John Macarthur on Slave or Servant
Slave. What is it about this word that merits a whole book?
Sometimes one word can make an enormous difference. For example, the Latin Vulgate’s translation of metanoia (repentance) as paenitentia (penance) in places like Acts 2:38 led to all sorts of problems in the Roman Catholic Church.The slave concept is a major theme in Scripture. In fact, believers are referred to as “slaves” hundreds of times throughout the Old and New Testaments. Yet, the American church is blind to this critical theme because most English versions translate the word as “servant” instead.
While it is true that the duties of slave and servant may overlap to some degree, there is a key distinction between the two: servants are hired; slaves are owned. Servants have an element of freedom in choosing whom they work for and what they do. The idea of servanthood maintains some level of self-autonomy and personal rights.
Slaves, on the other hand, have no freedom, autonomy, or rights. In the Greco-Roman world, slaves were considered property, to the point that, in the eyes of the law they were regarded as thingsrather than persons. To be someone’s slave was to be his possession, bound to obey his will without hesitation or argument.
This reality has major implications for our understanding of the gospel. Christ’s call to follow Him is not simply an invitation to become His associate, but a mandate to become His slave.
That message is especially needed in American culture, where a man-centered, feel-good, cheap-grace gospel has become so popular. But nothing could be farther from the biblical reality—a reality which is brought to the forefront by rightly translating that one word: “slave.”
In the past I’ve written many books that focus on a right understanding of the gospel—The Gospel According to Jesus, The Gospel According to the Apostles, Hard to Believe, and so on. But, as I note in my preface to Slave, “I have no doubt that this perpetual hiding of an essential element of New Testament revelation has contributed to much of the confusion in evangelical teaching and practice. In fact, I wonder if it wasn’t the reason I felt the need to write so many books to clarify the gospel. If this one reality had been known, would any of those books have been necessary?”
So, I see this as a vitally-important issue with far-reaching implications for how the gospel ought to be understood, preached, and lived.
In light of what you write in Slave regarding the proper translation of doulos, what is your preferred Bible translation? Is the correct translation of that word significant enough that it ought to impact the translation we choose?
I am thankful for excellent English translations like the NASB, NKJV, and ESV. But I do wish they had done a better job translating both ebed (in the OT) and doulos (in the NT) as slave. And I am glad that some new versions like the Holman Christian Standard Bible are doing this.I have had some discussions with one major publishing company about updating their version to reflect the truth about doulos in the NT. They have told me that they will discuss it further with their translation committee. But I don’t know what will happen there.
While I don’t expect many churches to change their Bible versions over this issue, I do hope that pastors—when they preach through a text that includes doulos—will take the time to instruct their people as to what that word really means. I certainly hope they are doing their homework in the Greek, and not just relying on the English text. Lord willing, the Slave book will serve as a resource for them in that endeavor.
