“Paul, a ‘Slave’ or ‘Bondslave’”? Misinterpreted Bible Passages #7

Categories: Biblical Studies, Misinterpreted Bible Passages, New Testament

Stay Updated

Get notifications of new books, posts, and other media (now on Substack).

Jason Staples Substack

At the beginning of his letter to the Romans, Paul introduces himself as  “Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, a called apostle set apart for the gospel of God ….”

One would think that this would be a rather difficult verse to misinterpret, but nearly anything is possible in biblical interpretation. In this case (as in many), archaic translation bears the brunt of the blame, as several translations render the Greek word for “slave” (δούλος, doulos) as “bondslave,” “bondservant,” or similar form that has fallen out of common use. In order to explain the unusual word, folks who don’t really know the original languages explained this difference by looking back to Exodus 21:6, which lays out the procedure for a debt slave to become a life-long slave (a decision presumably tied to a good master or perhaps a wife given to him by the master while under debt slavery), sealed by the piercing of the ear with an awl.

Anyway, the teaching in question basically explains that Paul wasn’t just a regular slave, that his use of the term “bondslave” (rather than “slave” or “servant”) refers to the voluntary slavery of Exodus 21, highlighting Paul’s piety or underscoring some difference between these concepts. The problem is that this notion results from those who not only don’t know the original languages but also don’t really know these somewhat archaic English words. Etymologically, “bond-servant” is used to distinguish a purchased slave who is owned by (bound to) his master from a servant who is simply hired help but is free to go elsewhere. Essentially, “bond-servant” means “slave,” in distinction from “servant”; another equivalent term often used before the 20th Century was “bondman” (i.e. “bound man” or “man of bondage”), which is what the Darby translation uses.

“Bond-slave” arises from the same origin and is a direct (albeit emphatic) synonym to “slave,” again meaning an owned or purchased slave, one bound to a master as opposed to a free person. These words aren’t used today outside of Christianese, which lends them to easier misunderstanding. The translations that use “bond-servant” are actually trying to distance themselves from the KJV, which simply uses “servant,” which isn’t really the right word to translate δοὐλος today, since “servant” in modern English implies a free person in distinction from a slave bound to an owner. But many translations are a bit twitchy about using the word “slave” in these cases due to the extremely negative connotation attached to this word today (thanks to our history of race-based slavery). Thus, some 20th Century translations elected to go with the somewhat archaic but more precise “bondservant” (NKJV & NASB) or “bondslave” (again the NASB, which isn’t consistent w/its rendering of this word).

This led to the fanciful interpretations going back to the “voluntary” slave of Exodus 21, explaining that this is why Paul would call himself a “bondslave” as opposed to just a “servant” or “slave.” Of course, it’s all completely wrong. Paul simply uses the basic Greek word for “slave.” There’s no inherent notion of volunteerism in this word—it’s the same word that was used for a slave that was purchased at a slave market or from another owner—nor is this a unique word, as the archaic translation “bondslave” might suggest. Rather, Paul merely uses the basic word for a person who is owned by another person.

For that matter, Exodus 21 doesn’t support this change in terms, either. The Hebrew word in the passage doesn’t change—the man is a “slave” (עבד) before his ear is pierced, and he serves (עבד) after his ear is pierced. Same word. If one wants to point out a difference, it is between a debt-slave in the first instance—an Israelite debt-slave could only be held for seven years—and a “slave” or “bond-slave” (that is, an owned slave, one in bondage—a much more severe state) in the latter state. “Bond-slavery” is the more severe enslavement—a permanent one in which one is owned as property, as opposed to debt-slavery, which was to be limited in its timeframe. Either way, by Paul’s day, the debt slavery outlined in Exodus 21 (and the practice of voluntary slavery) had long ceased; in his introduction, Paul was straightforwardly using the standard word for “slave.” It is extremely far-fetched to think of this as an intentional reference to Exodus 21, and it’s even more unlikely that his audience (who were accustomed to hearing δούλος in everyday speech) would have connected Paul’s self-identification as a slave to ancient Israelite slavery regulations.

There’s no question that Paul’s application of δοὐλος to himself indicates his being “bound for life” to serve God, and he uses the word denoting the most servile state one could have in the Graeco-Roman world: “slave.” But the point is better preserved by applying the modern form of the word in the passage, and any attempt to find something “special” about this particular word (beyond its indication of being owned and in a servile state) goes beyond the evidence of the text. It really does just say: “Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus.”

Tags: bondslave, eved, Exodus, Greek, Hebrew, Misinterpreted Bible Passages, New Testament, Paul, slave, Translation, δούλος, עבד

89 Comments. Leave new

  • There is no need to translate the bible, there is the New Testament Recovery Version that is available to the seeking ones. It is wonderful, there are footnotes that unveil the mystery of the Word. Please google the following, LSM the new testament recovery version online. I hope you will enjoy it more than I do.

    • I have a hard copy and am not particularly impressed with the translation, especially with how textual decisions are handled. I also have significant concerns about the “recovery” theology underlying the translation and notes, which is similar to the views of KJV-only proponents who believe the KJV to actually be a re-inspiration on a higher level than the manuscripts (and eclectic critical texts) upon which it is based. No translation is perfect or makes further examination or translation permanently unnecessary.

      Rather than trust a single English translation, I would prefer to stick to the best available manuscript evidence in the original languages.

