But this morning I was reading in Romans 8 and ran across v15, which reads like this:
The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."
It caught me off guard because I'm used to something like the NIV, which reads, "For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear..." Part of the reason why I like reading different translations is that it offers different renderings that cause you to go back and look at what Paul is really saying, which is what happened here.
I'll tell you what I don't like about the TNIV rendering: it causes an unnecessary tension with other passages where Paul clearly tells us that we are slaves (or servants, they are the same word in Greek). For instance, in Romans 6:22 Paul says, "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." So the question is: are we slaves or not? The answer, of course, is that we are slaves, but to whom? This is the key to understanding the difference between slavery in 6:22 and in 8:15.
But if one read Romans 8:15 in the TNIV in isolation, they would assume that Paul has no place for "slavery" in the Christian life. However, when you read 6:22, and even note that Paul starts this letter with "Paul, a slave [servant] of Christ Jesus", you realize that Paul is quite comfortable with such language (as is the rest of the New Testament). Being both slaves and sons, servants and children, is an apparent paradox, but nonetheless a powerful truth. I think that the TNIV muddies the waters a bit when it doesn't have to, but perhaps I'm missing something. Can any of you think of a reason why the TNIV translation is preferable in this instance?
16 comments:
I don't consider myself a "slave". A slave may be about his Masters business but never knows what his business is. I definitely consider myself a son. As a son I am included into my Father's business. He tells me what is going on. The how's, why's and etc.
Even taking it to another level. The protection offered to a son is different from a slave. Last night my town was ravaged by a storm. I have 12 or so trees down. This is the second time in 4 months and I'm probably the only one in town who hasn't suffered any serious damage (we have suffered none). The trees that are less then 20 feet from my house fell into my neighbors yard. Only one tree fell into my yard (APX 100 feet from my house). My neighbors house and camper were almost taken out by 2 different trees from our property line. I know where my protection comes from and I was quick to thank God and my angels for pushing them away from my house. Also, after the first major storm God told me to get a generator because there will be plenty more to come in the near future. I have been in my house for 7 years and been through some big storms but nothing as violent as this year. Last night I lived like a King with electricity (I even still had cable, phone, etc.)
So I definitely think there is a huge difference betweens sons and slaves. Though the path too and through sonship is serving. At some point though you must graduate from worker only (slave) into one who has been taken into the confidence of God (son). Jesus came to bring many sons to glory!!
Another thing just came to mind. Slaves are under the law and Jesus came to free us from the law.
Well, the question wasn't about the difference between sons and slaves, but about the TNIV rendering of Romans 8:15, but since you brought it up...
You still have to deal with the fact that the New Testament refers to us as both slaves and sons. You are dividing the two, but on what grounds? Paul certainly didn't mind seeing the two working hand in hand. And on your last point, read Romans 6. We were slaves to sin, but we are now slaves to God. You are a slave. The question is: who are you serving?
Danny, you asked the question " So the question is: are we slaves or not? The answer, of course, is that we are slaves, but to whom? This is the key to understanding the difference between slavery in 6:22 and in 8:15."
So I answered that question then the one about what translation is right, more accurate or whatever.
I don't believe that any one translation is "right". They all contain truth. I believe the bible is truth but everything in the bible was not done "right". It seems that you stand by the bible as the "be all" truth. I don't agree with that.
I see that everything in the bible definitely happened and is accurate but that man's free will came into play (and I'm not talking about what is included in the bible as far as books and stories) but that not everything in the bible was done in the best way. There are plenty of occurances where things could have been done better. Just look at David's life (plenty of "sin" but he was still blameless, mighty and an awesome man). There still was a better way.
You've asked a couple of times "who do I serve"? I serve God. I do not serve a book, or Paul or theology or doctrine. I know this is going off the course of your question.. but so be it.
I am trying to engage in good dialogue. I hope it is not too "offensive". Also, I read a number of different versions of the bible (heres a plug.. I love e-sword.net!!!!!). I have like 20 or so versions of the bible plus concordences, dictionaries and commentaries all in one software.. and it's free.
I hope that this brings up plenty of good dialogue.
The question you answered was one I had already answered. But that's fine, I don't mind getting off on a tangent. In fact, I make a habit of it. =)
But notice I didn't ask which translation was right, I asked if there is a reason why the TNIV rendering was preferable. There's a big difference.
