Eternal Security And The Bondservant

[Mcgyver]

Well, I hope that I'm putting this in the correct forum for discussion...

It seems to me that whenever the debate over Eternal vs. Conditional Security of the believer comes up, that many approach the issue from either a Calvinistic or Arminian viewpoint...and I personally don't think that either view is totally correct.

So then, I'd like to submit a different viewpoint for discussion and evaluation...based on the OT law of the bondservant (or bondslave as it is sometimes translated); as I have found that the OT foreshadows the NT and the NT illuminates the OT.

The law of the bondservant is found in two places in the OT: Exodus and Deuteronomy, and reads as follows:

“Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them: If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever. Exodus 21:1-6 (Emphasis mine)

And if it happens that he says to you, ‘I will not go away from you,’ because he loves you and your house, since he prospers with you, then you shall take an awl and thrust it through his ear to the door, and he shall be your servant forever. Also to your female servant you shall do likewise. Deut 15:16-17 (Emphasis mine)

Obviously, when one became a Bondservant it was for life. Even if later on down the line he/she decided that they perhaps wanted to be free...it couldn't happen. Also there is no provision anywhere for the selling of a bondservant. Twice it is said that the bondservant would serve his/her master forever, and this implies a two-way obligation.

Now I think that we can agree that man has a free will to make moral choices, and that God desires that none perish but that all come to repentance.

This then is what I submit for consideration:

When one responds to the Gospel, and is truly born-again, then one has in essence taken the role of the bondservant. That is to say that having our "ear pierced with the awl" as it were, we can not later "give up" or "walk away from" the salvation that has been given us, nor will God "sell" us back into Satan's clutches.

The scripture (I think) supports this view in quite a few passages, a couple of which follow:

Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (Emphasis mine)

Here for example, ownership by God over the believer is firmly established. 1 Corinthians 7:22-24 echos this sentiment.

Philippians 1:6 tells us: being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ... Obviously if salvation can somehow be "lost" then how can Christ complete His good work in us?

Again: In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. Ephesians 1:13-14 (Emphasis mine)

It is interesting to me that the Apostles refer to themselves as doulos (pl. douloi) variously translated as: servant, bondservant, or slave. What is striking is that of the five Greek words for "slave" or "servant", doulos is the most abject form of slavery.

Dr. Richard Trench in his Synonyms of the New Testament (9th ed.) defines "doulos" thusly: "One that is in a permanent relation of servitude to another, his will altogether swallowed up in the will of the other..."

So then, to recap briefly...We respond to the Gospel at the leading of the Holy Spirit by an act of will on our part (for as "free agents" we can either accept or reject the offer of salvation), and having responded we enter into a permanent and positional relationship with God through His Son; and that relationship can not be broken by either party.

What sayest thou?

[BlessedByTheBest]

hi brother McGyver.

G1401

δοῦλος

doulos

Thayer Definition:

1) a slave, bondman, man of servile condition

1a) a slave

1b) metaphorically, one who gives himself up to another’s will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men

1c) devoted to another to the disregard of one’s own interests

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Isa 43:1 But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.

i believe those who fall away from the faith were never truly His.

if one is, as you say, truly born-again... then no, i do not believe the bond can be broken. God cannot contradict Himself.

love to you.

[Littlelambseativy]

Where in your thinking is the "adoption and co-heirs with Jesus"? and how do you rationalize being a child of God and at the same time a bondservant? Does a bondservant have the same rights as that of a child? even though adopted?

A bondservant is not considered an heir or co- heir.

Romans 8:15-17

New King James Version (NKJV)

15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

[Mcgyver]

Where in your thinking is the "adoption and co-heirs with Jesus"? and how do you rationalize being a child of God and at the same time a bondservant? Does a bondservant have the same rights as that of a child? even though adopted?

A bondservant is not considered an heir or co- heir.

Romans 8:15-17

New King James Version (NKJV)

15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

That's a good question!

Although I was using the picture of the Bondservant as an argument for the eternal security of the believer, I'll try to give my understanding as to how these tie in together.

