[It looks like this video has since been deleted. The video, however, was simply a condensed or abridged version of a longer sermon preached by John MacArthur. The complete sermon can be seen here.] The word that is usually translated as “servant” in most Bible translations, including the KJV, in the original Greek and Hebrew literally means a “slave”. That is the literal meaning of the words in the original languages. The KJV has rendered these in most instances as “servant,” and most later translations have followed suit; although some modern translations have broken ranks with that tradition, and used the word “slave” instead.
The word “servant” (including “servants”) occurs 885 times in the KJV Bible; 741 times in the Old Testament, and 144 times in the New. The word “slave” is used twice in the KJV Bible, in Jer. 2:14 and Rev. 18:13. So which is the better translation, “servant” or “slave”? The translators of the KJV (and most later translators) evidently have felt that “servant” is a better translation. There are several modern Christian apologists, however, who have felt that “slave” is a better translation. John MacArthur for example in the above video argues in favor of using “slave” rather than “servant” to translate those words. He has also written a book called Slave: The Hidden Truth About Your Identity in Christ, in which he argues in favour of the word “slave” rather than “servant”. He has also a promotional video for his book which can be seen here. Here is a quote from the introduction to the book:
“After more than fifty years of translating, studying, teaching, preaching, and writing through the New Testament, I thought I had its truths pretty well identified and understood—especially in the realm of the New Testament theology of the gospel. In fact, clarifying the gospel was the most important and constant emphasis of my writing—from The Gospel According to Jesus, Ashamed of the Gospel, Hard to Believe, and The Truth War to countless sermons and articles through the years. But through all those efforts, a profound and comprehensive perspective, one that dominates the New Testament and is crucial to the gospel, escaped me and almost everyone else.
“It wasn’t until the spring of 2007, on an all-night flight to London while reading Slave of Christ by Murray J. Harris, that I realized there had been a centuries-long cover-up by English New Testament translators that had obscured a precious, powerful, and clarifying revelation by the Holy Spirit. Undoubtedly, the cover-up was not intentional—at least not initially. Yet its results have been dramatically serious.
“A cover-up in the English New Testament translations? Was that true? Why? And with what consequences? Had no one uncovered this before Harris in 1999?
“It didn’t take long to find one who had—Edwin Yamauchi in his 1966 Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society article entitled “Slaves of God.” Why had there been no response to his work? And how could a truth related so essentially not only to translation integrity but also to New Testament teaching about our relation to Christ be purposely hidden and the cover-up ignored?”
So which is the better translation, and who is right? I believe that “servant” is the better translation, and for a good reason. That is because the word “slave” in English carries with it the connotation of an unwilling servant. He serves because he has no other choice—the implication being that if he had the choice, he wouldn’t! That is what “slave” means in English. In ancient Hebrew and Greek, however, the word carried exactly the opposite connotations to what it does in English. It meant an exceptionally willing and obedient servant!
The English word “slave” also connotes an abusive relationship between the master and his slave; whereas in ancient Greek and Hebrew, it carried no such connotations. Joseph for example was sold in Egypt, and purchased by Potiphar as a slave; but his relationship with his master was not an abusive one. On the contrary, his master was so pleased with his service that he was greatly honored, and put in charge of his master’s entire house. The English word “slave” simply does not carry the right kind of connotations to convey that kind of relationship.
In ancient cultures, such as Greek and Hebrew (and many others), if somebody needed a domestic servant, such as a cook, a house maid, or a gardener for example, he would go and buy one! There was no such thing as “employing” a domestic servant, and paying them a “salary,” or a monthly “wage”. No such thing existed. There was only one way to obtain a domestic servant, and that was to go to the marketplace and buy one! If Jesus wanted to say “servant” as we understand the word in English, he wouldn’t have been able to, because such a word didn’t exist in any of the cultures and languages of the time and place. The word “slave” is the only word that he could have used that came closest to it—except that the word “slave” in English carries exactly the opposite connotation to what he meant by it. The word that comes closest to it in English is “servant,” not “slave”.
There were also such thing in those days as hired servants (Mark 1:20; Luke 15:17–19), who were daily labourers, and often worked on agricultural land, or as construction workers etc. They were employed on a daily basis, and received an hourly wage. In the New Testament Jesus refers to those in Matthew 20:1–15. But there was no such thing as hiring or employing a domestic servant. Those were only bought and sold.
Now if you want to translate such words into English, with the connotations intended by the original authors such as Jesus, the nearest word in English that comes closest to it is servant not slave. So the KJV translators get it right once again!
_____________________
P. S.
After I had posted the above, I looked up “servant” in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, and found that one of the definitions for the word “servant” that it lists is as follows:
“3. In North American colonies in the 17–18th c., and subsequently in the U.S., servant was the usual designation for a slave 1643.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if in Old English too the word “servant” had more or less the same kind of meaning. “Slaves” are also servants. That is what they do, they serve. The only difference is that nowadays they are paid, whereas in those days they were owned. So translating the Greek word doulos (δοῦλος) as “servant” in English is by no means an unreasonable or unexpected translation. It comes closest to the original intent of the biblical writers, including Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment