The Christian as Slave(Captive) or Son(Child)?
Now that I have read Dr. John MacArthur’s latest book, Slave, I can now provide more thoughts on the main thesis within it. His main purpose in the book is to show us that as controversial and counter-cultural as it may be, we must accept that the primary way we find identity in Christ is as a slave to God. He begins by providing information on an “English translation conspiracy” that has taken the word for slave in the Greek and changed it to mean servant. So throughout the New Testament the servant has really replaced the word slave. We are then to look at all the texts in the New Testament around servant (which there are many) and see the revelation of the Christian life being the life of the slave.
My thought on this point is simply this. If we are to believe that there is an English translation conspiracy that has caused us to miss the mark on the true role of the Christian in relationship to God, why are we not so sure that there are no Greek translation conspiracies? How many times in the New Testament is the Greek translation taking Hebrew words out of context? In the book, A Prayer to Our Father: Hebrew Origins of the LORD’s Prayer, authors Keith Johnson and Nehemia Gordon actually make this case. They show through the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, ways in which the Greek translation has taken some Hebrew words out of its original context and meaning. Conspiracy?
The point here is, Dr. MacArthur may be creating another conspiracy in trying to uncover one. Or another way of putting it would be, he’s continuing the conspiracy of a Euro-centric captivity on biblical interpretation.
The next thing MacArthur does in the book is move to the Old Testament. His point here is to present the Exodus story as God bringing the Israelites out of slavery to Egypt in order to bring them into slavery under Him. This provides a very limited view of the Old Testament story. His foundation is in the interpretation of the Hebrew word “eded” which means slave and servant. What he doesn’t bring up is that this Hebrew word is rooted in another Hebrew word, “abad” which means slave, servant, husbandman, worshipper, and worker. I have two takes on this point in the book.
One, in MacArthur’s drive to make slaves out of all Christians, he leaves out another picture of the New Testament story. What about the picture of a God who frees a people from slavery, makes a Covenant with them, and then calls them to extend his love and justice to the poor, widow, orphan, and immigrant? MacArthur is so focused on “slave texts” that he seems to not care about what the Old Testament has to say about freedom, justice, and Covenant. The question becomes then, does Covenant equate Captivity? MacArthur seem to believe so. The second point is if the Hebrew word “abad” means slave, servant, husbandman, and worshipper, why is the focus of the book only on the slave portion of the meaning of the word?
The rest of the book is spent on looking at how Jesus and the authors of the Epistles in the New Testament mainly describe the Christian life as the life of an obedient slave to a Master, which is God. One, I cannot argue that there aren’t a number of biblical texts that describe the Christian as servant and slave. The issue is that this isn’t the only way the Christian life is described in the New Testament. In MacArthur’s focus on God as Master, he ignores the number of places where God is described as Father. I would argue that Jesus spends more time talking about God as His Father than as His Master. The disciple John spends a lot of time describing the Christian as a “beloved child.” MacArthur seems to believe that the only way to get obedience out of a Christian it to make him or her a slave. I respectfully disagree. The more we focus on God as Father and Liberator, the more space we have to describe the Christian as the liberated, transformed, and beloved child, who ought to live in obedience to a loving and all-powerful God of justice.
Finally, I’m saddened by how MacArthur hardly shows any sensitivity to the history and impact of slavery upon African-Americans. He doesn’t acknowledge that he isn’t the first European-American to use an interpretation of slavery in the bible to develop a theology and influence the masses. This is how slavery was justified many years ago in the United States of America.
6 Comments
Leave a comment
BLOG Categories
I agree with your points on Dr. MacArthur’s work. I haven’t read his book yet, but from your points his focus seems narrow, which may take away from the effectiveness of his message. Afterall, we are just messengers, and when our message loses its effect, then what good is the message?
I’m curious if you know if there is a difference between bondservant and slave in either Greek or Hebrew. Or even in english. If being a bound servant originated in heaven and not on earth, it seems typical that the earthly version might be corrupt and wicked, while the natural system in heaven is just and beneficial. What else is a creature bound by love to service to God, than a slave. I think about the nature of angels, and all other heavenly creatures, that tend to the throne of God and humanity. I think about what we are destined to be.
