Posted on 11/07/2010 7:37:33 PM PST by iowaguy1972
John MacArthur has a new book coming out entitled, Slave: The Hidden Truth About Your Identity in Christ. This blog post includes a promo video. MacArthur claims that the Greek word doulos which is used a 150 time in the NT has been improperly translated as servant and that has negatively impacted how Christ-followers have viewed their identity.
Thoughts?
The word 'servant' has the implication of free will desiring to serve, the word 'slave' doesn't.
Romans tells us we are no longer a slave to sin, but a slave to Christ..
I have been redeemed (bought back) by Christ
Indeed I am a slave to Christ..
Excellent post..
It has become popular to make God and Christ servants to men.. to meet all their needs and greeds
Thank you. I knew I had read something about this topic a long time ago, but couldn’t remember where.
**As in Acts, when we see His absolute Lordship,**
His absolute Lordship expects obedience to his will.
**we fall on our faces and say, “What shall we do?!?!?” (Acts 2:37; 9:5, etc.).**
Yet Mr. MacArthur, who is everlearning and well spoken, doesn’t preach Acts 2:38. Of course, neither do others of the ‘main stream’ preachers.
**according to Luke 17:10: “So you too, WHEN YOU DO ALL THE THINGS COMMANDED YOU,**
Like Acts 2:38; which is ‘optional’ to the ‘main stream’ preachers.
**The recovery of the truth that we “are but slaves” can really only come with the full revelation of Who He is - THE LORD of all.**
Quite accurate statement, but remember, the devil knows who He is as well.
Good day!
In all this discussion about slaveship and Lordship, I think one thing is missing.
We are not to be slaves of obedience, robots. We are to be love-slaves - bond-slaves who willingly choose to submit to His Lordship - why? Because He is almighty, all-powerful? No, I doubt that gets anywhere with Him.
He seeks our love - remember the “first commandment”. But, He knows we cannot love anyone but self......thus, “He gave His only begotten Son...” Herein is love, not that we love Him, but that He first loved us.
Our love is and can only be a response to His first loving us - with the only complete and perfect love.
The bond-slave - out of love, and responding to the love he has received - has his ear pierced to the door post, and says, “Here is where I want to abide forever.”
What is also missing in His lordship is that we do not know His love, we do not know the depth, height, breadth and width of what He did at Calvary.
One of the best reads on this subject is Wayne Jacobsen’s (a personal friend for full disclosure) “He Loves Me”, of which many have said one of the best things ever written on the subject. A life-changer.
Pls. see my post to Zuriel.....
You have to be kidding right? He is a BAPTIST...
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
I agree it was translated correctly in the KJV, but not for the same reason you do:
The reason is was correct in the 1600s was because the English term "servant" did not imply, as it does now, the specific concept of a free-man employee (that is a convention of Modern English)... it could be applied to a free-man employee, as opposed to the term "slave", which could not... but it could also be synonymous with "slave". Attesting to this fact is that the term "servant" was used in the Colonies and early days of the US synonymously with "slave".
From etimology.com:
The word 'servant' has the implication of free will desiring to serve, the word 'slave' doesn't.
Again, I agree with your statement, but only in regards to how it applies to MODERN English.
There are words in Greek that correlate to the modern English "Servant". The word from which we get "DEACON" is one such word, and, like the English word "Servant" can be applied both to chattel slaves as well as free-person employees.
But if one is speaking of a free-person employee, the English term "slave" is the wrong word to use. The Greek word "doulos" is the wrong word to use, in the exact same way.
Respectfully, I would ask you why you seem so antagonistic to the concept of having a slave-master relationship with God?
LOL! I just now looked at the video from the link... Is it just me or does it seem just a wee little bit overly dramatic?
**Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.**
Regardless of the denomination he is affiliated with, MacArthur doesn’t preach obedience to this part of the verse: “..be baptized every one of you in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST for the REMISSION of SINS..”.
thanks for the reply, though.
So, the difference is the WILL, which is free and can choose to serve or not.
MacArthur, being a Calvinist, wants to remove the will as a real issue in serving God.
As for the word being translated into English with it's modern connotations, the Greek word 'doulos' is translated as 'servant' by both the NIV and NKJ in Jn.15:15.