      • Alexander Price
        November 14, 2017 3:00 pm

        Hey, Brother- while we strive for academic excellence and historical accuracy, a good rule of thumb I find is this: HOW does this Word of God interpret my life and HOW do I engage the “Living Word” (Ha Torah- early church’s name for Jesus). Do I have that experiential closeness of the manifest presence of God upon my life? Am I looking for the “Spirit of Wisdom and Revelation” to increasingly show me how to love God more OR I am more concerned with perfect parsing? Simply Food for Thought. Bless you, Alexander

        • “Ha Torah” does not mean “Living Word,” nor was it the early church’s name for Jesus. “Ha Torah” is just a transliteration of the Hebrew for “the Law” or (more literally) “the instruction.” It’s the word that refers to the first five books of the Hebrew Bible.

          Thanks for the comment, however, and for the sentiment.

      • bill erickson
        January 12, 2018 6:09 pm

        thankd for the confirmation
        i had studied this out myself and came to same conclusion.i also just recently heard someone for the first time say the same which is John Mcar th ur who preached a whole sermon on it!
        i wish everyone understood this.many think “serving”Jesus is optional. i also re-translated my “nearly infallible version”bible verb form of the word”slaving” where applicable.
        thanks for your studies!i love your piece on lusting after a woman!
        fantastic. keep it up.we need the truth in these last days.!!!

        • T.S. Rohnevarg
          March 19, 2019 8:15 pm

          McArthur notwithstanding (as for consideration of anyone who names the Bible after themselves, I’ll leave that to you), the fact that we are identified as ‘slaves’ in the NT is not endorsement of our identity as slaves as we may understand that. Despite all this huffing and puffing over doulos, Jesus sweeps it all away with one word (Jn 15:15) “No longer do I call you slaves, but FRIENDS.” The embrace of slavishness is indistinguishable from the justifications used by early Americans to legitimize the bondslavery (yes) of those whom they held captive in the South. These individuals were purchased by warlords who captured them and then sold them as slaves. They were fully, legitimately ‘slaves.’ Yet, NO modern Christian would except such reasoning because we find this practice repugnant to the whole counsel of God. Further, Paul is wont to describe himself in many other lowly characterizations: scum of the earth, prisoner, fool, to name a few. Each of those words means precisely what you think they mean, there is no legerdemain to be gleaned from these terms; they’re clear as day. Yet, when Jesus would have us identify ourselves, his admonition, as Christians for centuries have acknowledged we are ‘bold to say,’ OUR FATHER, not Our Master, or Our Jailer, or Our Judge. We have been delivered out of these relations to one of loving intimacy as with a Bride, not a slave. As Jesus says, “A slave does not know what His master’s business.’ Well, we DO; the Holy Spirit (who IS God) TELLS us. Yes, it is true, as Solomon tells us, that We are His, but it is equally true also that He is Ours. This essential relational truth should not be lost in the discussion.

  • Well said, it so discourages me to admit to myself the vast majority of individuals would allow misgivings and uncollaborated, in fact, even disproven dogmas and ideologies to propigate. When will intelligent humans take the time and make the effort to find the truth about discrepancies that arise and stop clinging to traditions of their predesessors, instead of blindly, proudly defending errors, at best, and outright lies at times. Take the politics and population control out of the equation and throw in some common sense and maybe i will reevaluate my conclusions about religions.

  • You might be interested in reading a new book by John MacArthur entitled, “Slave: The Hidden Truth About Your Identity in Christ.”

  • Go back to your Hebrew roots to the culture and understanding that was then and you will get a complete picture of the bond servant and what Sha’ul was talking about, because as we all know he was Jewish and studied under Gamliel . lived and worked in a Jewish community and was talking to another Jew when he wrote the letter to Titus.

    Go back to the Culture and many things will be revealed.

  • Enjoyed your article. Here is a related article you might enjoy.

  • Enlightening. Thanks.

  • […] ministers are slave-traders – all Christian ministers (Paul called himself a slave, Jesus said you should become captive and you should submit and deny yourself ). They are preaching […]

  • Nhlanhla Zwane
    February 18, 2016 2:45 pm

    Do not be overly worried about the exact meaning of words guys. The truth is one can never be right in everything of God . Otherwise he can be on the same level with Jesus. He alone is righteous. Our righteousness does not depend on us getting everything right. Remember we are righteous only because Jesus is righteous.

    • Nevertheless, I don’t think willful ignorance and abandoning any effort to understand the world around us or the texts in front of us is the best course of action.

      • Jason,

        What do you think about the book of Daniel ch. 23. I believe the CDC is the antichrist who will force people to receive a vaccine (mark of the beast) by those who don’t have faith in God and believe they need a vaccine to save their life. Jesus is our savior, not the CDC.

        • There is no Daniel chapter 23.

          The CDC is also not the antichrist, and vaccines have nothing to do with the mark of the beast.

          If someone shot me, I would not refuse medical treatment on the grounds that only Jesus can save me. If I cut myself, I use antibiotics to help the wound heal faster and stave off infection. These things have nothing to do with replacing Jesus as savior, and vaccines are no different.

          The mark of the beast in Revelation is about showing allegiance to this world’s unjust system—it’s the opposite of the “seal of the spirit” earlier in Revelation. Neither can be seen with the eye (John is seeing in the spirit), and neither has anything to do with vaccines or physical marks. If you’re living a typical American life and pursuing wealth and money for your own benefit, you’re closer to the mark of the beast than anything having to do with vaccines, microchips, bar codes, or anything else.

          • Richard Aberdeen
            December 13, 2021 12:57 pm

            You are correct that the mark of the beast is not vaccines. Anyone who has actually read Revelation will know this, simply because the mark of beast is in one’s forehead or forearm (or perhaps hand). Obviously, vaccines go in neither place.

