Slaves of Christ (A Macarthur perspective)

[steve]

Steve Garner sent me the following video of a John Macarthur sermon. It comes in two parts. (The links are provided here)

Part One
www.gty.org/Video/Television/10336
Part Two
www.gty.org/Video/Television/10343

We would like to start a discussion on this sermon with any who are interested in watching BOTH parts. One thing about Macarthur is that he does not incite indifference. So for those of you who have time to watch this and weigh in, we look forward to a rousing discussion!

[Josh]

Well, if I can muster up the patience for MacArthur I'll give it a go.

I have to confess that I strongly differ with MacArthur on a number of issues. That wouldn't normally be a problem except that in the past he's seemed a bit, er, shall we say overly self-assured (not to mention divisive, imo) on a number of issues (women's roles, age of the earth, inspiration of scripture, spiritual gifts).

But if I have the time I'll give him another shake.

[Josh]

Ok, I started to watch it but then saw the transcript and that went a lot quicker.

So, what stands out to you as either problematic, troublesome, or spot on? Get this convo going.

[steve]

From the offset, I must admit that I don't hold many views in common with Mr. Macarthur. I'm sure we both agree on the Apostles Creed, but other than that I'm afraid we part company. Nonetheless, when my good friend Garner recommended it, I was at some sort of point spiritually where I was looking for the next revelation. I didn't want to miss the chance that, although I don't generally agree with him, God might be trying to speak to me through Mr. Macarthur.
Listening to the sermon was a steady growing agitation which prompted all sorts of responses in me. I don't like the image of slave in a desciption of our relationship to God. I don't like imfringement upon my personal freedom. I'm not sure who actually does like that. Nonetheless it is there and Mr. Macarthur was fond of pointing out how many times it shows up in the Biblical Text. I have had a few other incidences in the last few days which have brought up in my life the theme of Lordship and submission.
I guess I would like to understand my reaction better, as well as understand what the Scriptures really do indicate about our relationship to God. The reason I sugested the forums to Steve as a medium for this conversation is that I often can understand things better when I see a variety of different viewpoints on an issue.

[Josh]

Sounds good. I've got a fair amount of thoughts on this to post as soon as I can.

Is Garner going to show up? Garner- are you out there?

[Josh]

OK, here are some thoughts:


What I Liked:

I think this is a necessary message in that it emphasizes in dramatic terms that Christ has bought us with a price, we no longer live to ourselves, own ourselves or any of our relationships and possessions.

This is such a difficult thing for us to remember that it took shocking metaphors such as slavery for Paul to communicate it.

1 Cor. 6:19-20

19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

Gal. 2:19-20

19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Furthermore, this emphasizes that we are dependent creatures. In societies obsessed with individualism this is a needed corrective.

Lastly, I see him attacking the notion that it's in any way a viable option to live your Christian life without submitting to Christ's lordship. That is a dangerous idea with no backing in Scripture, hard a truth as it is for any of us to hear. That one needs to be called out.


What I Didn't Like

Though MacArthur is probably right about the word meaning and associations of doulos, I don't think the decision to render the word "servant" is too far off in the ultimate meaning we are to take from a comprehensive view of Scripture.

MacArthur emphasizes that slaves aren't paid wages and don't freely choose to work, as hired help would be, yet Christ in many of his parables implies that followers of Christ do choose to work and are paid wages. Here's just one good example:

Matthew 20:1-15

1"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' 5So they went.

"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'

7" 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.
"He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'

8"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

So, the metaphor of "hired men" is used to describe Jesus' followers as well.

I'd be all for the word doulos being rendered more literally, but that wouldn't mean that "slave" is the only or most important metaphor in Scripture for the disciple of Christ.

In addition to also being seen as "hired help", I think one could say the chief metaphor for the disciple in the New Testament is rather, child of God:

John 1:12-13

12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

Think about Jesus' main parable of the Father's relationship to us, the Prodigal Son. Remember how the prodigal says it would be better to return to his father and be his father's slave than to be away from him? Yet when he does return, he father doesn't accept his offer of becoming a slave. Instead he welcomes him as a son and throws him a party.

There are numerous references to the fact that God regards us as his children. Here's another biggy:

Romans 8:16-17

16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

Here we are also called heirs, which implies that we will inherit that which belongs to our father. I don't know how much further from a slave metaphor one could get.

Another metaphor MacArthur seems to dismiss is that we might consider ourselves intimate friends of God. But check out this verse, which I think is the quintissential verse in countering his off-balance assessment:

John 15:13-15

13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command. 15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

Why did MacArthur completely ignore this passage? How could you leave it out in a responsible assessment of this topic?

Friendship with God should be our ultimate aspiration. What is the best thing that was said about Abraham? That he was God's friend. It would be the same for us, according to the above passage.