So, the difference is the WILL, which is free and can choose to serve or not.
Webster is expressing the same broad meaning of the word "servant" as I did in my last post, namely: "Servant" can refer to either chattel or "voluntary" servants. The word "slave" ONLY refers to chattle and NOT voluntary servants.
In Greek, "diakonos" is a word that could refer to either condition, just like the English word "Servant". However the point you seem to be absolutely refusing to acknowledge is that the Greek word "doulos" means "slave".
To Paraphrase Mr Webster: "The REAL difference in the use of terms is this, 'Diakonos differs from doulos, as the diakonos' subjection to a master is voluntary, the doulos' is not. Every doulos is a diakonos, but every diakonos is not a doulos'
Ironically, you can read a few lines down in that 1928 Websters and you'll see the following:
3. In Scripture, a slave; a bondman
Webster is expressing the same broad meaning of the word "servant" as I did in my last post, namely: "Servant" can refer to either chattel or "voluntary" servants. The word "slave" ONLY refers to chattle and NOT voluntary servants. In Greek, "diakonos" is a word that could refer to either condition, just like the English word "Servant". However the point you seem to be absolutely refusing to acknowledge is that the Greek word "doulos" means "slave".
When used in relationship to a believer it doesn't.
To Paraphrase Mr Webster: "The REAL difference in the use of terms is this, 'Diakonos differs from doulos, as the diakonos' subjection to a master is voluntary, the doulos' is not. Every doulos is a diakonos, but every diakonos is not a doulos'
No, because the word doulos can also mean 'servant', as correctly translated in the KJB.
Ironically, you can read a few lines down in that 1928 Websters and you'll see the following: 3. In Scripture, a slave; a bondman
Webster's also has, ' A person who voluntarily serves another or acts as his minister'(#5)
Now, when 'doulos' shows up in relationship to Christ (Phil.2:7) none of the modern versions use the word 'slave', and use either 'servant' or 'bond-servant'
When 'doulos' shows up in Rev. 15:3, 'Moses, the servant of God' none of the modern translations translate the word as 'slave'.
The Gr. word 'doulos' means exactly what it is translated into English in the KJB, servant, with the broad connotation of willing service, it is never translated as 'slave' in the KJB, nor should it be.
I don't know how to say this any other way than "you are absolutely wrong." You have been misinformed, misguided, or SOMETHING. The Greek word 'doulos' does not, in any way, connote the concept of willing service.
The word "doulos" means "slave" PERIOD. You obviously really want it not to, but it does.
Go to any online English to Greek translator, type in "slave" and see if you don't get "doulos" in the results (Greek has several words that can mean slave, but doulos will usually be the first, and if not, usually the second). Likewise, go to any Greek to English and type in "doulos", and you'll see "slave".
Please see the following links to the Perseus Project:
"...it is never translated as 'slave' in the KJB..."
The only reason this statement is true is that the word "slave" does not exist in the KJV New Testament... The KJV usually translates the word as 'servant' appropriately, as attested to in the 1828 Websters dictionary entry which states that "In Scripture", the word 'servant' means 'slave'.
However the KJV does translate doulos as "bond" or "bondman" occaisionally:
1cr 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Eph 6:8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether [he be] bond or free.
Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.
Rev 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
Rev 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all [men, both] free and bond, both small and great.
"... nor should it be. "
Here you, again, are simply wrong, misinformed, whatever. There are many examples of the KJV using the word 'servant' to refer to obviously non-voluntary servitude:
It is used in regard to Joseph's slavery in Egypt (Gen 39 & 41, Psa 105).
It is used of those who are bought and sold (Exd 12 & 21).
It is used in the same verse in contrast to "hired servant" (Lev 25:6).
It is used of those who are permanently bound to a household (Deu 15:17).
It is used of those who have run away from their masters (Deu 23:15).
It is used of those who are freed from their masters by death (Job 3:19)
Is is used of those who are ensnared by debt (Pro 22:7).
It is used in contrast to those who are free (1Cr 7:22-22, 9:19)
Again, I have to ask you why you are so antagonistic against the concept of having a slave-master relationship with God.
I'm obviously very bluntly telling you you're wrong, but I genuinely wish to be respectful in our exchange.
I'm kind of surprised by your zeal because I consider the concept of being purchased by blood, as God's own possession, a fairly universally accepted doctrine among Christians.
I gather you're passionately vested in the "free will" side of the "free will vs predestination" schism... but I don't see how the meaning of "doulos" is significant to that issue either way... I mean... I could believe I've chosen to make myself God's slave, or I could believe God's chosen to make me his slave... But to take the position that I'm not God's slave kind of flies in the face of the whole "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord" thing.
Am I just totally misunderstanding your position?
Respectfully,
OHelix
2Ti2:15
I don't know how to say this any other way than "you are absolutely wrong." You have been misinformed, misguided, or SOMETHING. The Greek word 'doulos' does not, in any way, connote the concept of willing service.
The ENGLISH translation of the word into 'servant (not slave) is what the true connotation of the word is.
That is why so many translations use the word 'servant' and not 'slave'.
The word "doulos" means "slave" PERIOD. You obviously really want it not to, but it does.
No, the word means 'servant' and that is how most of the ENGLISH translations translated it as.
The meanings of the word 'slave' and of 'servant' are different in English, and thus, the careful use of the word 'servant' and not 'slave'.
Go to any online English to Greek translator, type in "slave" and see if you don't get "doulos" in the results (Greek has several words that can mean slave, but doulos will usually be the first, and if not, usually the second). Likewise, go to any Greek to English and type in "doulos", and you'll see "slave".
Go to any Enlish translation and you will find the word 'doulos' in most translations, translated as 'servant' and NOT slave.
In Jn.15:15, only the NASB uses the word 'slave', the NIV, CEV, The Message, NKJ, NCV, NLT all use 'servant'
In Rev.15:3, the word 'slave' isn't used in any major translation.
When translating from language to another, you use the English word that best expressess what the context of the verse expresses, and it isn't the English word 'slave' it is 'servant.
A Greek would make that distinction automatically based on context.
Please see the following links to the Perseus Project: doulos - Masculine Noun doulh - Feminine Noun douleios - Adjective doulow - Verb
Thank you, but I read Greek, I know what the word means in ENGLISH.
[ "...it is never translated as 'slave' in the KJB..."]
The only reason this statement is true is that the word "slave" does not exist in the KJV New Testament... The KJV usually translates the word as 'servant' appropriately, as attested to in the 1828 Websters dictionary entry which states that "In Scripture", the word 'servant' means 'slave'.
The KJB translated it correctly because the translators understood the broader connotation between 'servant' and 'slave' and rejected the word 'slave', as did most modern translations as well.
However the KJV does translate doulos as "bond" or "bondman" occaisionally: 1cr 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Eph 6:8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether [he be] bond or free. Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all. Rev 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: Rev 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all [men, both] free and bond, both small and great.
Yes, which shows that they knew the meaning of the word and translated it accordingly based on context.
Those above listed were in fact 'slaves' but no Christian ever is., he is a servant of God.
[ "... nor should it be. "]
Here you, again, are simply wrong, misinformed, whatever. There are many examples of the KJV using the word 'servant' to refer to obviously non-voluntary servitude: It is used in regard to Joseph's slavery in Egypt (Gen 39 & 41, Psa 105). It is used of those who are bought and sold (Exd 12 & 21). It is used in the same verse in contrast to "hired servant" (Lev 25:6). It is used of those who are permanently bound to a household (Deu 15:17). It is used of those who have run away from their masters (Deu 23:15). It is used of those who are freed from their masters by death (Job 3:19) Is is used of those who are ensnared by debt (Pro 22:7). It is used in contrast to those who are free (1Cr 7:22-22, 9:19)
And each one of those places, the context will tell you the nature of the service.
No need to use the word 'slave'.
Nor, are any of those examples referring to anyone's relationship with God.
Again, I have to ask you why you are so antagonistic against the concept of having a slave-master relationship with God.
I am antagonistic to it because it isn't true.
God wants a relationship with man, one that means WILLING service, not slavery.