            That said, there is a most wicked and evil man who will be revealed likely very soon, as well as a globally recognized false prophet, who apparently will appear on the world scene prior to the antichrist himself. There will come a time on earth when the world’s currency is controlled by this most wicked and evil man and his false prophet and, no one on earth will be able to buy or sell without either the mark of the beast or the number of his name.

            The technology is already in place today, in the form of credit card and similar transactions. Banks are already seeking to eliminate cash transactions and, to implant people and tracking them. They are also working on a individualized “number” that can be used for remote transactions. This system matches what it predicts in Revelation, which plainly says no one may buy or sell without either the mark of the beast or, the number of his name. Global banks and credit card systems are directly heading in this direction, whether they have read the Bible or not.

            It is unclear what the “mark” of the beast actually will be. Because of evolving nano-technology, it may not be and implanted computer chip as some claim today. But rather, it may be an actualy type of tattoo or similar mark, what with nano-technology, information could be woven into an actual tattoo or “mark”. It is unclear exactly what this means, because the text says “he who has wisdom, let him understand”, indicating it may well not be a physical mark. Again, no one knows at this time exactly what it will be. But we are told it will be in people’s foreheads or right forearms (or possibly hand or back of right hand, translation not entirely clear).

            It is unwise to dismiss what is clearly predicted in the Bible and, what is clearly unfolding in front of our eyes on a daily basis.

            It should be noted as a warning to all who may read this, that any man or woman who receives this “mark” will be cast into hell come judgement day.

          • None of this is what the mark of the Beast is about in Revelation. For one thing, the mark is a specific number (the number of the Beast’s name) and is the same number for everyone who gets it, not a separate identification number for each individual. These money systems, chips, etc. have nothing to do with the mark of the Beast, nor will they.

            The mark is instead the inverse of the seal of the spirit, representing those who have imprinted themselves with the world’s way of doing things rather than God’s.

        • Monica,
          VAre you implying that if you opt to get the vaccine you must not be saved? Your statements seem to imply that the difference between being vaccinated for covid and not being vaccinated is directly related to your faith.

    • T.S. Rohnevarg
      March 19, 2019 8:36 pm


  • Is there a theological implication for whether it is a willing slave or not? Does this imply irresistible grace? Can a spiritual slave still run away like Onesimus? Is it a robotic slavery?

    • There is certainly a theological implication to that question. It definitely does not imply irresistible grace, as that concept is entirely foreign to Paul—it’s a nonsense phrase given that concept of reciprocity was inherently embedded in the word translated “grace” (χάρις). There are no robots in Paul’s world or imagination—slaves can behave or misbehave. They are not automatons.

      Nevertheless, Paul insists that all that he does and all that anyone can do must come through χάρις, since God is the source of all things. All a human being can do is return to God what is already his—thus the concept of reciprocity embedded in the concept of grace.

  • Well said, in Jewish thought becoming a slave again for any reason is shameful. Hence, the ear and the door. The ear: Hear oh Israel, and the door, where the blood was painted the night of the first Passover.

  • Hey jason, totally appreciate your insights and research. Just out of curiousity, I would like to hear your perspective on Malchus and the cutting off of his right ear. Do you think it was because Peter was left-handed as some scholars say, or because he was a bondservant under Caiphus and may have had his ear pierced? I’ve heard it said the latter, and was just super interested to get more opinions on it. As you can imagine, once Jesus healed his ear, IF Jesus grew a fresh new one (instead of attaching the original)…IF he had been a bondservant in the traditional Exodus sense, the last thing he would of wanted to do after being the recipient of Jesus’ final recorded miracle, would be to continue serving Caiphus. I wonder if Jesus grew a fresh ear and in that act set Malchus free from having to keep his commitment to Caiphus. Sorry that’s a longer ramble than intended. (I do realise it only says “slave” in the original text regarding Malchus, however seeing who is master was it just makes me wonder if Caiphus may have kept to some archaic traditions.

    • 1) Just a reminder that “bondslave” or “bondservant” does not specifically refer to one who has had his ear pierced with an awl to become a lifelong slave; it is just an older English longhand for what we would today call a “slave.”

      2) If Malchus was a Jewish slave of Caiaphas, it’s entirely possible he had his ear pierced, but we just don’t have enough information from the text to infer that.

      3) Quite frankly, I’m not sure what the point of the extra detail of it being the right ear is; the passage that addresses the piercing of the ear to mark a lifelong slave doesn’t specifically reference the right ear.

      I’ll have to look closer at this in the future, but those are my thoughts off the top of my head.

  • Rick McClain
    July 14, 2016 12:28 pm

    Good article, and nice, clean website. Thanks.

  • I am starting the Book of Romans for my High School Sunday School class. I rely heavily on our Pastor’s notes as well as 4 commentaries to help the Hebrew and Greek. I appreciate this website and your explanation clarifying the simplicity of what Paul was actually saying.

  • Staples has established in this post alone, a new style of commentary., utterly of the moment with its transparency, openness and honesty while simultaneously achieving the highest levels of classic scholarly examination and analysis. Good biblical commentary adds to the reader’s understanding of the sacred Word. Great biblical commentary links the anointed Word of God with our. everyday lives to deepen our understanding both of the richness and depth, but also of the direct impact the living Word must have on our day-to-day existence, what Eugene Peterson describes as “everyday, ordinary life—your sleeping, eating, going-to-work, and walking-around life.” (Romans 12, The Message)

    As such, the best form of commentary must be constantly evolving to speak to the culture as it shifts and emerges, while simultaneously holding fast to biblical truth and examining the ways and the why’s behind past attempts falling short or losing their contemporary effectiveness.

