Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:1-2).The word is doulos, and is most simply translated "slave." Paul classified himself and Timothy as slaves of Christ.
What complaints this statement stirred up! "Slaves? We're not slaves!" One even pointed to the passage before where Jesus told His disciples, "No longer do I call you slaves" (John 15:15). "See? We're not slaves." It didn't matter that I pointed out that Paul said this after Jesus made that statement. "We're not slaves; we're friends of Christ."
Perhaps its an American mentality. You know -- "No sovereign," "Give me liberty or give me death" -- that sort of thing. Americans are largely defined by the two terms "independent" and "equal", with the emphasis at this point going to independence. But, I wonder, is that really where we want to go when speaking of God?
Independence is defined as "freedom from the control, influence, support, aid, or the like, of others." That sounds good to some. Not me. We like "freedom from control" and even "freedom from influence", but do we really want "freedom from support and aid" ... when we're talking about God? In fact, do we even want freedom from influence when we speak of the Holy Spirit? Is "independence" really how a Christian should want to be defined?
Paul defined basic salvation this way: "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved" (Rom. 10:9). (What does that say about people who call themselves "Christians" but deny His resurrection?) If the basic definition of "saved" includes "Jesus as Lord", do we really want to assert our independence and distance ourselves from His Lordship? In one disturbing passage, Paul asserts, "No one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). It is disturbing by its inverse suggestion. If someone doesn't claim Jesus as Lord, can they claim that they have the Holy Spirit? And if they don't have the Holy Spirit, in what sense can they claim to be born again -- a Christian?
Freedom is a popular position. We all want it. We want it for others. We see it as a God-given right. And, in some sense, perhaps it is. But when we start asserting our freedom from being slaves of God, I think that we've gone too far. That would take us away from His control, His aid, His support, His salvation, and His Holy Spirit. I think I would much rather be classified as a bond-servant of God than a mere friend if it meant finding out that I was not His friend after all by making the assertion.
2 comments:
I meant to comment on this yesterday because we did a study of the original Greek for "bondservant" in Revelation 1. Basically, the root of this noun, "douloo", is "deo", which means, to bind, be in bonds, tie, wind, knit. So being a bondservant of Christ means we are knit to him. The word "douloo" is also translated as "slave", but I don't think it gives the full flavor of the original. It's the same type of slavery as someone who binds him or her self to another who has saved his/her life...appropriate, don't you think?
Makes perfect sense. And slavery, in this application, is the most reasonable thing for us to submit to.
Post a Comment