I'm obviously very bluntly telling you you're wrong, but I genuinely wish to be respectful in our exchange. I'm kind of surprised by your zeal because I consider the concept of being purchased by blood, as God's own possession, a fairly universally accepted doctrine among Christians. I gather you're passionately vested in the "free will" side of the "free will vs predestination" schism... but I don't see how the meaning of "doulos" is significant to that issue either way... I mean... I could believe I've chosen to make myself God's slave, or I could believe God's chosen to make me his slave... But to take the position that I'm not God's slave kind of flies in the face of the whole "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord" thing.
No, because believers bow the kneel willingly, the unbeliever will be forced to do so.
So, the importance lies in the fact that God brought out of slavery into freedom, the freedom of serving Him as a servant.
Am I just totally misunderstanding your position?
No, you are are just rejecting it since the Calvinist has no understanding that God wants a free will response from man, He derives pleasure out of it.
Respectfully, OHelix
Thank you, likewise.
Absolutely FALSE. (see below)
"Thank you, but I read Greek, I know what the word means in ENGLISH."
From The Oxford Greek-English Lexicon (Middle Liddel) and Georg Autenrieth's Homeric Dictionary:
Masculine Noun: doulos - properly, a born bondman or slave, opp. to one made a slave
Feminine Noun: doulh - female slave
Adjective: douleios - slavish, servile
Verb: doulow - to make a slave of, enslave
Regardless of your flippant dismissal of arguably the most exhaustive and authoritative database of Ancient Greek words and their usage, the above demonstrates that the meaning of the word 'doulos' is 'slave'. Claiming otherwise is a LIE!
No, you are are just rejecting it since the Calvinist has no understanding that God wants a free will response from man, He derives pleasure out of it.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I didn't jump into this thread to comment on doctrine, I jumped in to comment on Greek. My contention is not that your doctrine is wrong, it's that you are wrong to say the word doulos connotes willing service... it does NOT.
"Yes, which shows that they knew the meaning of the word and translated it accordingly based on context... Those above listed were in fact 'slaves' but no Christian ever is., he is a servant of God."
You said in Post 34 that doulos "is never translated 'slave' in the KJB, nor should it be." You were WRONG. I gave you seven examples where the word is undeniably expressed in a manner to mean slave, and I am thankful that you have graciously acknowledged this.
"And each one of those places, the context will tell you the nature of the service... No need to use the word 'slave'."
That was not my point.
My point was that your fundamental assertion throughout this entire exchange has been that the use of the word 'servant' by translators is proof that the the word translated implies "free will desiring to serve". You are WRONG! The KJV chapters and verses I cited were specific examples where the word 'servant' is used in reference to slaves.
You're doctrine may be true... but...
Your assertion that the use of the word 'servant' proves the person referred to is not a slave is FALSE.
Your assertion that the the word 'doulos' connotes in any way the concept of willing service is FALSE.
Respectfully,
OHelix
2Ti2:15
From The Oxford Greek-English Lexicon (Middle Liddel) and Georg Autenrieth's Homeric Dictionary: Masculine Noun: doulos - properly, a born bondman or slave, opp. to one made a slave Feminine Noun: doulh - female slave Adjective: douleios - slavish, servile Verb: doulow - to make a slave of, enslave Regardless of your flippant dismissal of arguably the most exhaustive and authoritative database of Ancient Greek words and their usage, the above demonstrates that the meaning of the word 'doulos' is 'slave'. Claiming otherwise is a LIE!
First, Liddell and Scott are dealing with classical Greek not Kione, which is what the NT is from.
Second, here is a definition from another Lexicon, Friberg-Analytical, '(Generally, one who serves in obedience to another's will, slave, servant (emphasis added)
So, 'servant' is used as well as 'slave' for 'doulos'
The KJB just uses 'servant' consistency and allows the context to tell the reader what kind of servant the verse is referring to.
No, that is the definition of a word found in a lexicon, as a Greek would think of the word.
'doulos' slave ('servant' for 'slave' is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times; in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinquished)(BAGD, p.205)
In other words, the English usage of the word is made to conform to the broad connotation of being a servant and allowing the context to determine what kind of servant the individual is.
No believer is ever called a 'slave' of God.
[ No, you are are just rejecting it since the Calvinist has no understanding that God wants a free will response from man, He derives pleasure out of it.]
