grace does not equate to freedom to make our own moral choices. Grace (freedom) enslaves us to a new master who instructs us how to live. Slaves don’t have options and everyone is a slave!
{1} Lawrence Richards, A Theology of Personal Ministry; Zondervan, pg 73
Thanks for this, and I wish English Bibles would be more faithful in light of the ancient world, regarding slaves.
Hey T.C can you elaborate a bit more?
Outside of the HCSB, other leading English Bibles avoid rendering the Greek doulos/oi “slave/s” unless they’re forced to do so.
Consider the beginning of several of Paul’s Letters: Romans 1:1, “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus” (ESV) but HCSB, “Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus.”
“Servant” doesn’t quite capture what Paul had in mind. “Slave” does, since Paul regarding himself as the property of another.
Wow, good observation. I too agree that “serveant’ in an English translation is lacking. Especially given the fact that serveant in Greek language would have been appalling!
What do you think Paul’s perspective would have been on American slavery. This is a sidebar but curious.
Lionel & T.C.R.,
I think that “servant” is a better translation and should be translated as such in Rom 6 as well. The Young’s Literal Translation has it rendered “servant” as well. This would seem to fit better with other scriptures that seem to imply sonship in the form of joint heirs and no longer being considered slaves. Also some may feel that slavery suggest obedience against ones will rather than willing obedience as one who serves out of love.
Consider Gal 4:1-7?
Gal 4: 1 Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born[a] of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
T.C.R.,
You stated:
“Outside of the HCSB, other leading English Bibles avoid rendering the Greek doulos/oi “slave/s” unless they’re forced to do so.”
My response:
It seems in this case that the majority of the most common translations have rendered the greek word correctly as “servant”.
Lionel-
I like how Paul hearkens to the insitution of the bond-slave under the Old Covenant economy, whereas an Israelite who had become a servant to his debtor could go free during the year of Jubilee, but could go from being a servant to what they called a bond-slave(a full time life-long servant) due to his love for his master. I think this is another type teaching from the OT that perfectly describes our relationship to God in Christ.
“Now these are the ordinances which you are to set before them: “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. “If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. “If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. “But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently. Exodus 21:1-6
SEE: Romans 1:1, Galatians 1:10, Philippians 2:7, Colossians 1:7, Colossians 4:7, 2 Timothy 2:24, Titus 1:1, James 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1, Jude 1:1, Revelation 1:1, Revelation 15:3
Your brother Hutch Bond-servant/slave of Jesus Christ.
What do you think Paul’s perspective would have been on American slavery. This is a sidebar but curious.
Lionel,
As the literature from Paul’s times show, slavery back then was somewhat different than American slavery.
In Paul’s time, if I owed you money, to pay such a debt, I could become your slave (just one example). Slavery would be intra-Israel.
Now Israel’s slavery to the Egyptian would have been closer to American slavery – enslavement by another people and so on.
Jon,
I understand your conclusions, but what are they based on?
A doulos was the property of another. In fact, Paul reminds us that we’re not our own, for we are bought at a price (1 Cor. 6:19, 20). Now that’s redemption and enslavement language.
T.C.R,
You stated:
“A doulos was the property of another. In fact, Paul reminds us that we’re not our own, for we are bought at a price (1 Cor. 6:19, 20). Now that’s redemption and enslavement language.”
My response:
I understand your conclusions, however even though we are bought at a price we are never kept against our will as slavery typically implies.
Jon,
We are not kept “against” our will? So we can usurp God’s will?
Lionel,
I know we are not kept against our will! I was simply stating that many may feel that using the term “slave” would imply this. That’s why, along with the scriptures I presented, I feel that “servant” would seem to be a more consistent translation in the passages mentioned.
Once a servant decided to not go out in the Jubilee due to his love for his master he became a bond-slave that could never decide later to go out from his master, he served his master for life.
I understand your conclusions, however even though we are bought at a price we are never kept against our will as slavery typically implies.
Jon,
There’s a reason why the NT writers used doulos, “a slave,” to describe a certain relation of that the Christ follower shares with his Master.
The problem is with us moderns not the biblical text.
T.C.R.,
You stated:
“The problem is with us moderns not the biblical text.”
My response:
So what is wrong with using “servant”? Does it not still imply the same relationship that we have with Christ as our Master? This would even seem to be a better translation given the fact that we have free will to obey or disobey Him. We are not forced against our wills to serve Him in obedience. This is not so with many of the “slaves” throughout history and not just modern times.
Jon,
It seems like your interpretive grid is this free will concept. If that be the case, then I see where you struggle with doulos as conveying the property and ownership of another.
But this doesn’t need to be the case. Paul was glad to be called a doulos of Christ.
