Featured Are you a Slave of God?

You said it . Consider who it came from.

 

What amazes me is that over 80% of the participants here still think of themselves as slaves of God despite the clear teachings of scripture which indicate that is not what God desires from our relationship with Him.

 

I take that back...I can see if people take 'slave' to mean 'bond servant' (volunteering to follow him) how they may vote that way. That question can be deceiving, but I think it is important to draw the distinction, after all Christ did.

 

Yep. Slaves are not willing to be slaves. No one sells themselves into becoming chattel.

I'm not sure the OP understands that doulos does not mean "slave" in the sense we understand the term in modern times. When Moses, Isaiah, David, Daniel, and then John, Peter, Paul, etc., wrote the Hebrew 'ebed or the Greek doulos, which both translate "slave," the sense was as Israel knew the term: To be voluntarily indentured to a household for the purpose of servitude. Commonly, the slave of those times was paying off debt, or committing his/her life to the service of someone who meant a great deal to them, for having rescued them from dire circumstances, or from economic ruin. Every seven years, at the Jubilee, the slave was freed, and while a slave, was paid, given housing, medical care, etc., and in fact slaves were considered part of the Jewish middle class.

There was even provision in Jewish law for a slave who did not want to be freed to indenture him/herself to the family permanently. Even then, if a slave was elevated by virtue of marriage into the family, or by great and uncommon service that led the household to treat them as family, they instantly ceased being a slave. There is a picture of this very practice in Christ, at the Last Supper, saying to His disciples:

John 15, NASB
15 "No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.​

We don't understand that as being "slavery." It is employment, servitude, a calling. Slaves of the last 400 years would welcome that kind of treatment and respect. We don't immediately understand these terms in the Bible clearly, because we do not have its understanding of the term as it was used in the ancient world. Those who were treated as the slaves of modern history are treated were not even identified as "slaves," but as captives.

 

So did servants choose to be servants, or were they elected to be servants?

 

I'm the one arguing for 'friends,' so I'll allow someone else to answer...

 

Depends on the context.

 

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. - Galatians 5:1

 

:thumbs::godisgood:

 

Bondage to a corrupt form of Judaism- not bondage to Christ.

The NT calls us "doulos" dozens of times.

We are slaves of Christ.

We are to see ourselves as slaves of Christ.

Even in the eternal state we will STILL be slaves of Christ and what joy that will be!

Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

 

When ordained as a deacon, we were given a towel with the word "doulos" printed on it. I keep it in a place where I see it often.

 

...which further supports Skan and my point. A deacon is a servant, not a slave. Context dictates how 'doulos' is used.

 

No, context NEVER means that doulos means "servant" at all in the sense in which we think of a servant in mpodern times.

Slave. That's the word the Holy Spirit chose to use. He could have chosen to use other Greek words that soften the term to mean "servant". Those words were available. The Holy Spirit did not choose to use those words. He meant that we ought to see ourselves as slaves.

 

Who ever said anything about understanding servant in modern times? Biblical slavery was servanthood. You must believe salvation is voided every 7 years as was the case in the year of jubilee when the slave was freed. If anything, you are applying a modern understanding of slavery, which was never done to a child or a friend...both of which we are called by God.

 

You're missing the point. WHILE IN SERVITUDE they were slaves. Period.

They did not go where they wanted, when they wanted. They did not punch out at the end of the day and do things without their masters' permission.

They were real slaves.

That's what Jesus calls us.

And just because he ALSO calls us friends and a hundred other titles does not mean that he does not call us slaves anymore.

Again, when Jesus said "From henceforth I call you not slaves but friends..." he HAD to mean from that point until his soon approaching crucifixion. Because he inspired the rest of the NT and calls us slaves CONSTANTLY.

And even in the eternal state we are called slaves of God as I pointed out earlier.

 

It's like my mariage. My wife isn't just my wife. There's more to our relationship than that. She's my wife, my best friend, my lover, my companion, half of me. Her being my best friend doesn't negate the other aspects of our marriage. Same with Jesus. He's my best Friend, Master, Teacher, Saviour, and Father. Him being my best Friend doesn't negate the others.

 

True.

Here's where the problem comes in:

Jesus called the disciples friends. That he called them friends is then applied to us as well, in other words it is for us too, He called 'us' friends -- BUT -- we have other passages, such as John 6, John 10, and others, where Jesus talks about His Sovereignty, HE chooses &c, and THEN 'lo and behold' THAT PASSAGE was for THEM and NOT US.

And that is the merry go round hermeneutic employed by scan and others on here.

 

I wonder if there is a day here on the bb that the p4t doesn't employ his new pet word 'hermeneutic'.

Maybe he should try using it instead of saying it as he still is wrongly filtering it through what we understand as modern day slavery, and not slavery as understood written to the Jews, which was not a permanent relationship. I'm sure this is where he will insert his other pet phrase 'straw man' or some similar pejorative.

 

You are focusing on one aspect of biblical slavery. We also don't know after their work was done they couldn't do what they wanted after their work was completed, you assume that. The point of emphasis using the slave analogy is the indebtedness we are in which leads to a voluntary submission into servanthood due to this debt, and a desire to dedicate our lives to the one paying the debt. You all are taking it to an unhealthy level, one never intended to go. Heck, even the prodical son's father wouldn't take his son back as a slave. Christ is surely no slave to the Father...and we are now one with Him.

 

Why? Because that's how you understand it? Have you considered that you might not be interpreting it correctly? Because you aren't. Sorry.

No, we are called "bond-servants" and as I explained very, very early on in this thread, that isn't the same thing as what we understand, over the last 400 years, to be "slavery." But as you insist on ignoring that, and the biblical language that proves it, I think you're just going to have to agree with the rest of us to disagree. What say you? No point in getting contentious, is there?