Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Friday, January 04, 2008

Slaves or Servants (pt 2)

What is the more accurate translation of doulos?

In my previous post on this subject, I outlined the claim made by KJV-only advocates that the King James translation is the most accurately translated Bible version in the English language. My contention with their claim is its inability to withstand any legitimate apologetic scrutiny. For if it can be shown there is a better English translation of the original language of the biblical text, then the KJV-only apologetic defending the KJV as the most perfectly accurate English version is fallacious.

One undeniable example that devastates this claim made on behalf of the KJV is with the translation of the N.T. Greek word doulos. The primary definition of doulos, as I noted in my introduction, means "a slave" as in a person owned by a master. The KJV, however, consistently translates doulos as "servant" or "bond-servant," and even though the word "servant" isn't necessarily inappropriate as an English translation, it's just that "slave" is more precise and captures the emphasis of the authorial intent.

KJV-onlyists are keenly aware of these types of difficulties which challenge their defense of exclusivity for the King James. In response to such difficulties - which are many - KJV-only apologists have contrived elaborate "Bible studies" meant to repel and put down these sorts of criticisms and then defend the KJV as being the better Bible version in English ever. The translation of doulos as "servant" in the KJV is no exception.

I have been interacting with a couple of internet KJV-only apologists on this very issue of the precise rendering of doulos into English. In reply to my challenges against them, that because the KJV uses the word "servant" instead of "slave" to translate doulos it misses some important redemptive nuances, I was sent a link to an article written by one my antagonists attempting to provide a rebuttal.

To summarize it for my readers:

My opponent first rips into me for what he perceives as my deficient view of scripture. He calls me a "Bible corrector" because I suggest there are clearer translations than what the KJV offers. Name calling is a common tactic employed by the more extreme and desperate KJV-only apologist.

Then oddly - and I mean "odd" in that it is a bit weird - he blasts an article I supposedly wrote on the subject of slaves and servants that doesn't exist yet. As I sit here and write at this moment, I have yet to publish an article on the subject of slaves and servants. That is exactly what I am writing now. The only mention I made to this individual on the subject of slaves and servants and how the words are used in various English translations was on a private email forum and I never really went into any detail on the subject. So, either my KJV-only challenger has the gift of prophecy or he has contrived an article against me, risking looking foolish for claiming things against me when he doesn't even know what I am going to say to begin with.

Then he moves into outlining his main arguments against the translation of doulos as "slave." First, he provides a list of English translations both pre-KJV and post-KJV which do not translate doulos as "slave" with any consistency. He points out that most English translations render the word just like the KJV as "servant." But there are three problems with this argument:

First, we are not talking about how the NRSV or NKJV may or may not translate a word. Our subject is how the KJV translates a word. Next, none of the other proponents of these translations are claiming any sort of exclusivity for their chosen Bible version to the point of refusing to revise it because to do so is tantamount to changing God's Word. And then, just because other translations translate doulos as servant doesn't make the KJV right. They all are just as mistaken and are in just as much need of being revised as the KJV.

He then attempts to justify the KJV translation of doulos from how the O.T. word ebhed is translated. The Hebrew word ebhed may have a more far reaching usage in the O.T. depending upon context than the more specific doulos in the New, but we are not talking about how the KJV translates an O.T. word; we are discussing how it translates doulos in the N.T.

And then finally, his main argument defending the translation of doulos as "servant" is because Christ has "set us free" from sin, and so we are no longer "slaves" to sin, but "servants." As clever as that explanation may sound to some, it doesn't even begin to answer why, if the word "servant" is meant to be a positive declaration of our relationship to Christ after salvation, is it also used to describe our relationship to sin before our being set free by Christ.

With that as an introduction, let me move onto as to why I believe "slave" is a better translation of the word doulos than "servant." I will consider some grammatical/lexical data, look at some theological ramifications, and then draw some conclusions.

The Lexical Data for doulos

Let me begin with the basic English definitions of "slave" and "servant". My American Heritage Dictionary defines a "slave" as, "A person who is owned by and forced to work for someone else.," and a secondary definition states, "A person completely controlled by a specified influence, emotion, etc. " The definition of "servant" on the other hand is, "One employed to perform domestic or other services."

It should be noted that the primary difference between these two words hinges on the concept of legal ownership. A slave is technically "owned" by another person, which means the slave has no choice in the matter and must work for the master involuntarily by compulsion. The slave's work is thankless and a necessary duty. A "servant," however, is not "owned" as property nor is compelled by force to work, but is employed by another person voluntarily and retains the freedom to stay or leave. Additionally, unlike the slave, the servant's work will be rewarded monetarily for the most part.

The distinction between those two words in English is enough to demonstrate that at many points throughout the KJV the word "servant" is deficient as a translation when the context clearly implies "slave" or "slavery." In fact, the concept of ownership conveyed by the word "slave" is completely lost upon the KJV-only advocate who insists upon defending their pet translation against all odds to the contrary.

With that in mind, what about the lexical data for the word doulos itself?