T.R.C.,
“Doulos” in koine Greek and the Greco-Roman cultures does not always mean “property” of others, as one would expect and parallel it to the slave institution in the U.S. and the Caribbean, respectively, or in the Americas. For there were different types of slaves (hierachialy) in the Greco-Roman society, as well as different contexts in which one was enslaved and thus called a “doulos”. Slavery as an established system functioned in different ways. So the rendering of “doulos” as “servant” also captures the idea of “being a slave” of Christ. Therefore, doulos in terms of “meaning” and “functionality” are of great importance when it comes to understanding the Pauline context. Complementarily I suggest to visit the Hebraic context in which slavery as a system operated in the Old Testament times. This will help also to understanding Paul. For Paul was interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures (in their cultural sensibilities) as he was writing his letters to the churches and individual christians.
Hope that helps.
CJ,
Let me ask though given the context of slavery in Romans 6 do you believe Paul was using the term “serveant” as Jesus was saying in John 8? I could be wrong, but I think Paul’s language of Romans 6 may cause us to think of a more serious type of slavery especially in light that he is contrasting that with slavery to sin which seems to be a complete domination type of motif. Thoughts?
Paul understood the concept of the bond-slave from the Old Covenant scriptures where the indentured servant could go free in the Jubilee -or- choose to remain with his master due to his love for the master and therby become a bond-slave a permanent life long servant who could not later decide to leave.
This is what Paul was proud to call himself a bond-slave, an eternal life-long servant of his master whom he loved.
All other types of slavery or servitude are not in view Paul is referring to the bond-slave under the Mosaic economy. Permanent servant to our gracious master whom we serve out of our love for Him.
Hutch,
You stated:
“a bond-slave a permanent life long servant who could not later decide to leave.
This is what Paul was proud to call himself a bond-slave, an eternal life-long servant of his master whom he loved.”
My response:
Are you saying that a believer cannot be cut from the vine, spewed out of Christ mouth, blotted out of the Book of Life as a result of their continued willingness to disobey their Master?
Or are those empty threats in scripture?
Or do they not apply to the believer somehow?
Hi Jon-
I’m explaining to you the dynamics of the bond slave as presented in the Old Covenant scriptures that Paul was hearkening to when he referred to himself as a bond-slave. Once an indentured servant decided to not go free and become a bond-slave to his master out of his love for his master, he could not later on change his mind and elect to go free. I think the evidence is that Paul did not wish to go free and that after he was converted and in Christ, he finished his race not due to his fear of any “threat” of being cut-off, spewed out, blotted out a the Book of Life or any of those things…he was motivated to serve the Lord due to his love for his master and he like all believers are enabled to do this by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit by which God pours His love into our hearts thorough the Holy Spirit that He has given to us.
I was not dealing with the scriptures you allude to; I was speaking about the bond-slave.
We did however discuss those scriptures a year or so ago in context and learned that a comprehensive study of the scriptures in context shows that someone who merely makes a profession of faith and lives in continual disobedience to the Lord, although they think they are believers, they are really tares not wheat and Jesus said that although they thought they served Him, that He NEVER knew them. They seem surprised by that fact. The parable of the soils also indicates that there are a lot of fake conversions. But Paul do to the grace of God and the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit persevered to the end as a bond-slave who lovingly served his master…God’s love is always the motivating factor for obedient living for a regenerate believer, not fear.
BTW: Since you believe that everybody is eventually going to be saved and in God presence and that nobody will exist eternally separated from God, how does your idea of losing one’s salvation fit into that? Is that were your re-defining of the term Lake of Fire comes in? We also looked at the fact that the LOF is never used in the way that you twist the definition.
So if your doctrine of universalism is true (although it is not) what would any of the scriptures you alluded to matter?
I still love you Jon and I’m still praying for you to embrace the gospel as presented in God’s Word.
CJ,
Your thoughts are greatly appreciated. But I have to present another side of the matter.
Of course Paul interpreted as a Jew in light of Messiah and his new humanity and so on. But what of the world around Paul? Did he draw from the Greco-Roman world? Of course he did. Look at the games metaphor and so on.
So I don’t think we can easily dismiss his understanding of doulos from his immediate surroundings. Seneca, as quoted in Witherington III Indelible Image, vol. 1, says that slaves were basically viewed as property having no rights (p. 368).
Hutch,
You stated:
” Since you believe that everybody is eventually going to be saved and in God presence and that nobody will exist eternally separated from God, how does your idea of losing one’s salvation fit into that?”
My response:
You and others keep asking me the same type of question.
First, I do not believe that everyone will be “saved” in the sense of escaping the coming age(s) of judgment. I do believe that all will eventually be refined/restored to God through Christ in their due season. God knows what it will take to destroy sin/carnality in all of His creation! Afterall, He created us in His “image” and with the ultimate fulfillment of us being in His “likeness” as well. Check out Genesis. You may notice that Adam was only created in His image. But it was spoken that man would be as His “image”and “likeness”. All will not be in His “likeness” at the end of this age. “Image” being mans ability to reason and seek knowledge of God which is with the mind. “Likeness” being in union with or in being like Christ thus having the mind of Christ. For God has declared the end from the beginning!