    Thank you for this post which has significantly increased my understanding of God-spoken Word through the lens and life of Paul. I know I wrote this as if it were a review for the Times as if my opinion matters. I am not a biblical commentator or anyone whose name would be recognized, but wow! Would I like to add Jason Staples to my list of colleagues in Christ-centered communication in it’s various forms. Thank you.

  • Randolph Harris
    February 13, 2017 1:21 pm

    In many New Testament books, the word bondservant was used in reference to a person’s commitment to Jesus. Most of Paul’s letters begin by referring to himself as a servant of Christ Jesus. James and Jude, half-brothers of Jesus, both refer to themselves as Christ’s bondservants. The apostle Peter called himself a “servant and apostle” (2 Peter 1:1).

    The importance of these New Testament authors referring to themselves as bondservants should not be overlooked. Despite proclaiming a message of freedom from sin in Jesus Christ, these writers were dedicated to Jesus as their one master. Further, their service to the Lord was not one they could consider leaving. Just as a bondservant was more than an employee who could leave for another job, these Christians were servants who could never leave their master for another.

    This belief and understanding of the Christian as a bondservant played an enormous role as early Christians often faced persecution. Peter, Paul, and James are traditionally recorded as dying for their allegiance to Jesus.

    The bondservant was a common role in the New Testament period that ranged from slave to bonded laborer. Commands were given to Christians regarding proper treatment, with freedom recommended whenever possible (1 Corinthians 7:21). Most importantly, the image of the bondservant became one of great importance for Christians, who are called to live as bondservants of Christ Jesus.

    In this day and time we seem to forget that we are bought at a price, the price He payed with His blood on the Cross!

    • “Bondservant” just means “slave.”

      • Wayne Lampe
        March 1, 2022 9:54 am

        A slave would be someone who is always looking for a way out or waiting for their time to be up. The Bible is referring to the 7th year “holy year”, as the time to release all who are in servitude to you. Their service for a debt is up. A “bondservant” didn’t want to leave and as a sign to their dedication would have their ear pierced with an awl to indicate this. Yes they were slaves. But by calling yourself a bond servant your saying that you are bonded to the “Master” or in our case the Father and His Son.

        • This is utter nonsense. The word used in Greek is δοῦλος, which just means “slave.” And in English, “bondslave” is a word denoting someone who is a “bound slave,” a person who is owned by another person without the freedom to go elsewhere.

          Paul’s use of δοῦλος had nothing to do with the 7th year ceremony releasing “Hebrew slaves” in the Torah, which was not practiced in Paul’s day. It was just the normal Greek word for a slave.

  • Elizabeth Savage
    July 1, 2017 4:47 am

    There is a Pastor that I have met who has made people that they have been helping bond slaves to themselves and not to Jesus Christ. This Pastor has told me that this is Biblical and that they need this, the same way Paul was a bondslave to Jesus. Can you help me here. I have such a strong check in my spirit every time this topic comes up

  • I must respectfully disagree. A slave is referred to as pais, or “boy..” In Acts, the word paidiskes is used for a young female slave. A bondservant is not a true slave. A bodservant generally has a fixed time to serve. He either enters into that arrangement voluntarily or his parents assign him to it. Functionally, he differs little from a slave, but they are not the same thing.

    • Disagree all you want, but you are flat wrong. Yes, the word pais, which properly means “child,” is sometimes used to mean “slave,” it is not the most common word in Greek for a person owned (under bondage) by another. That word was doulos, which is the word used for “slave” here.

      Generally, doulos is the more severe of the two; pais is a more familial term that would better apply to a house-slave or someone closer to or more valuable to the master, while doulos is a generic slave.

      For what it’s worth, as a rule, if you’re going to disagree about the definition of a word with someone who actually knows the language, it’s best to know the language yourself.

  • I am afraid you are mistaken. The “slave” translation is relatively new. I know that people like to go on and on about greek “interpretations”, but by considering the latin and syriac sources available, it is clearly “servant”. Also, you may want to consider the possibility that this letter to the Romans was not originally in Greek. Not that it matters, since doulos is also servant in the greek! Which makes me wonder what the purpose of this post really is??

    • You’ve just revealed that you don’t know any of the languages you’re discussing. Best to leave such analysis to those who actually know the languages. The word means “slave,” as do the analogous Latin and Syriac words in those versions.

      • I just want to start by thanking you Jason, for taking the time to write this piece & posting it online!

        I was reading vs. 1 of Philippians when I felt Holy Spirit prompt me to dig deeper on the word “servant”. After reading through your explanation, Holy Spirit then brought to my remembrance 1 Cor. 6:19-20, “You are not your own; you were bought at a price.”. My head was exploding with excitement at that point, ha! As much as the world has tried to attach a negative connotation to it’s understanding of slavery, God faithfully redeems & turns what is in the world evil into something beautiful, because why wouldn’t we want to be enslaved to our Lord & Saviour… His light, love, and life!?!

        I did appreciate the comment one gentleman shared above concerning Jn. 15:15, ‘No longer do I call you slaves, but FRIENDS.”. But I do not necessarily see this scripture in direct conflict with Paul referring to himself as “the slave of Jesus Christ”. Just as we know God as Father, Son, & Spirit… Jesus as master, brother, lover… Holy Spirit as teacher, comforter… etc., I believe He intends for us to understand that, likewise, our identities in Him are multifaceted… child, bride, heir, etc.