If MacArthur doesn’t present the heavenly view of bondservanthood or slavery, then i find it difficult to see the benefit of his theology on the topic. He may have had an opportunity to undo the negative connotation around the word slave, rather than reinforce it. Again I’m not sure if he failed to do this, as i did not read the book. But if that was his intention than I may agree with his effort, and easily ignore any upfront offense.
Nice review, Efrim. As you suggest, biblical metaphors of God carry contemporary connotations that matter for our interpretation of our ethic, our God and idenity. As you suggest:
“The more we focus on God as Father and Liberator, the more space we have to describe the Christian as the liberated, transformed, and beloved child, who ought to live in obedience to a loving and all-powerful God of justice.”
Theology “God as Father and liberator” defines our self-understanding as a people who are “liberated, transformed and beloved” which in turn defines our ethic of the Christian who “ought to live in obedience.” Right on.
Biblical metaphors for God are windows into the heart of Gods’ action that inform our identity and our ethic. And the interpretation and contextualization of those metaphors requires both translation and sensitivity.
The letters of Paul and the experience of many Christians suggests that when our identity is informed, formed and filled by the God that metaphors point toward, that we will grow in desire to know God more, love God more and love our neighbors more.
Wouldn’t it be something to move beyond thinking or feeling that “ought to live obedience,” towards thinking and feeling that we actually get to, even want to? Maybe that’s the image of God that Jesus restores in us. And maybe Jesus’ relationship with his Father on our behalf is the key to interpreting any biblical metaphor of God.
There is room in each life for only one master (Matt 6: 19-24). If God is to rule in our lives then our will must be made subservient to His. We must be willing to give up anything in life in order to follow and please God. Rom. 12:1,2, Matt 6:33, Luke 14: 25-33, 2 Cor. 5: 14,15. Luke adds that we are to “take up our cross daily,” Luke 9:23. Do any of these concepts seem to ring a bell with you? And, for the sake of argument, why do you contend that being a “slave” somehow prevents one from showing God’s “love” and “justice to the poor, widow, orphan and immigrant?” My experience is that those with a contrite heart are much more likely to convey God’s love as his conduit, than the “complete” and “put together.” Your very skewed theology concerns me, because it seems to be rooted more in politics than God. ( I have taken the time to listen to numerous sermons of yours and am very concerned about the partisan endorsement of candidates and ideology.)
Within the organization you presently work there is a man who has allegedly been involved in criminal acts, breaking into properties, etc…, in the name of God and Jesus. Yet, this is not addressed and is passed off as some sort of “civil disobedience.”. It is not! It is a criminal act, which should not, as it has been in your organization, glorified. We are to humbly follow Christ and be obedient to him. Yes, there is freedom in Christ, but there is also responsibility.
Finally, and you know from earlier posts of my African American heritage, something of which I am quite proud, that I just don’t get your constant effort to play the “race card,” to somehow “strengthen” your arguments. I have read Dr. MacArthur’s book and see nowhere that he is “Insensitive” to African Americans. Where do you come up with this stuff? You were criticizing the man, before you EVEN read his book. Do you believe it serves the Kingdom, or to use your term, not the Bible’s, “Kingdom Justice” to falsely accuse this brother in Christ, simply for your own advantage? From what I read, this man is neither “insentive” or “racist.”. And, as a fellow African American, I’d appreciate it if you would save such titles for those who are guilty of it, not those you simply disagree with politically or theologically! My belief is that a true man of God, the leader you claim to be, should apologize for such a cheap parting shot. I don’t expect to see it though.
Brother Efrem, I think I have to agree with Peter. You are fixated on race to an unhealthy degree. Almost every post you make has something to do with race. You speak about the mosaic, but I don’t think a God who made me black, looks at the color of my skin. As a new Christian and an attendee of a Covenant church in the LA area, I am put off by the constant emphasis of race. Is color really an issue as I worship with all my brothers and sisters in Christ? Not to me. That is a socio-political issue unrelated to our eternity.
The promise of heaven is a place where we all worship as one, in fellowship with the Trinitarian God and our brothers in sisters. As long as we live on this earth, these “socio-political” issues, like race, are real factors in how we live our love for one another and and for God. To deny it is to diminish it.
I enjoyed your comments. I also had a discussion about this at my blog site readers might be interested in reading. Here is the link: http://pastordonc.blogspot.com/2011_05_01_archive.html