The biggest problem here is that MacArthur is taking an important metaphor with limited application and trying to make it walk on all fours, trying to over-emphasize it, stretching it to the breaking point, and using it to beat down other metaphors or ideas that for some reason he's got beef with.

I'm going to post this before I somehow lose it and then do some editing.

[Josh]

Some more thoughts:

The rant in the video intro against personal relationships isn't very balanced. As the above passage in John indicates, Jesus wants an intimate friendship with us. That's what we should mean by "personal relationship".

Once MacArthur gets started, he plays fast and loose with a variety of terms.


Quoted from MacArthur's transcript:

In contemporary Christianity the language is anything but slave language. It is about freedom. It is about liberation. It is about health, wealth, prosperity, finding your own fulfillment, fulfilling your own dream, finding your own purpose. We often hear that God loves you unconditionally and wants you to be all you want to be. He wants to fulfill every ambition, every desire, every hope, every dream. In fact, there are books being written about dreams as if they are gifts from God which God then having given them is bound to fulfill. Personal fulfillment, personal liberation, personal satisfaction, all bound up in an old term in evangelical Christianity, a personal relationship. How many times have we heard that the gospel offers people a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?

By mixing words like "freedom" with "health and wealth" and "personal satisfaction", MacArthur makes it sounds like all of these concepts are equally off the mark. He's throwing baby out with bathwater.

But surely, freedom is at the core of what it means to be a follower of Christ, even though at the same time in some key aspects it is also like slavery.

Gal. 5:1

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.

!!!


Anyway, I'm all for him drawing out the significance of the instances where the New Testament brings out slavery metaphor. But it's truly a misleading shame for him to go a whole sermon without mentioning the real heart of the relationship we have found in Christ- children of God and friends of Jesus.

Unfortunately this article didn't do too much to improve my opinion of Dr. MacArthur.

[garner]

I’m sure John MacArthur got bombarded by email over these sermons. One thing we must give him is that he inspires discussion worldwide over his sermons.

Anyway…scripture defines scripture…this is the first law of interpretation.

Paul calls himself a slave of Christ in Gal 1:10

Epaphras is called a slave of Christ in Col. 4:12

In 2 Tim 2:24 Paul calls people like Josh, who are teachers, “slaves of the Lord”

Paul calls himself a slave in Titus 1:1

James calls himself a slave in James 1:1 - This is especially interesting since he was blood related. Obviously he had a grasp of the significance on the fact that there is no totem pole or food chain when it comes to rank or degree etc. of being Christian/saved/elect or whatever. This of course was proven by our Lord when he got down on his knees and enacted as being a slave by washing everyone’s feet in the room after they had just argued who is going be the greatest etc. if this does not teach us to be a slave then I don’t get the point.

Peter calls himself a slave in Peter 1:1

John calls himself a slave in Rev 1:1

Moses is called a slave of God in Rev 15:3

Revelations 7:3 states that those who have the Holy Spirit in the end times are slaves of God.

Jude calls himself a slave in Jude 1:1

The prophets are calls God’s slaves in Rev 10:7

All saints and prophets are calls God’s slaves in Revelations 11:18

One can go ahead and try to wriggle out of the word Doulos (Greek for slave) if they want, but logically you can’t do it using John 15. You are verifying its correct definition so that you CAN use it to get out of the issue? Again, one must use the bible to define the bible and we all must keep our feelings out of it. What we DO know is that the bible is clear that calling oneself a slave of Jesus Christ is a beautiful and wonderful and holy honor. It is not something to be avoided. It is something to be sought.

I would also add that MacArthur is educated enough to know about other verses like the one you mention in John 15. I imagine he avoided it because the text is clear about this issue in this ASPECT so he stuck with this as a focal point. I have no doubt, that he is capable of doing a sermon on the one verse in John to reconcile the two aspects for those who cannot (slave vs. no longer a slave and how can those both be true at the same time etc) I don’t think this is the issue…but if it was…I like the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy about things like this: “It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.”


I do not think this is the case though, I think it’s clear what the bible teaches about this. Bottom line there is no discrepancy. I say it this way: being a slave for God leads to you being “God’s friend” and never negates the slavery. – and the best example I can think of is the Master telling you as a slave to take your child and kill him on the altar, and you go to do it, but he stops you and after the fact calls you His friend. “and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.” It’s in that order. Nothing is stated that Abraham is no longer in a slave status.

When Peter keeps telling God “I like you” when Jesus asks if he LOVES him 3 times…liking him as a friend is obviously not enough to Jesus. Also, he calls us “no longer slaves” only after mentioning numerous times that we must love him with Agape…Jesus calls us His friends, there is no command stating that we are supposed to call him our friend and forsake our slave status. Just because He states he will call us friends does not mean we are not slaves. The Word of God only states he will no longer call us a slave. Also, you are only Jesus’ friend if you “do what I command you” (which is proof He is a Master) in John 15:14…again, nothing in the Word stating we are supposed to be out telling the world “you should be Jesus’ friend” or “make Jesus your friend” etc.