        Lastly, and the reason why I replied on this comment vein… and please understand I mean no disrespect. I greatly appreciate that people have taken the time to educate themselves on such matters concerning the original languages, etc. but our hope should always be that as Christians we seek to live out Isaiah 54:13, “And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children.” and 1 Jn. 2:27, “But the anointing which you have received of Him abides in you, and you need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, you shall abide in Him.”.

        Blessings to everyone who has come here to share in this discourse concerning the subject at hand, may we not fall into discord & stay mindful of Paul’s instruction in 2 Timothy 2:14, “Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.” & 1 Timothy 1:5, “Now the goal of our instruction is love out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and a sincere faith…”

        Right with God, not always men ~ Kendra 😉

        • One thing we must keep in mind is that the “you” in 1 John 2:27 is plural: “But the anointing which y’all have received of him abides in y’all, and y’all have no need that any man teach y’all….” It’s not an individual promise but a corporate one.

  • I believe we can better understand the meaning of Paul as a slave by looking at another passage in Exodus. Exodus 12:43-45 And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when though hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. Paul refers to himself as a servant meaning slave or “bought servant”, knowing that he has been bought with a price, and made a partaker of Christ having been redeemed. Paul here recognizes that he has been purposed by God to serve His Church until the end of his life. We should not take this to mean that Paul doesn’t understand that he is made a son also, because we see many instances in Pauls writing where he acknowledges this fact. The emphasis here though, is that Paul is a bought slave, a partaker of the covenant, but with a lifelong mission of service.

    • There’s no need to go back to Exodus to interpret Paul’s use of a very common word and concept in the Greek language and the world of the Roman Empire. He simply means “slave.” Many slaves were purchased by their owners, yes. Some were gained through conquest. Others were born as slaves. But in any case, all slaves were owned by their masters. He himself says he is the slave of Jesus Christ, having been purchased for that purpose.

  • I am glad I found this website, I forget what my search was that, led me here. This may be the wrong place to ask my questions but with all the word studies being of the Greek can we be sure the right Greek word was used to express the intent of the Aramaic? Also what do you think of the Aramaic NT?

    • The earliest Christians weren’t really concerned about exact words, as is evident by their decisions to use Greek as a primary form of transmission for Jesus’ ideas. They were more concerned about getting the ideas across than they were the exact words.

      As for the Aramaic NT, it depends on which one. They’re all translations from the Greek, and some are done better than others.

  • Hi Jason, Thanks for your article on Duolos – Slave.

    Same like, I would be grateful, if you can publish an article about “gird” or “girding” , “eye of the needle” and “kefa’/ cefas”, pls.

    Kind regrads,

  • Does your understanding include that all believers in Jesus are now His slaves, as Paul indicated he was? If so, does that mean those who are slaves to Jesus still have free will or is that given up when we allow Jesus to rule in our lives as our Master? If so, how does he guide and direct our steps? Is this a continual communication with him throughout the day about what we are doing step by step or activity by activity or are we left to organize and plan our day asking him to bless our plans as opposed to asking him for his plan for our day? The reason I am asking is that I am trying to figure out what it means to walk in the spirit. Would appreciate your help with this.

    • Paul does say in Romans 5:18–19 that those who are in Christ have “become slaves of righteousness,” enjoining all in Christ to “present your members as slaves to righteousness.” But he also notes that in the same way that those who are slaves to sin are actually “free with regard to justice/righteousness,” meaning they’re capable of doing good despite their enslavement to sin. By analogy, those who are in Christ are now slaves of righteousness but are capable/free to commit sin, meaning they must freely choose not to do so.

      As for the second half of your question, the New Testament suggests that those who are in Christ should be in constant communion with the spirit and that the spirit ultimately guides the life of those in Christ. Thus those in Christ are encouraged to seek God’s will and to organize and plan their days in whatever ways seem best to accord with the will of God as they understand it through the indwelling spirit and the counsel of others in the body of Christ.

  • Hi,

    How does this Greek word ‘slave’ relate to the passage in Leviticus 25 vv39-55?

    Was it true that a Hebrew could not own a Hebrew in a bondservant relationship?

    And if so, does that mean that the Exodus passage is only referring to a servant relationship and not bondservants/slaves?

    I agree with your analysis of the Exodus text as compared to the title Paul gave himself. I’m just wondering how the Leviticus passage relates to all of this and if it would have been shocking to the Jewish listeners to hear Paul call himself a bondservant?

    Thank you!

    • That word for “slave” (δούλος) is used in Lev 25:39 but not in the rest of that passage. In Leviticus, it’s saying that Israelites are not to own other Israelites as permanent slaves but may enforce debt service only in a temporary capacity and not with duties typically reserved for slaves.

      It wouldn’t have been shocking for a Jewish audience to hear Paul to call himself God’s slave; this very passage in fact says that one of the reasons Israelites are not to be enslaved is because they are YHWH’s servants. It’s a different word in that case, but the concept is basically the same.

  • I feel you have misrepresented the basic tone of biblical text:
    Servant; a hirling

    Slave: one who has been purchased, one who has been acquired to pay off a debt.

    Bondslave: one who has paid off his debt in time of service to his master and has the opportunity to be set free but by his own choice, chooses to relinquish that right and chooses to serve his master…no longer a slave but now a bond slave… a slave by choice.

    • No, I haven’t misrepresented the basic tone of the biblical text. I have corrected the misguided and mistaken interpretation you just repeated. A bondslave is not a “slave by choice.” Anyone who thinks this is simply wrong.