What does it all matter if all will eventually be reconciled to God through Christ?
It matters because God is not mocked, whatever a man sows that he will also reap! Many will reap sorrow, pain, regret, in the coming age(s) of judgment. Others will reap life more abundately!
This is one of the reasons why it’s so important to me. But the main reason is that true love for Christ requires willing obedience. God does not force us to obey Him but this is a matter of choice that we have regardless of the fact that we are considered believers. Once “true” believers can fall and continue to fall and be in jeopardy of the Lake of Fire and be judged thus refined through God’s consuming fire in the coming ages. Not only will they suffer great loss but there will be great pain and regret for the disobedient life that they lived in this present age.
Jon,
You do believe that God will force us to obey. You just believe He will force us to obey during the judgment correct? Your refining doctrine forces you to say that or you are being inconsistent brother. When Gold is refined it is “forced” to be purified, it has not option. In your atonement view, God will force people to be refined if not they have a choice to not be refined and reject eternal life then right?
Jon-
Yes, I am aware of your view Jon perhaps my terminology does not match your universalism, but I do understand what you have been teaching. You believe that everyone will eventually be refined and reconciled to God.
Will you according to your brand of universalism need to go through the Lake of Fire or have you been sufficiently willingly obedient to God in order to skip that step?
BTW, as stated my view is that scripture indicates that through accepting the gospel/believing on the Lord Jesus Christ one receives a New Heart and The Law Written on the Heart, the very indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit causes leads Gods children into all truth and those in Christ will lovingly serve their master as bond slaves do.
Good point Big L.
To see the Law by Christ fulfilled,
To hear His pardoning voice,
Changes a slave into a child
And duty into choice.
How long beneath the Law I lay
In bondage and distress
I toiled the precept to obey,
But toiled without success.
Then all my servile works were done,
A righteousness to raise
Now, freely chosen in the Son,
I freely choose His ways.
June,
I really like that though I disagree with the conclusion. I believe our conformity is not a choice but a work of the new heart given us by God who redeemed us through His Son. What God paid for He will receive and what He receives will be shaped by Him.
Lionel,
You stated:
“You do believe that God will force us to obey. You just believe He will force us to obey during the judgment correct?”
My response:
No. I do not believe that God will force us to obey. I believe that God will draw us until we all willingly repent. He has the power over the clay in being able to break down all resistance but it will ultimatly be everyones’ choice to confess Christ. For it’s through God’s love that brings all men to repentence. Therefore I do believe in God’s irresitable grace.
You also stated:
“When Gold is refined it is “forced” to be purified, it has not option. In your atonement view, God will force people to be refined if not they have a choice to not be refined and reject eternal life then right?”
My response:
This is used figurativly of God’s work in refining us. For gold is refinded by heat and pressure just as we are, however gold is a lifeless substance that was not made in the image of God. Therefore, you cannot simply say that since gold is formed outside of its will then man must be formed that way as well. We are rational creatures that must conform our will to God’s. It is written that God gave man choice to choose life or death. All, as a result of God’s grace through judgment, will willingly choose life and death will then be abolished forever.
Jon,
Your second paragraph makes no sense and I am not trying to patronize you brother. Based off of your theology God will “throw them” into the lake of fire and purify them, where is the choice in this?
Lionel,
I see your point. However, the choice that I speak of relates to the decision (after judgment) to accept life through Christ. I would agree with you that we don’t have a choice about being judged by God. His judgment is the goodness that leads all men to repentance. For His judgment is just and corrective. And after all have been adequately judged, we will all be glad to willingly receive such goodness.
Jon,
How do you know “we will all be glad”? Where did you get this “we will be glad….” from? What if after the judgment man is even more upset and want to reject?
Lionel,
God has already declared the end from the beginning.
I’m only assuming that we will all be glad, for to know God and live in union with Him is indeed a great enough reason to be glad. Many are just still deceived in thinking that their current choices are good ones. Once all the blind have received their sight they will be exceedingly glad, just as the parable of the prodigal son portrays.
Jon,
Does the parable of the “prodigal son” actually portray “all” receiving sight? Can you elaborate a bit on the disposition of the son who stayed home? What was his response? And do you believe that was equivalent to sight or blindness?
Lionel,
Good questions.
The son who stayed home could be a type of “church” or anyone who is presently living in union with Christ. For they are said to be joint heirs with Christ. The prodigal son could be a type of unrepentant sinner who was lost but later was found. Notice the somewhat jealous reaction of the son who stayed. This same response seems to be manifest in many of the believers today when the thought that all the lost will eventually be found and thus too share in the bountiful blessings of God with them, each one in their due season.