I never said everything done in the Bible is right. In fact, I've never come close to saying that. I will, however, say that Paul was right in saying that we are both slaves and sons. And when I asked "who do you serve?", I wasn't actually asking you, it was rhetorical (I just want to make sure you realize I'm not attacking you, I appreciate good dialogue). I was just commenting on your comment that you are not a slave/servant, whereas I was saying we are all slaves.
So, I'd still like an answer to the question I asked you in my first comment: on what grounds do you separate our identity as slaves and sons of God? You insist you are not a slave, but a son. I point out that both are said of us in the New Testament. So why do you choose one but not the other?
Also, for those still reading, I would like some thoughts on the TNIV rendering of Romans 8:15. I just wonder if I'm missing something.
Oh, and biblegateway.com is a great resource for different translations as well.
So I've been thinking about this question of yours. It always seems to be right on the tip of my understanding, but usually eludes me because I can't focus for more than a minute or all the words start looking like nonsense. You know what I mean?
Anyway, I was looking at the verse in context in the TNIV (a nice little trick I learned at Aletheia...) I thought of a possibility.
The passage just before 8:15 (vv. 9-12 or 13) talks a lot about life in Christ, living in Christ, the Spirit living in us. So maybe the TNIV words it as "so that you live in fear" to contrast with or fit into what Paul is saying as a whole. Living in Christ vs Living in fear. In my mind this makes a little sense when you read the two translations next to each other.
Maybe? At least it might point somewhere? In my spare time maybe I'll just dissect the complex Greek sentence structure...oh wait...for a second there I thought I was Brian Marchionni...
Hey Courtney, I'm honored, and a little bit embarassed, that you've discovered this little blog.
Don't worry, Brian wouldn't be able to dissect the Greek grammar either. (Oh SNAP!)
I definitely think Paul is contrasting life in Christ vs life in the sinful nature, so you're absolutely right about that (nice contextual reading, I know some Bible teacher who would be proud). I guess my problem is saying that the Spirit does not make us slaves, when that is exactly what we are according to Romans 6. I wonder if translating it "make you a slave unto fear again" is better than the TNIV. The TNIV is attempting to smooth it out a bit, but I wonder if they may inadvertantly create confusion instead. But I need to go back and think more about it and more about what you said. Way to keep us thinking.
By the way, what are you doing reading my blog at 8pm on a Saturday night? You're 20 years old for crying out loud! Go out! Have fun!
It's true, you never know who reads these little things...
And you caught me, I'm almost as much of a Bible nerd as you are. Secret's out. But you're right. No more thinking about Romans until after my next party.
:)
Hi Danny,
When I saw your comment on my blog, which I replied to, it helped me in a way you may not have expected. Apart from the theological confirmation you gave me, responding to your comment renewed my spirit, something a needed just then. Thanks for the blessing.
So...I came here to see what you've been up to. Good stuff, Danny, really good.
The topic of fearfulness connects the last two post well. Fearfulness has been one of the predominant feelings in my life, something many do not see in my work as a pastor.
And your comments about the Biblical concept of being a slave to Christ fits well with our studies in Revelation, where John and the churches are introduced as "servants", which is, as you know, is the same Grk. word translated in other places of Revelation as "slave".
Only my pride tempts me to resist the idea of being a slave to Christ. When I meditate on the kind of Master he is, why would I ever, apart from insanity, choose another?
May God bless you today, Danny.
My question to you all is... where does inheritance fit in with being a slave. Only a son can recieve an inheritance. A slave does as told or suffers the consequences.
Christ said we are his brothers and therefore heirs to the throne. A slave has no rights to this. Only to continue in his work.
I think that being a "slave" is staying immature in your relationship with God and never moving past the laying of foundations as Paul spoke about.
Galatians 4
4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba,[a] Father." 7SO YOU ARE NO LONGER A SLAVE, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.
Romans 6:18
You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
Romans 6
21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become SLAVES TO GOD, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.
Forgive me Danny. I know I'm supposed to be out partying but I couldn't resist.
I went looking for something in the NT that talked about slaves, actually looking to biblically counteract Ken's point about being sons only and not slaves. But instead I found this passage in Galatians in which Paul clearly says we are NOT slaves.
But as Danny's been saying, in Romans 6 he calls us slaves to God. I think it's all just a matter of using different metaphors for different purposes and audiences. I think maybe since both of them are in the Bible, maybe they are both important.
If I've learned anything the past few weeks it's that God's character is unfathomable, and at times it seems to counteract itself. Is it possible that who we are in Christ acts much the same way?