  • Charlie Gilreath
    December 12, 2018 10:38 pm

    I am sorry but all this misses the essential point or maybe tries to make the point but with the volume of words loses it again. .Paul calls himself a “Bond Servant” because Christ died and for him and paid a debt (the bond) to which Paul “willfully” accepts and now is forever in Christ debt. Bonded our an now a slave and servant – the term has a sense of irony in the Paul willingly accepts and actually boasts he is a slave to God. Wh….., knowing our amazing God would not consider being a bond-servant, slave or in any other form of service a great honor. Most importantly for all those atheist out there – because God would never demand or conscript anyone into become His slave – He calls us but we must willingly accept.

    • No. Paul did not write in English. He did not call himself a “bond servant.” He called himself a doulos, which means “slave” in English. Your interpretation is faulty because you’re basing it on the supposition that Paul wrote something other than what he did.

  • dennis wright
    January 15, 2019 2:06 pm

    Thank you for your thoughts and insights. They are helpful and most interesting. I know very little Greek as my studies only included two years of basic Greek, and I was not the best student in the class. However, over the past decades, I’ve been involved, at different levels, with oral translations from English into several other modern European languages. The challenge is always getting it right. Especially as one reflects upon modern English, sometimes the target of ‘best translation’ seems to be a moving target, since the understanding of words and therefore their definitions have changed (sometimes drastically) over the past years. As you have so clearly stated, the meaning of “doulos’ has not changed in New Testament Greek. However, the English words we use to translate this word, just a you indicated in your writings, have changed from the times of earlier English Bible translations until the present times & newer translations. Therefore, one might ask oneself the question, “was there a time in the English language in which the terms of “bond-servant’ and ‘slave’ had similar but distinct meanings? Of course, even if that is so, it is not a fully determining factor, but definitely expands one’s process of consideration. It would be somewhat like the debate over the English translation of different Greek words in John 21 (Peter & Jesus’ discussion regarding ‘…love…’). Most persons that I’ve discussed this with would suggest that they use two, totally inter-changeable words….but, later Peter (1 Pt. 1:22) himself uses both words again, now in the same sentence. It seems to indicate that he associated a different, yet similar meaning with the two words. However, in English translations generally no distinction is made. English uses just one word to translate and thus define both.,

    Thank you for writing. Your blog is much appreciated.

  • Thank you. Very helpful and insightful. Leading a women’s group on being a servant and this helped me prepare!

    God bless and keep you.

    Mama to 8
    One homemade and 7 adopted

  • I think Paul certainly understood the aspect of slavery and although Roman and current audiences may be foreign to such, we must investigate further.

    The ear was pierced, reminding one of the Shema (hear and obey). It was at the Master’s door (Threshold covenant). Yeshua/Jesus is the door. The 7th year, a Sabbath year, a year of Freedom; a Yovhel/Jubilee in a sense.

    • None of that is relevant to Paul or his audience. Paul uses the Greek word for generic slavery, not for that particular scenario. Efforts to connect the two are going where Paul did not, and he certainly could have chosen to do so.

  • Andz Hendricks
    February 6, 2019 7:45 am

    Can you help with the word steward Eliezer the steward of Abrahams household was he a servant bondslave hireling son heir? Could he be all of these?

    • There isn’t a word for “steward” or anything similar with reference to Eliezer. He’s just called a “house-born” person, meaning a slave born in Abraham’s house. He’s basically the ranking slave in Abraham’s possession.

  • Who needs theology when they can speak directly to God? Paul spoke to Christ, and was keenly aware of Jesus being the “boss” of him, Jesus purchased us with His blood and It is this awareness of our duty of service to the Master that Paul sought to propagate through his epistles. Most Christians can talk about what God can do but people’s faith should not be based on words, man’s wisdom, common sense, or even theology; it should be based on the demonstration of power of God’s spirit. How do we demonstrate God’s power? By surrendering our will to Jesus to the extent that a slave has no free will. Until then, we just tickle ourselves silly . . .

  • I agree with your explanation of the proper translation. I still believe that the passage in Exodus 21:6 is useful in understanding Paul’s slave relationship with Christ. Realizing that the Old Testament gives us shadows or types that are useful in understanding New Testament principles. In the Exodus passage the one has a debt that they cannot pay and comes to the place where he would rather serve the master rather than go free. The choice is a free will choice with an open confession of his love for the master. We, too, have a debt that could only be paid by the master and also make a free will choice and a confession of Jesus as Lord/master. Even with the translation being merely “slave” rather than “bond servant,” the analogy still works.

    In fact, it may be that the period of service prior to complete commitment may at times hold true, also. How many times have we seen people recognize their need for the sin debt to be paid only to walk away later. It is possible that the total commitment to Christ was never made. Notice, this last part is mere supposition on my part, but very plausible.