Beginning with the most accessible lexicon to the average reader, The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon defines doulos as, "to ensnare, capture, serving, subject to, a slave, bondman, man of servile conditions." (pg. 158). Only the last entry hints at the idea of servant as one not owned as property.

Taking it up a notch, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia Vol. 4 describes doulos,

"The Greek word doulos, in the N.T. more properly might have been translated 'slave' instead of 'servant' or 'bondservant,' understanding though that the slavery of Judaism was not the cruel system of Greece, Rome and later nations. The prime thought is service; the servant may render free service, the slave, obligatory, restricted service." (pg 2815, emphasis in original).
Note the distinction. Even though both a servant and a slave are serving or could even rightly be called "servants," servants render free service where as the slave is obligated and restricted to serve. The key is ownership by another.

Then, moving on to The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. 3,

"In order to appreciate the nuances of meaning in the NT we must first see what its attitude is to the position of the slave society ... Occasionally, slaves are put in a position of responsibility and command (Matt. 24:45). "No one can serve as slave to two masters" (Matt. 6:24). His work earned him neither profit nor thanks; he was only doing what he owed as a bondslave (Lk. 17:7-10). The master could use his unlimited power over his slave -- for good (Matt. 18:27) or for unmerciful punishment if he were guilty of some fault (Matt. 18:34; 25:30) ... Repeatedly slaves are called to be obedient to their masters in all things -- even to unmerciful ones (1 Pet. 2:18)."
Again, note the emphasis on legal ownership and the position of a slave to serve his master regardless and his master's power either good or bad over him.

Then lastly, from the Theological Lexicon of the NT, Vol. 1, the entry for doulos begins emphatically by stating,

It is wrong to translate doulos as "servant," so obscuring its precise signification in the language of the first century. In the beginning, before it came to be used for slaves, doulos was an adjective meaning "unfree," as opposed to eleutheros and this dichotomy remained basic in the first century ... The word slave refers above all to a legal status, that of an object of property. To be a slave is to be attached to a master... by link of subjection -- you are the slave of that which dominates you (2 Pet. 2:19; cf. Rom. 9:12). A slave is an article of personal property that one buys or sells, leases, gives, or bequeaths, that one can possess jointly..." (pp. 380, 381).

Hopefully - if folks are still with me at this point - these lexical citations clearly show there is a specific and precise meaning to the word doulos that implies the subjection of one to another and ownership of a master over his slaves. Moreover, and most importantly, there is theological implications with the use of doulos in the NT as it describes our relationship to sin and to our savior. So let me turn now to some theological implications,

Theological Implications with doulos in the NT

If doulos clearly speaks to a master-slave relationship and legal status and ownership, and the NT writers, especially Paul, employ doulos as a term to describe our soteriological status to sin and then our Lord, then there is an undeniable need to convey the word as precisely as we can when translating it. In this case, as "slave" rather than "servant" as the KJV consistently does.

Because I only need one example to show how the KJV-only claim of perfect accuracy for the KJV is false, let us consider Romans 6. The chapter follows after Paul's discussions concerning man's sin and God's justification by the death of Christ for sinners. Coming to chapter 6, Paul talks about our current relationship to Christ now that we are saved. The terminology he uses is compelling in the context of describing our legal status before God by justification in chapters 4 and 5.

Beginning in 6:6, Paul describes our legal status as being "slaves to sin." The word "slaves" is translated from douleuo, which means "to be a slave" or "enslaved." Our bondage was to sin. However, as Paul goes on, we are set free by the justifying act of Christ on the cross and our legal status changes. No longer are we "slaves of sin," but we are now "slaves of righteousness for holiness" (Romans 6:16, 18, 19) Our legal position is no longer indebted to sin, but now to righteousness (6:20), and we are rightly called "slaves of God" in 6:22.

The KJV through out this entire chapter never once uses slave to describe our position while in sin and now as we stand before God in Christ. I must ask: If being a servant is one that is voluntary and without compulsion, how exactly is our identification with sin exactly voluntary and without compulsion? Seeing that Paul describes our slavery to sin in such radical terminology in Romans 1-3, I find it hard to believe a person would understand sin's power in a sinner's life as being some inanimate force we just happen to choose to serve.

Additionally, this concept of slavery has major ramifications in the so-called "Lordship" debate, because if Paul's terminology is one of being a slave to God, that in turn means mandatory, subjective obedience to a sovereign ruler, or master. We are not "free" to live as we please. Our obedience to Christ is absolute and immediate upon the moment of justification by faith, because the act of justification places us in a brand new legal position: no longer slaves to sin, but slaves to God. There is none of this second tier Christianity where a person can choose to believe one day, and then later choose to make Jesus Lord of his life. That is a servant mentality of one who is employed and has the pleasure of coming and going or taking his leave as he may please. This is not what the Bible presents as true salvation before God. He is our rightful master because he purchased our deliverance from the bondage of sin with the blood of His Son who now makes us His own.


I believe the conclusions are obvious. The primary definition for doulos is "slave" not merely "servant" as a more accurate and precise translation into English. Not only does the lexical data support this definition, but so does the doctrines of salvation as outlined by the biblical writers.