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I didn't jump into this thread to comment on doctrine, I jumped in to comment on Greek. My contention is not that your doctrine is wrong, it's that you are wrong to say the word doulos connotes willing service... it does NOT.
MacArthur is pushing this lie because Calvinism holds to the view that believers are 'slaves' and not willing servants, who receive rewards for FREELY serving God.
For the Calvinist, God is even responsible for the believer's sins, and has no will.
The Lexicon definition of 'slave' is not followed consistency by any translation, even those who do use the word 'slave' at some times.
So, 'doulos' is considered to be correctly translated as 'servant' by all modern translation, despite the lexicon definition.
[ "Yes, which shows that they knew the meaning of the word and translated it accordingly based on context... Those above listed were in fact 'slaves' but no Christian ever is., he is a servant of God."]
You said in Post 34 that doulos "is never translated 'slave' in the KJB, nor should it be." You were WRONG. I gave you seven examples where the word is undeniably expressed in a manner to mean slave, and I am thankful that you have graciously acknowledged this.
Yes, and the context gave the clear meaning, without using the word 'slave'.
No need to use the word at all.
[ "And each one of those places, the context will tell you the nature of the service... No need to use the word 'slave'."]
That was not my point. My point was that your fundamental assertion throughout this entire exchange has been that the use of the word 'servant' by translators is proof that the the word translated implies "free will desiring to serve". You are WRONG! The KJV chapters and verses I cited were specific examples where the word 'servant' is used in reference to slaves.
The places where 'servant' is used for the believer is where the emphasis on 'free will desiring to serve' is placed.
MacArthur is saying that in THOSE verses the word should be changed to 'slave', destroying the broad connotation of free will.
So, that is the major point being discussed, in relation to MacArthur's book, is a Christian a servant or a slave?
You're doctrine may be true... but... Your assertion that the use of the word 'servant' proves the person referred to is not a slave is FALSE. Your assertion that the the word 'doulos' connotes in any way the concept of willing service is FALSE.
The word in English taken in context shows the concept of willing service.
That is why the word only the word 'servant' is used with believers, and only should be.
I never said that a 'servant' couldn't be a slave, I said a BELIEVER couldn't be a slave, not that a servant couldn't be.
I made it very clear context would tell you what manner of servant was being discussed.
So, the English word 'slave' was not needed at all since the context would tell you the difference.
A greek speaker in the 1st century, would have had the same understanding with 'doulos'.
For English speakers, the word 'servant' allows both it's narrow use (slave) and broader use (someone freely serving) and simply shows the meaning using context.
Respectfully, OHelix
I have never yet spoken with a Calvinist who actually ends a discussion when they say are going to.
You have shown yourself to be no different.
Yes, you did. Your entire exchange is based on the premise the word 'servant' implied non-slave:
Post 21 - "...The word 'servant' has the implication of free will desiring to serve..."
Further, you asserted that the Greek word 'doulos', also implied non-slave:
Post 34 - "...The Gr. word 'doulos' means exactly what it is translated into English in the KJB, servant, with the broad connotation of willing service, it is never translated as 'slave' in the KJB, nor should it be..."
Except for a comment regarding "all knees shall bow", the only time you've used to word 'Believers' until your last response (in which you used it six times and claim that that has been your focus all along) is when I noted your refusal to acknowledge that 'doulos' is in fact the Greek word for 'slave'. Your reply was "When used in relationship to a believer it doesn't", which you simply asserted without any support other than the two false premises mentioned above.
"I have never yet spoken with a Calvinist who actually ends a discussion when they say are going to...You have shown yourself to be no different."
You're implying I said I would end this discussion and didn't follow through. That implication is FALSE.
You are also, and have throughout this exchange, implied that I am a Calvinist. I've had discussions with people who describe themselves as Calvinists who would strongly disagree with you.
If you wish to end the discussion, please have the last word, and consider the following the summation of my position:
The Greek word 'doulos' correlates directly with the English word 'slave', and in no way whatsoever implies "free will desiring to serve"
Respectfully,
OHelix
2Ti2:15
Yes, you did. Your entire exchange is based on the premise the word 'servant' implied non-slave: Post 21 - "...The word 'servant' has the implication of free will desiring to serve..."