    • My thoughts exactly. Paul, a former Pharisee known for zealously following the letter of the law would have been very conscious of this. In fact, it would have been academic knowledge other Pharisee’s would have expected him to know to prove he was part of the “Torah Tower” (pretty similar to our Ivory Tower today). While Jason Staples’s commentary also bears shades of academic correctness; nevertheless, knowing the above, we can rightly infer that Paul was very likely using the analogy of slave in order to juxtapose both realities upon his readers, one to the Gentile, who would likely take the word literally, and one to the educated Jew, who would know and potentially be offended by Paul essentially highlighting his (and theirs, and all of our) obligation to bow our heads as debt slaves to our master for the payment of a price we cannot pay, our sin. Pharisees and other Jewish scholars of this day hated this idea, because they wanted to believe they could earn their way to heaven by ritual, following the law of Moses, or due to their birth as men withing the Jewish nation at the time. This said, commentary in other previous posts on this page are also correct… Jesus has elevated us to friends and has turned his death and resurrection from what absolutely could be the purchase of bond-slaves to a wedding dowry for the purchase and elevation of the bride of Christ, his church — the body of believers and followers whom he would call friends. And again, how do we know we are friends and not bondslaves alone? It is by the reception of his spirit, the Holy Spirit, who in turn guides our conscience and leads us to truth. Indeed, we have not just been given the Word of God, but His very Spirit for the understanding and interpretation of that truth. This is the missing component to so many scholarly interpretations of the word. A man or woman can be ‘literally’ right about their interpretation of language from biblical Greek over to English or Latin, yet still absolutely miss the point to the message provided us from heaven. This was Jesus’ frustration with the scribes of his day as well and why he often spoke in parables. – Amen and Amen.

      • This is, of course, complete nonsense. We can’t infer anything of the sort, especially since you don’t seem to have any idea of what Pharisees actually believed or did—Pharisees did not believe they earned their way to heaven by ritual, by following the law of Moses, or due to their birth. Moreover, none of this has anything to do with the proper meaning of “bondslave,” which as this post explains, just means “slave.”

        • Jesus Wants You
          August 9, 2023 3:39 pm

          I’m curious, salvation/righteousness through keeping the Law of Moses was the stance of the Judaisers Paul fought against in the Gentile regions. Wasn’t this value system of extreme works also the necessary lifestyle the Pharisees in Israel were saying is required by God (for one’s salvation)?

          • I think this is a misunderstanding of the position of the Judaizers Paul was arguing against, and it is definitely a misunderstanding of the Pharisees’ teaching. Remember, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees not for being too strict but for not keeping the Torah adequately. The Jews responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls criticized the Pharisees for their reputation for leniency, not because they were known to be so strict.

            As for the Judaizers’ position, they simply believed that if people were becoming true descendants of Abraham, they should be required to be circumcised as Genesis 17:9–14 requires, “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant” (17:14). This wasn’t a matter of special strictness or stringency; it was a straightforward reading of the biblical text. Paul’s teaching was no less stringent; he just disagreed about whether fleshly circumcision was applicable as a necessary component for membership among Abraham’s descendants in the new, spiritual age inaugurated by Jesus’ death.

      • “Slave of Christ” by Paul is simply his expression of total submission to Christ. And Jason is right, the word is δοῦλοι means “slave” (1401). You can always you lexicon here for your bible study. https://biblehub.com/lexicon/romans/1-1.htm
        Why he uses the δοῦλοι (slave), nobody knows. But one thing that I read was that historians estimate that, by the time Paul wrote his New Testament epistles in the first century A.D., five to eight million slaves resided within the Roman Empire, 3 including 15-25% of the total population of Italy. So, he could have borrowed the word from what was happening at the time, just as we have seen him done in most of his writings.
        But please note that slavery in first century is very broad and its not like the American slavery. It is not based on race.
        Examples are:
        – Some became slaves because they could not pay back the money they had borrowed
        – The government would also take people into slavery if they could not pay their taxes

  • Colin Feierabend,
    May 28, 2020 3:44 pm

    Thanks for what you’ve written. I’ve just come across it. Does James’ use of doulos differ from that of Paul’s. It strikes me that, because James is speaking to believers who are part of the “twelve tribes in the Dispersion” that they would have in their minds the Old Covenant understanding of slave, with its idea of release at Jubilee. I’m neither a Hebrew or Greek scholar. I’m asking the question to try and get some clarity. I haven’t read all of the comments above either, which I probably should have, and so apologise if you’ve answered this before. Many thanks

    • James’ use is the same as Paul’s. Also, James’ address is coded, as there were no longer twelve distinct tribes of Israel at the time he was writing his letter. The best way to understand his audience is that it’s a combination of Jews (from the southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin along with Levi) and gentiles, with whom the rest of Israel intermarried.

  • Colin Feierabend,
    May 29, 2020 12:49 pm

    Thanks for that. This brings up another question in my mind. Other than supposition, where would I find evidence for that? Or is it the fact that verse 1 is the only lace in the letter that any mention is made of the Jewish diaspora?

    • The evidence is that James and Paul are both writing in Greek to Greek readers and using the same term.

      Verse 1 also does not mention the Jewish diaspora but rather the diaspora of all Israel (Jews comprise only three of the twelve tribes of Israel). The fact that he specifically brings up the twelve tribes means he is speaking to more than Jews.

      • Really appreciated your original comment re: slave/bondslave. I could have written it myself, but you saved me the trouble. One of the most annoying problems in the church is people who build some part of their theology on an outmoded or innacurate translation and then remain steadfast in their ignorance. The sad part here is that those who consider themselves “bondslaves” also co sider themselves somehow more spiritual than the rest who are merely slaves, a nonsensical unbiblical idea, but one which its adherents persist in retaining no matter how clear the evidence to the contrary. Many of these are people who insist on using the Darby translation. Another example of such nonsense is the use of the archaic word manifest instead of revealed or shown, both of which are in current use. We must strive for clarity. Unfortunately, Christianese is something we are stuck with, but which must be continually confronted. Bless you for doing so. But I had better not say that since “bless” might be one of those Christianese words. Oops!