This means a couple of things.

First, if we want to accurately reflect in our English translations to modern readers the true intent of what the biblical writers meant to convey in their epistles, we must use the most precise language available to do so or we miss giving the whole counsel of God to readers.

Moreover, those KJV-only advocates who make the grandiose claims that the King James Bible is the only English translation to accurately translate the original languages and then proceed to build an apologetic defense against any reasonable need to revise and update the language of this faithful old translation are not only seriously misguided, but are intentionally leading Christians into error about God's Word.

Labels: ,


Blogger Steve Lamm said...


Excellent points. I read a message by MacArthur that spoke to the meaning of "doulos" as "slave" and it surprized me how most English translations have avoided this rendering probably because of the cultuiral stigma attached to the term.

But your point regarding the KJV is also right on the money. I have done my own extensive word study on "doulos" and found the same thing you have.

Steve Lamm

7:23 PM, January 04, 2008  
Blogger Carl said...

Personally I've encountered many KJV-Only proponents via Usenet newsgroups and frankly the vast majority of them take the extremists views in a similar vein to Ruckman, Riplinger, Gipp and Chick. I've long wised up and just don't allow myself to engage them in vain, repetetive, useless arguments/debates.

I was first introduced to this divisive topic many years ago and as such I began to research it going as far as purchasing several books on the topic. I may not be the most intelligent egg in the package but the arguments used by many KJV-Only proponents (especially the extemists) are so full of logical fallacy, outrageous claims and deliberate falsehoods that I am hard-pressed to see how anyone could buy into their arguments. Furthermore the vitriol spewed forth by many KJv-Only proponents that I have encountered either directly or indirectly really gave me pause as well. I just won't accept KJV-Onlyism as legit.

8:00 PM, January 04, 2008  
Blogger Steve Lamm said...


Exactly where have you been debating with the KJVO guys on the web? I'd like read some of the interchange.

By the way, this line of argument is one of the most devastating to the KJVO position I've seen!

Steve Lamm

10:11 AM, January 05, 2008  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Hey Steve,
I was sort of signed up to the group by another person a couple of years ago. There is rarely any activity on the group, but with in the last month and half or so, a new gal came in asking questions. Well, everyone who receives notices of new posts via email, of which I am one, began interacting with her questions and then the KJV cranks jump into the discussion and folks have gone all over the place.

The group is a Yahoo group called, versions@yahoo.com. I would imagine if you have an account with Yahoo, you can do a search for "versions" join it so as to have access to their archives and start reading somewhere back around the first of November.

I generally do not interact with the group at all, but the KJVers were a bit more testy this time so I thought I would have some fun and press them on their presuppositions a bit. =-)

The rest, as they say, is history and the result were the two articles I wrote on servants and slaves.


10:56 AM, January 05, 2008  
Blogger The Seeking Disciple said...

I agree with the others who have posted. The word "slave" is probably not as politically correct today and therefore modern translations tend to avoid it. The NASB still translates the word as "bondservant" which is better than say dyanmic equvilents such as the NIV or the NLT. The ESV uses the word "servant" with footnotes adding the word can be translated "bondservant."

I perfer translating the word as slave although I do believe nothing is necessarily lost if you translate the word as "servant."

10:25 AM, January 07, 2008  
Blogger Highland Host said...

Quite right, actually. Whilst there are a few places where 'doulos' may be used in passages reflecting the O.T. 'servant of the Lord' concept, the word does literally mean slave, so slave is a more accurate translation. A servant, though he might find it difficult to leave his job, could indeed resign. A slave cannot (well, not legally). We used to have a member in my Church who had been a servant in a mansion, though, and by all accounts the service wasn't exactly freely offered!!!

(the lady in question died last year at a very great age)

6:49 AM, January 11, 2008  
Blogger Highland Host said...

PS. I wonder if the nature of American slavery, which Mr. Wesley called the most abominable cruely, hasn't made more recent translators wary of the word. The thought could be that 'slave' to an American readership conveys something rather different from the slavery of the ancient world.
All of which comes down to the commonplace that very rarely do words in one language have an exact correspondent word in another.

6:52 AM, January 11, 2008  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Your last comment is quite insightful and I think the shame of slavery practiced in previous centuries has made translators hesitant to translate the word doulos as slave where it so clearly implies slavery.
When John MacArthur preached on this subject earlier this year those were his observations as well. I think there is something to it.


6:56 AM, January 11, 2008  
Blogger Gummby said...

Fred: I was just reading this interview today with Ed Blum, the General Editor of the HCSB. He made the point (among other things) that the HCSB is the only translation he knows of that uses "slave" for doulos, and what we miss if it isn't translated that way.

10:24 PM, January 13, 2008  
Blogger Rich said...

in your example of 1 pet.2-18 the greek work for servant in not doulos strong number 1400,but oiketes srong num.3610, i found you online when doing a study for doulos and am enjoying your blog


10:25 PM, February 15, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home