Ken,
I think Courtney's last comment is important: "I think it's all just a matter of using different metaphors for different purposes and audiences. I think maybe since both of them are in the Bible, maybe they are both important."
I would offer that it is not a question of either/or but both/and.
The apostles, who themselves had received the inheritance of sons as "children of promise", continued to refer to themselves as "slaves" or "servants". They do this particularly in the greetings of their letters to the churches, which I believe is meant to highlight the truth as coming from their Sovereign Lord and not merely themselves. It is a designation of function, not merely relationship, though it includes that.
Other names are also given us as believers. We are called a kingdom of priest, saints, witnesses, etc. These distinctions reveal a broad range of blessings conveyed on us, as well as reveal various ways we function within the body of Christ, his church.
Such a use tells me that no single designation can encompass all that God has for us.
We see this same principle expressed in the multiple descriptors of salvation itself as redemption, reconciliation, and salvation.
BTW, Danny...I've posted a follow-up on Rev. 1.5 that includes more support for the interpretation I offered. I'd email you rather than put it in your comments, but I see an email address here. If you have some of your own notes on Rev. 1 and have the time, I would appreciate an emailed attachment. Thanks and God bless
Kenny, I think that Courtney has adequately addressed your question, but I'll continue anyway. As Jan noted, she says, "I think it's all just a matter of using different metaphors for different purposes and audiences. I think maybe since both of them are in the Bible, maybe they are both important."
You ask where inheritance fits in with being a slave, but you'll notice that none of us have said we are slaves and not sons. We've said we're both. I asked you on what grounds you say we are not slaves at all, but you haven't answered, which is okay. But I'm saying that according to the NT, we are both. This is where Courtney's point is key, we have to pay attention to where and when it's being used.
You'll notice in Galatians 4 that Paul is talking about a specific kind of slavery: "slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world" (v3), "under the law" (v5), "slaves to those who by nature are not gods" (v8). But you'll also notice that Paul refers to himself as a "slave of Christ" back in 1:10, so clearly he has room for us to be considered slaves in some sense (as in Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians and probably elsewhere). So when you say, "I think that being a "slave" is staying immature in your relationship with God and never moving past the laying of foundations as Paul spoke about", you'll have to offer some biblical support that goes against what Paul says. I'm saying Paul has room for both in his thoughts, so we should, too.
Let's not forget Courtney's point, "I think maybe since both of them are in the Bible, maybe they are both important." We tend to read things with our own cultural understanding, but we forget that slavery was desirable for some in Paul's world. There were many who sold themselves into slavery for upward mobility. By being owned by someone of great honor, they too were considered honorable, often times more honorable than a freeman. So I'd imagine Paul has something like this in mind, especially when he's contrasting slavery to sin and slavery to God.
Jan, I'm glad my comment was able to encourage you. I checked them out quickly, but when I have more time I'll read more and try to follow up. As for notes on Rev 1, I may not have anything useful. I tend note to use notes, or if I do they'll have a one word reminder for me rather than something typed out.
Wow!!! It has been quite awhile since I read Gal 4 but the way I see it.. it totally supports everything I have said. Danny you stopped quoting at vs. 8 here is all of Gal 4 up to vs 9(MKJV) sorry ahead of time for the length...
Gal 4:1 But I say, Over so long a time the heir is an infant, he does not differ from a slave, though being lord of all;
Gal 4:2 but he is under guardians and housemasters until the term appointed before by the father.
Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were infants, were in bondage under the elements of the world.
Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, coming into being out of a woman, having come under Law,
Gal 4:5 that He might redeem those under Law, so that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Gal 4:7 So that you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, also an heir of God through Christ.
Gal 4:8 But then, indeed, not knowing God, you served as slaves to those not by nature being gods.
Gal 4:9 But now, knowing God, but rather are known by God, how do you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements to which you again desire to slave anew?
This to me speaks volumes... all pointing at the time appointed by the Father (we have qualified through God's testing) get adopted as sons. No longer are you a slave.
To me... vs 9 reads as a rebuke. The rest of the chapter goes on to talk about the difference between being born under the law and being born under the promise. I was not born of the slave woman. I hope this answered your question Danny of "on what grounds".
Thanks again for the good dialogue. Sorry again that it has gotten somewhat off topic. I really do appreciate this exchange.