  • Mike Murphree
    June 5, 2020 9:41 am

    Amazing. I was once told Christians are stupid. Reading many of these responses to the article and to Staples, I can understand the sentiment. It’s a little startling to see so many self-assured ‘Christians’ who have so little ability to think clearly at all or, apparently, to read and comprehend. Maybe they are just the most vocal ones, or it’s the Dunning-Kruger effect rising to the fore.

  • Dr. Ron Slepecki
    July 1, 2020 2:10 am

    Well said, for that matter I would like to hear how any theologian can come to terms with the concepts of slavery and the motif of the Bride used by Christ. How is a bride a slave? Paul in his use of slave is not making a theological statement as to how he is seen by God (God is not a slave owner) – if He were, He would have just dispensed with the tree of good and evil and excluded choice from the equation all together. We must understand scripture in light of the character of God, not the inconsistencies and immature practices of man. Paul is simply making a statement concerning his allegiance to his creator not a theological statement of his position (as a slave). Christ’s bride motif destroys the picture of a redeemed spirit being (Christian) as a slave. Slaves do not nor ever will share the table of the King, nor use the royal utensils at such table. We however, although unworthy, will sit at the supper of the bride. My wife indeed is a wonderful servant but don’t you dare nor will I ever call her my slave. Christ ended slavery on the cross and has adopted us as family. If Paul’s use of slave gives you some comfort as a martyr in the cause for Christ – so be it , but you are in error who understand the savior as a slave owner. MT. 7:11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him! That is the character of Jehovah and McArthur or anyone else who serves the God of Heaven (Yahweh) should understand these things and not get wrapped around the axle on these issues – Dr. Ron Slepecki

    • I look at the slave concept simply based on love relationship. It is the love to the Lord that “compels us” (=slaves us) to obedience. Many times we find that the one who loves us does what we want, not because it is what they’d like to do, but because they want us to feel loved and then we reciprocate, motivated by their love. Paul notes in 2 Cor 5:14 that “the love of Christ controls (NASB) us.” KJV says “constraineth.” The Greek word here is συνέχω = to hold together (with constraint), (Thayer 1 & 2). The implication is “control” imposed on us by the love of Christ. It seems obvious that Paul was writing about himself and us being a “bondslave or slave” reciprocating the love of Christ, that was offered for us while we were still sinners.

  • I must come back and read this again. I do not know if comments are still being accepted for this post. However, I just started a class and this is one of the subject matters and I’m so intrigued. I’ll be back and if there is more content please refer me there. Thanks!

  • Tom Tagliente
    October 23, 2021 1:25 pm

    Jason, thanks. I’ve been preaching this for years, and although it’s not easy for people to accept, especially in the West, it is accurate linguistically and theologically, and those other translations you mention aren’t.

  • Jackie Johnson
    October 29, 2021 12:18 pm

    Thank you so very much for sharing! Pretty much confirms what the Lord spoke to me. Once I choose to believe and except Him as my Master, Lord and Savior, I forfeit my assumed rights. I no longer have any right’s. I lean and trust Him in all things. That’s His plan, for me to relax and trust Him wholeheartedly!

  • This is not a serious post
    November 2, 2022 5:12 pm

    So if I am catching up on the last 12 years worth of comments, Paul was saying he was a freed person who chose to be a slave with his right ear pierced, but he didn’t receive a vaccine. Does that about sum it up

  • Rosy Bartush
    August 5, 2023 9:07 am

    These hoop earrings with elaborate engravings are stealing my heart. Hoops never walk out style, and these are like a modern twist on a common.|

  • Why is the term bondservant retained in Ephesians 6:5-8 and 1 Corinthians 7:21-23 (I’m reading ESV) but rendered slaves/servants in other places (Titus, James, Jude, 2 Peter etc)? Does the context require it or is there another reason?

  • I came across your comments today. I am preparing a lesson. You could have been more thorough by including comments from Deut. 15 and Lev. 25. H7916 saw keer is rarely used as the word for servant in KJV. It clearly refers to a debt owing Israelite, hired servant. It is reasonable to extrapolate “saw keer” Jubilee releasees into also being “saw keer” seven year releasees.

    If I am seeing this I rather believe that Paul clearly understood the three differences.

    H5650 “eh bed” the involuntary servant is not the H7916 “saw keer” Isrealite servant. I would think that Paul knew very clearly his servanthood had graduated from “saw keer” to the aul induced voluntary enslavement know as “eh bed”.

    To not recognize the aul commitment as a huge deal is foolishness. The “eh beds” of the Lord in Lev. 25:55 failed miserably. I rather doubt that any aul committed “eh beds” ever did.

    To pooh pooh the work bondservant is dangerous. I will choose to exalt the idea of Christian “saw keer” becoming true volunteer “eh beds”.

    Brother Jason, if you want save your soul (which includes your mind), you have to lose your soul. You are well are aware that “psuche” is the word for soul with two different concepts. You certainly wouldn’t pooh pooh that as simply using the same word. Be blessed

    • “Bondservant” is just an older English word that means “slave.” Pretending that English word meant something specific about the Torah is nonsense, as is the idea that Paul’s use of the basic Greek word for slave (δούλος) was alluding to a specific category within the Torah. None of that is true. You’d be better off learning the languages to help avoid making mistakes like this one based on a poor understanding of the passages based on Strong’s.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Fill out this field
Fill out this field
Please enter a valid email address.

Jason Staples Icon
“Sabbath” or “Week”? When Words Mean More Than One Thing
Lies in the Bible? Ehrman and the Intentional Fallacy