Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | djconklin | 28337 | ||
The Greek word that is here mis-translated as "bond-servant" in both translations is "doulos" and means "slave". The NASB has Christ Jesus just as Paul wrote it--why did he do that? |
||||||
2 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | EdB | 28358 | ||
Doulos (bond-servant) carries the basic idea of subservience and has a wide range of connotations. It was sometimes used of a person who voluntarily served others, but most commonly it referred to those who were in unwilling and permanent bondage, from which often there was no release but death. The Hebrew equivalent ('ebed) is used hundreds of times in the Old Testament and carries the same wide range of connotations. The Mosaic law provided for an indentured servant to voluntarily become a permanent bond-slave of a master he loved and respected. “If a slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently” (Ex. 21:5–6). That practice reflects the essence of Paul’s use of the term doulos in Romans 1:1. The apostle had given himself wholeheartedly in love to the divine Master who saved him from sin and death. In New Testament times there were millions of slaves in the Roman Empire, the vast majority of whom were forced into slavery and kept there by law. Some of the more educated and skilled slaves held significant positions in a household or business and were treated with considerable respect. But most slaves were treated much like any other personal property of the owner and were considered little better than work animals. They had virtually no rights under the law and could even be killed with impunity by their masters. Some commentators argue that because of the great difference between Jewish slavery as practiced in Old Testament times and the slavery of first-century Rome, Paul had only the Jewish concept in mind when speaking of his relationship to Christ. Many of the great figures in the Old Testament were referred to as servants. God spoke of Abraham as His servant (Gen. 26:24; Num. 12:7). Joshua is called “the servant of the Lord” (Josh. 24:29), as are David (2 Sam. 7:5) and Isaiah (Isa. 20:3). Even the Messiah is called God’s Servant (Isa. 53:11). In all of those instances, and in many more in the Old Testament, the term servant carries the idea of humble nobility and honor. But as already noted, the Hebrew word ('ebed) behind servant was also used of bond-slaves. In light of Paul’s genuine humility and his considering himself the foremost of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15), it is certain that he was not arrogating to himself the revered and noble title of servant of the Lord as used in the citations above. He considered Himself Christ’s bond-servant in the most unassuming sense. There is, of course, an honor and dignity attached to all of God’s true servants, even the most seemingly insignificant, and Paul was very much aware of the undeserved but real dignity God bestows on those who belong to Him. Yet he was constantly aware also that the dignity and honor God gives His children are purely from grace, that in themselves Christians are still sinful, depraved, and undeserving. He wrote to the Corinthian church, “What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one” (1 Cor. 3:5). Here Paul uses the term diakonos to describe his position as servant, a term commonly used of table waiters. But as in his use of doulos, the emphasis here is on subservience and insignificance, not honor. Later in the same letter he asks his readers to regard him as a galley slave (4:1). The term used here is huperetes (“servants”) which literally means “underrowers,” referring to the lowest level of rowers in the large galley of a Roman ship. This was perhaps the hardest, most dangerous, and most demeaning work a slave could do. Such slaves were considered the lowest of the low. Because he was called and appointed by Christ Himself, Paul would never belittle his position as an apostle or even as a child of God. He plainly taught that godly leaders in the church, especially those who are diligent in preaching and teaching, are “worthy of double honor” by fellow believers (1 Tim. 5:17). But he continually emphasized that such positions of honor are provisions of God’s grace. MacArthur, John F., Romans: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, (Chicago: Moody Press) 1994. Of course I know you think MacArthur is a cheap hack that copied this from some other writer. However I like him. :-) EdB |
||||||
3 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | djconklin | 28363 | ||
"Of course I know you think MacArthur is a cheap hack that copied this from some other writer." Well, if you think that then you don't know me nor do you know how to think. I have never said that MacArthur was cheap or a hack or that he copied from some other writer. Still haven't read point #2 for posting on this forum? Please apologize for you lies about me. |
||||||
4 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | EdB | 28366 | ||
If I be found guilty of lying about you in any way I humbly apologize. It was never my intent or purpose to personally attack you in any way. I was merely trying to show what you said was not accepted by the Christian majority and therefore should be taken with a large measure of salt. I also was trying to show your scholarship was lacking and was in need of correction. Further I was trying to draw out of you what your real intent for the all this was. I believe you’re a seventh day Sabbatharian, of which there is nothing wrong with in itself, however I and most of the this forum do not hold that position so I see no reason for you to keep pressing it here. I do not believe any of this causes me to violate point #2 for posting to this forum. If that not be true then I do apologize and ask for forgiveness from anyone that feels I did violate point #2. As far as I know you are a prince of a fellow. I just really wish you would get off the seventh day soap box. EdB |
||||||
5 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | djconklin | 28369 | ||
"I was merely trying to show what you said was not accepted by the Christian majority and therefore should be taken with a large measure of salt." Let me get this straight: if you study something in any sort of deprth and find that the majority who have not disagree with you then you're supposed to chuck it? Good thing Martin Luther didn't think like that. "I also was trying to show your scholarship was lacking and was in need of correction." I didn't write the article on doulos for the TDNT. If you wish to quibble with them then go right ahead and prove them wrong--just get off my back!!!!! "I just really wish you would get off the seventh day soap box." Ah, Ed this verse doesn't talk about the seventh-day at all. So, why are you on the soapbox? |
||||||
6 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | stjones | 28392 | ||
Note to djconklin and EdB: Speaking from experience as one who has probably violated both rules 2 and 3, I think I can safely say that each of you has one foot over the line and one foot on a banana peel. Just my opinion, of course. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
7 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | djconklin | 28452 | ||
Love the metaphors Steve! | ||||||
8 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | stjones | 28491 | ||
Hi, dr; To quote that great Bible scholar Mary Poppins, "a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down, the medicine go down, the medicine go down". ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones who confesses to a violation of rule 1 |
||||||