The word disciple occurs some 239 times in the Gospels; 30 times in the book of Acts. The Gospels end with the “Great Commission” to make disciples, yet the word is never used in the Epistles. Why? What happened to discipleship as the church moved into a Greek and Roman culture? Was it replaced, forgotten, or was it restated in language that a non-Jewish audience would understand? What was a Roman concept that would capture the allegiance, submission, and total surrender that was so core to the Hebrew concept of a disciple/apprentice to his rabbi?
Jesus, speaking of life in his kingdom, used three metaphors to capture the relationship between himself and his followers: disciple to teacher/rabbi, slave to master/lord, and member of a household to head of household (Matt. 10-24-25). In each case, conformity and a shared destiny are expected.
However, the New Testament Epistle writers drop the concept of disciple/teacher in favor of the concept of slave/master. They did this possibly because the word disciple in the Roman culture (pupil to teacher) didn’t carry the idea of total commitment, ownership, and serving that it did in the Hebrew culture.
In the Greek language, there are a variety of words that get translated as servant in English. One of the most common in Scripture is the word doulos, which is properly translated as “slave.” The other Greek expressions range in meaning from minister or deacon (diakonos) to household servant to attendant. The word doulos (slave) appears 124 times in the New Testament. Unfortunately, it is most often translated into English as “servant.” The NASB version is the most accurate translating doulos as slave 65 times and as bondservant 24 times when referring to a relationship with Christ and his kingdom.
In the first century culture, every slave was a servant, but not every servant was a slave. Although both served someone, there was a significant difference. A slave was owned; a servant was hired. A slave was totally committed to its owner; a servant could have divided loyalties and serve more than one person. A servant was temporary, but a slave was permanent. A doulos could be either involuntary or voluntary, although most slaves were captured from military conquests.
At the time of the first-century church, about 20% of the Roman world population were slaves. They were slaves mainly by conquest, some by birth, and a few by choice. Walking down the streets of Rome, you would not immediately detect who was a slave and who was free. The lifestyle of a slave depended entirely upon the character of the master or owner. Some slaves, who were eventually given their freedom, chose to remain as slaves since their living conditions were better than many of the free poor.
English translators of Scripture avoided the term slave probably due to the connotation of plantation slavery in the past few centuries. The NASB translators use the term bondservant where doulos is used in the spiritual rather than the physical context.
The core ideas in doulos as bondservant are:
- Voluntary submission
- The whole person
- The absolute authority over another
- Without pay
- For a lifetime.
Slave and master are different sides of the same coin. The Greek word kyrio, used over 750 times in the New Testament, is translated lord, master, or owner. Jesus used the slave/master terminology in many parables to describe life in his kingdom (Example: Matt. 18:23-35; Luke 12:35-40).
Scripture claims we are all slaves to someone or something. In the Old Testament, the children of Israel were liberated from slavery to the Egyptians to become slaves of God (Lev. 25:55). Peter said that we are a slave to whatever controls us (2 Peter 2:19). Paul said we have been freed from slavery to sin to become slaves to righteousness (Rom 6:19). Furthermore, we have been bought with a price, so we are now owned by Christ (1 Cor. 9:19-20).
It is interesting to observe that the New Testament leaders’ common self-identity was that of a slave (doulos) of Christ. Paul identifies himself as a slave before an apostle (Rom. 1:1). He claimed to be a slave who served. John, Peter, Jude, even Mary self-identified as Christ’s slave (doulos). In the book of Revelation, John and Moses are identified as slaves of Christ and in the final chapters, believers around the throne are called “His bondservants/doulos” (Rev. 22:3). Paul refers to men he mentored, like Timothy, Epaphras, and Tychicus, as bond-servants/doulos in the Lord (Phil 1:1; Col 1:7; 4:7).
Substituting servant for slave implies that allegiance is temporary, even optional. If we are only hired, then we can choose when, how much, and how long we obey, treating Christ’s words as suggestions, his values optional, and his mission as elective. Translating slave as servant has the same effect as translating disciple as student rather than an apprentice. In both cases, we rob the words of their core meaning, making us comfortable rather than committed.
The reason that being a doulos was so central to the early church was that it was central to the life of Christ. Paul writes, “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant (doulos)” (Phil 2:5-7). If we are to emulate Christ and he is a doulos, well…the implications are obvious.
The term disciple dominates the Gospels as the word bondslave dominates the Epistles. Both describe a relationship of total and perpetual alignment through obedience. The welfare of a slave depended totally on the character of the master. So the way to understand our relationship as slaves to our Master Christ, is not by diminishing the concept of doulos, but by raising our understanding of the character of the One who bought us and promises to provide all that we need…forever.
We often list our identity in Christ with terms like saint, child of God, citizen of the kingdom, follower, disciple, etc. How often do we include the term doulos/bondservant?
For Reflection
1. What is your reaction to being called a slave/doulos of Christ?
2. What are some consequences of thinking of a slave as only a servant?
interesting, I have wondered the same thing!
This is a very interesting blog, Ron! It is a good explanation of why the word disciple is not in the epistles. I’m glad that the NASB translates “doulos” as “bond-servant” instead of “slave”. To me “bond-servant” implies that the relationship was voluntary while the word “slave” implies the relationship was involuntary. Also I think, to most people, the word slave implies someone who is often treated badly by his or her master. It appears to me that the Apostle Paul mainly uses the word “doulos” in our relationship to Christ rather than to God. The exception is in Titus 1:1. I wonder if that is because God is more to be thought of as our Father rather than our Master. On the other hand Jesus Christ, as our older brother, is to be thought of as our Lord and Master as well as our Savior.
Good observation. It seems that the title “Lord” is primarily in reference to Christ especially in light of His ascension and coronation…”He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” Heb 1:3 and hence the triad name the Lord Jesus Christ.
Very interesting and enlightening! Modern culture obviously portrays a slave as someone mistreated, but I love your observation that the life of a slave is dependent on the character of the one who owns them. Because the character of our God who bought us with His Son is so amazing, we can live an amazing life as his slave / bond-servant. Thanks for explaining that so well!