Nothing is taught that we are supposed to approach the Almighty, someone who made Isaiah tremble with dread and terror, as our buddy or pal.

At best If it makes somebody feel better to call Jesus their buddy, I say go ahead, but I hope they also call him their Master. I have a hunch one’s walk will be more impacted by the latter.

At worst calling Him our chum may not be spiritually wise at all.

May God's Word direct all your paths.

Steven Louis Garner

[steve]

Thanks Josh and Steve for weighing in on the matter. I must compliment you both on being very thorough.

Steve, A few questions for you:

- Do you believe that all those translators used another word other than slave because they were bothered somehow by it? If so, why?

- Macarthur says that being a slave means being subjected to an alien will. I find, however, that I can do what ever I want. I can walk with God or not. When I have wandered away from Him, He has lured me back with kindness and not with whippings or executions. So how am I actually still a slave?

-If being a slave is such a wonderful thing, than why does Macarthur deliver this sermon to be as unappealing as possible? (I realize that that is my subjective impression, but if I had been a non-believer, I wouldn't have been running up for the alter call afterwards.) I get the impression that Macarthur has at some point in his life been quite infuriated with people who try to water down the gospel, that he has actually gone into a opposite extreme of making it harder than it really is. It's almost like he wants to shock people with the difficulty of it, that he has forgotten that gospel actually means "good news". Wouldn't Macarthur have been better off going sooner to the good news part of slavery? (Please, fire at the hip. )

[Josh]

I personally attach a lot of importance to balance when presenting ideas. Others don't. Admittedly, Jesus himself didn't always. Still, I agree with you steve that the message here seemed reactionary and shocking in a negative way.

But it could have kept it's force and shock still even if he had been careful to explain the relationship between slave, hired hand, child, and friend (I didn't even mention another metaphor we can apply to ourselves- lover )*

BTW, I did think of a verse that emphasizes his point:

Luke 17:7-10

7"Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, 'Come along now and sit down to eat'? 8Would he not rather say, 'Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink'? 9Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? 10So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.' "

I forget, did he mention this? This one packs some punch for sure.





*Hmmm... love-slaves. Now THAT would be an interesting sermon!

[garner]

Today women’s number one career is secretary. 100 years ago it was a servant. When I say the word servant, do you picture a nanny?

The point is, this is not about how one feels when they read the word servant. We are not having a dialog about how the translators failed and succeeded. All we are talking about is the context of when the letters were read during the year they were written. It does not matter if the word is servant now, because if it evoked radical thoughts of ENSLAVEMENT then it would be the correct word now. Asking me about the translators is nice, but if you really want an answer, consult the historical record of what was written in 1611 and what people thought of the word servant back then for your answer. I do not know, nor does it matter in my opinion. Since servant does not mean slave when people hear it now, Dr. MacArthur goes to length to let the viewer know that a nanny may not be what they hope to achieve as the pinnacle of servitude as a Christian.

Matt. 6:24 - No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Doesn’t reading this verse mean more to you now than 3 weeks ago? If not, perhaps John MacArthur failed?

By the way, John mentioning an “alien will” is not that big a deal. Try this one written by, no doubt, a non-believer:

CHRISTIANITY: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

My point is, even the non-believer gets it. Sure, no leap of faith for us, He gave us Spiritual site. For the non-believer is it pure foolishness. It always will be.

This is why its so amazing that we know Him at all. Blind, deaf, dumb, starved, chained in darkness, and dead are what we are when Christ finds us. He is the one who frees us, brings site, lets us hear with the Spirit, lets us speak the truth, is our bread, and HE is the Ressurection.

I find it amusing that everyone (there are none righteous, no not one) refuses to be his slave but will readily agree that “Jesus is Lord” or is “King” or is “Master.” My opinion is that if you like those titles but do not live as His slave, then you do not understand what it means that He is your Master. This is just logic. I am not stating that this is me or anybody I know (even Spurgeon failed claiming to spend ten minutes out of His Throneroom here and there). I frown on others daily, others frown on me, others frown on them, but we are all filthy and unworthy period.

Yet, Jesus’ message is unappealing? Yep. I think it great that you credit John MacArthur with such Charisma and scholastic intellect as to be able to be MORE elitest than the Christ of the World Himself. (sniff…yep sarcasm) However, Jesus IS THE STUMBLING BLOCK AND ROCK OF OFFENCE. Imagine that as a name for oneself? Probably better than God having the name “Jelousy.” Perhaps people make an error thinking they cannot be offended or stumble if they have the Holy Spirit? You can stick with Him being a friend, I do myself, but I want Him as everything including friend. Seems a nice thought to be best friends with the police chief, with the most powerful lawyer, with the city’s most renown judge, with the King of a country. Would you argue that you only want them as a friend and not their title because you would still have to be restricted by their rules? I highly doubt it and if you were like me, you would flaunt that you knew them personally and drive a little over the speed limit with impunity. Now we know why we speed, cuss, and frown once in a while eh?