Actually, I don't think it helps your case, nor do I think it answers the "on what grounds" question. Here's why:
1) Paul is talking about a specific kind of slavery (slavery to the law, slavery to elemental spirits on the world). He is not addressing slavery to God, which is what we have been talking about, and which he affirms in Galatians 1:10. 4:9 actually makes my point.
2) You still haven't dealt with Paul's use of slavery in Romans 6 (and elsewhere).
You point to Galatians 4 and say "see, we're not slaves." I point to Romans 6 and say "see, we are slaves." Tag, you're it.
We can't forget Courtney's point: Paul can use various metaphors at different times. He is much more fluid in his thought and language than we often are. My whole point this whole time isn't to argue that we aren't sons, because we clearly are (and daughters, by the way, but that's another discussion for another day). My point is that "slaves" is a perfectly valid description/function for us, which is what you are contradicting. So I'm saying, look at the evidence as a whole. Not an isolated verse or passage, but the whole.
You're right, this is a good dialogue. I'm loving it. Getting off topic is fine by me, as long as we continue to learn something.
Here are some verses that talk of the people of God as being slaves or servants, I limited this to the letters of the NT (I originally only planned on using Paul, but ended up including the rest of the letters). I'll remind everyone that they (slave and servant) are the same word in Greek. I've also included a couple quick verses speaking of Jesus in these same terms.
Rom 1:1- "Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus."
Rom 6:15-23- "slaves to obedience", "slaves to righteousness", "slaves to God."
1 Cor 3:5- Paul reminds them that he and Apollos are just Christ's slaves.
1 Cor 4:1- Paul outright tells the Corinthians "this is how you ought to regard us: as slaves of Christ..."
2 Cor 6:4- Paul & other leaders commend themselves as slaves of God by boasting about their struggles.
2 Cor 11:23- Paul brags about being a slave of Christ, again giving his struggles as evidence.
Gal 1:10- Paul calls himself a slave of Christ, noting that if he wanted to please men, he would not be a slave of Christ.
Eph 3:7- a slave of the gospel.
Eph 6:6- Paul reminds slaves that they are Christ's slaves, so the ought to obey their earthly masters.
Eph 6:21- Tychicus is called a dear brother and faithful slave in the Lord.
Phlp 1:1- "Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus."
Col 1:7- Epaphras is called a "dear fellow slave."
Col 1:23- Paul is a slave to the gospel.
Col 1:25- Paul is a slave to the church.
Col 4:7- Tychicus is again called a slave in the Lord.
Col 4:12- Epaphras is again called a slave of Christ Jesus.
2 Tim 2:24- Paul gives instruction on how the "Lord's slave" (a leader in the church) ought to behave.
Titus 1:1- "Paul, a slave of God and apostle of Christ Jesus."
James 1:1- "James, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ."
1 Peter 2:16- the command "live as God's slaves."
2 Peter 1:1- "Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ."
Jude 1:1- "Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ."
Rev 1:1- John calls himself a slave.
Rev 6:11- the martyrs await the martyrdom of their fellow slaves.
Rev 7:3- slaves of God are sealed from destruction.
Rev 10:7- the prophets are called “His slaves.”
Rev 11:18- again, the prophets are called “His slaves.”
Rev 15:3- Moses is called God’s slave.
Rev 19:2- martyrs are referred to as slaves.
Rev 19:5- God’s people called slaves.
Rev 19:10- the angel refers to himself as God’s slave.
Rev 22:3,6- God’s people will be slaves, even in eternity.
Rev 22:9- the angel refers to himself as a slave.
About Jesus
Matt 12:18- refers to Jesus as a servant, quoting Isaiah.
Phlp 2:7- Jesus made Himself a slave.
Mark 10:45- “The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve…”
So what's the point? The point is that there is a very real and powerful sense in which we are slaves, which is what I've been saying all along. There is certainly a slavery that exists that does not speak to us, and a slavery that does. See Romans 6 for that.
Further, this conclusively shows that we can, in fact, be both slaves and sons in God's way of reckoning things. That's good enough for me. So I point, once again, to Courtney's point: "I think maybe since both of them are in the Bible, maybe they are both important."
Speaking of the TNIV. There is a great audio version of the TNIV I found called The Bible Experience. A Hollywood production group recorded over 200 top actors, pastors, musicians, with sound effects and music. I have the NT, but the full Bible is coming in October. I found it a great way to engage the Bible. There are some "making of" videos on YouTube. Or you can check it out at zondervan.com/tbe.
Post a Comment