Yes, I was discussing why the word 'servant' was used, and not 'slave'.
The broader connotation allows context to determine the meaning, which the word 'slave' doesn't.
I never stated that servant meant ONLY it's broad connotation.
Again, it was in reference to believers that the word 'slavey was an issue.
The fact that word 'servant' was used and not 'slave' allowed the CONTEXT to determine the meaning.
And the issue was regarding BELIEVERS,which allowed the wider meaning to be used.
So, clearly you have reading comprehension problems.
Further, you asserted that the Greek word 'doulos', also implied non-slave: Post 34 - "...The Gr. word 'doulos' means exactly what it is translated into English in the KJB, servant, with the broad connotation of willing service, it is never translated as 'slave' in the KJB, nor should it be..."
Yes, and that is why it is translated as 'servant'(someone who willingly serves) or someone who is in bondage, it can refer to either, so the word 'servant' is used not 'slave'(with it's limited meaning in English) for the believer.
Except for a comment regarding "all knees shall bow", the only time you've used to word 'Believers' until your last response (in which you used it six times and claim that that has been your focus all along) is when I noted your refusal to acknowledge that 'doulos' is in fact the Greek word for 'slave'. Your reply was "When used in relationship to a believer it doesn't", which you simply asserted without any support other than the two false premises mentioned above.
First, the topic was on believers, that was who MacArthur was addressing.
Second, I gave you plenty of support, from Lexicons and from the fact that just about every modern translation has 'servant' for 'doulas' in many verses.
See the NIV and NKJ in Jn.15:15.
Which proves that the word 'doulos' can be translated as 'servant' and not 'slave'.
So, 'doulos' doesn't JUST mean 'slave'.
[ "I have never yet spoken with a Calvinist who actually ends a discussion when they say are going to...You have shown yourself to be no different."]
You're implying I said I would end this discussion and didn't follow through. That implication is FALSE.
Well, that was the implications of your last post, when you sign of with 'respectfully etc'
You are also, and have throughout this exchange, implied that I am a Calvinist. I've had discussions with people who describe themselves as Calvinists who would strongly disagree with you.
Well, that is my experince with them, and I have a great deal of it and your constant posts, repeating a falsehood, that 'doulos' only means 'slave' when it is translated as 'servant' an most translations, is additional proof.
If you wish to end the discussion, please have the last word, and consider the following the summation of my position: The Greek word 'doulos' correlates directly with the English word 'slave', and in no way whatsoever implies "free will desiring to serve" Respectfully, OHelix
Well, you are totally incorrect, because the word 'doulos' has been translated as 'servant' in most translations, since it does have the broader connotation of having someone having 'free will' based on the context.
The Greek's had a different connotation of what slavery was, which the English would view as two different aspects, a 'slave' could be seen either as 'property' or as a 'person'
According to the Greek laws the slave was a property, hence a legal object. He could be sold or mortgaged or his services leased. He was also, however, regarded as a legal subject -- a man as well as a thing. At Athens capable slaves might under given authority carry on business in behalf of their owners or engage in commerce independently, with the right to make binding contracts In commercial trials slaves customarily testified without use of the bastinado. In general slave status was not regarded in the Greek city-states as degrading, nor was the social and legal treatment of the slave particularly harsh, The road out of slavery into freedom, through manumission as a reward granted for faithful service, or through self-purchase, was as easy as the many hazards of life which led into it. http://www.ditext.com/moral/slavery.html
Hence, in the KJB. (and in most translations as well) the word 'servant' is correctly used for 'doulos' not 'slave' since servant can be seen, based on context, in a narrow sense (legal property) or broader sense ( legal subject) which refers to the individual having the ability to make free decisions.
Now, what is the English definition of 'slavery'? 'one who has no will of his own' (Web.1828), and yet every Christian does still have a will of his own since he can still choose to sin or not (Rom.6:16), that is not automatic, that is volitional.
Ofcourse, MacArthur rejects that with his heresy of 'Lordship Salvation' so I guess he has stopped sinning and and is no longer using his own will to reject God's will.
Or, maybe when MacArthur and the other Calvinists sin, it is really their 'master' telling them to sin and they are only being good 'slaves'!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.