Take God at face value…entire bible, cover to cover !!

Malach 3:6 - For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

[Josh]

CHRISTIANITY: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Ha! The first time I heard this was from a student who tried it out on me, not knowing that I was a Christian.

My opinion is that if you like those titles but do not live as His slave, then you do not understand what it means that He is your Master.

It is possible to see the term Master and Lord in terms of the relationship of a Knight to his Lord or a martial arts disciple to his Master. These metaphors hold more dignity in some ways than the image of "slave" walking on all fours.

Still, if by "slave" it is meant that we are utterly dependent on Jesus, that God the Father owns us because of His blood, if it means we must surrender our choices to His will, that we aren't worthy of his beneficence, then slave is a good metaphor.

You can stick with Him being a friend, I do myself, but I want Him as everything including friend. Seems a nice thought to be best friends with the police chief, with the most powerful lawyer, with the city’s most renown judge, with the King of a country.

Amen.

Would you argue that you only want them as a friend and not their title because you would still have to be restricted by their rules?

Good rhetorical question.

Take God at face value…entire bible, cover to cover !!

Of course we must submit to God's own revelation about Himself and not just cling to our own ideas, which prove ever to be deceptive and easily blinded. We need as holistic a view of God as we can possibly get, but that's part of why I didn't end up liking MacArthur's overall thrust- it isn't holistic.

[moritz]

This thread provokes different thoughts.

1)My understanding of "slave" is a human who is the property of somebody else.

Since God is the creator of everything and has control over everything, one may well argue that he possesses everything, including us.

So the decisive question to me is: can one quit the job? Is one free to live without God? Can one remove oneself from God's control or jurisdiction? The answer, the way I see it right now, is no. Even if one decides not to believe and not to stick to the rules there is no escaping God's will. No matter where you run, the master will find you, put you on trial and execute his verdict.

2) The attempt to draw slavery of Christ as something positive reminds me in an awkward way of the slavery apologists of the 19th century. They used different lines of argumentation, including the Bible. They argued that slavery was a good thing because what they really did was saving the immortal soul of those heathen animals. The argued that God commanded slavery and that Jesus approved it. They argued that African slaves were better of than Northern workers, that they got medical care, a safe place to stay, food supply etc. Sounds good doesn't it? No it doesn't.

Let's face it: Slavery is never a good thing. Because the benevolence of the master is only granted as long as you act according to his will. If you are happy with the rules he imposed upon you, you're lucky. But you know very well that you may never change your mind.

This reminds me of my first day at the military. The Lieutenant welcomed us (the recrutes) with the words: "You better be happy to be here, cause if you're not, you're here anyway."

3) If Steve Kunselmann's* (or was it originally CS Lewis'??) view of hell as a place locked from the inside was true, the case would look differently. Then one would actually have the freedom to seek and stay at the one place God allows to exist, where he is not. I don't know if this view is in conflict with scripture or not, though.

That's it for the moment.

Sincerly yours,

the king of brevity

[Josh]

I think this is going to be my next site of crime, to coin a Moritz phrase

[Josh]

I came across this passage in my study for teaching on Sunday and it was so relevant to this discussion, I just wanted to insert it here even though it's not directly related to the recent comments (which I'd like to respond to when I have time). But anyway, here's a passage that contrasts the slavery we were in before Christ liberated us with the sonhood* and brotherhood* we now enjoy:

Hebrews 2:10-17

10In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers. 12He says,
"I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises."13And again,
"I will put my trust in him."And again he says,
"Here am I, and the children God has given me."

14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. 17For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

* or daughterhood and sisterhood

[Josh]

Sorry... I keep coming across "servant/ slave" passages while I'm doing my study. (Thanks to MacArthur my eyes are opened )

Here's a great one I think should be the grounding for a sermon like he gave:

Phil. 2:5-7

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

In whatever aspects we are slaves of God, Jesus himself was willing to become one as well.

MacArthur touched on this some, didn't he?

[Josh]

Robin,

I found that essay of George MacDonald's on this topic. Thanks for the tip. Very interesting. Steve (s)- I'd highly recommend it. It's called Freedom.

Here's a relevant snippet from his reflection on John 8:32, 34-46:

"[Man's] slavery to sin is his ruin. His slavery to God is his only hope. God indeed does not love slavery. He hates it. He will have children, not slaves. But he may keep a slave in his house a long time in the hope of waking up the poor slavish nature to aspire to the sonship which belongs to him, which is his birthright."