In our western way of thinking, these two concepts (bondslave vs adoption) seem at first glance to be mutually exclusive but to the 1st century Jew they were not mutually exclusive concepts.

To illustrate: Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit writes in 1 Corinthians to the effect that (paraphrasing here) "we are not our own, but were bought at a price". Again Paul writes that we are sealed "unto redemption of the purchased possession".

But as you pointed out, Paul writes again under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that we are children of God and heirs with Christ...even after he (Paul) identifies himself in Romans 1:1 thusly: Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle...and of course the word translated as "bondservant" is doulos.

Obviously, if these two are not in accord one with the other, then we have a contradiction...but as we both know the bible does not contradict itself.

I think that the answer or shall I say the precept may be found in the book of Galatians 3:26-4:7 where he writes:

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.

Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Here in this passage, if we just read over it quickly, it seems that on one hand Paul is saying that on one hand we are no different from slaves (blue portion), and then that we aren't slaves (green portion).

Both are correct...we still live in these bodies on this earth, and as such we have not yet come into our inheritance, but in Christ we are no longer slaves to the elements of the world but are indeed sons.

I'll have to get back to this later, as I have an appointment...but it's some food for thought.

[Guest shiloh357]

Paul uses different analogies at different times to describe the believer. The quesitioned could be asked: How can the church be the bride of Christ and at the same time be the body of Christ? Different analogies illustrate different nuances in terms of our relationship to God. Paul uses slaves to illustrate one perspective and then Paul elsewhere states that we are sons. It really depends on the context that Paul is speaking to at the time.

As to the bondservant analogy, I wonder if it really speaks to the issue of eternal security. Reason being, when the Bible speaks of the bondservant, it seems like it points to our commitment to Christ. For me, eternal security is rooted in faithfulness of God. My commitment as His bondservant is my response to His faithfulness.

[Mcgyver]

Paul uses different analogies at different times to describe the believer. The quesitioned could be asked: How can the church be the bride of Christ and at the same time be the body of Christ? Different analogies illustrate different nuances in terms of our relationship to God. Paul uses slaves to illustrate one perspective and then Paul elsewhere states that we are sons. It really depends on the context that Paul is speaking to at the time.

As to the bondservant analogy, I wonder if it really speaks to the issue of eternal security. Reason being, when the Bible speaks of the bondservant, it seems like it points to our commitment to Christ. For me, eternal security is rooted in faithfulness of God. My commitment as His bondservant is my response to His faithfulness.

As always, you bring up some good points.

I'd also point out that Paul is speaking in a manner that is consistent with the culture of his time...that is to say, the idea of being both a slave and a son may seem to us to be a contradiction in terms...but in Paul's time such occurrences were not outside the norm and as such would be readily understood. The Roman law of Patria Potestas is a good example.

Even in an absolute monarchy, the king's son, wife, friends, etc. are still subjects of the particular sovereign.

The illustration of the bondservant was used as an attempt to illustrate a foreshadowing (if you will) of what happens to us when we are born-again (e.g.eternally secure).

When we speak of the issue of Eternal vs. Conditional Security, it almost always turns to a Calvin vs. Arminius debate...on one hand, (when taken to extremes) IMO Calvinism denies the free will of man, and the Arminian view casts aspersions upon the sovereignty of God. I don't believe either view sufficiently explains the wonderful mystery of what God does to and for us.

I think that biblically, there is room for a "third viewpoint" so to speak.

As you well know, one of the conditions necessary to become a bondservant was that the person loved his master and didn't want to leave...and from that desire a permanent relationship was established, as codified under law. Even if, having made that decision; one wished to recant later on...it couldn't happen...for a bondservant was a "forever" proposition.

My premise is similar in that, having responded to the gospel we surrender a certain part of our so called "free will" (for lack of a better term) and enter into a permanent relationship with God (as both sons and servants to His will) that He will not break; and one that we can not break.

[desi2007]

Indeed Interesting topic.... I believe Paul was sharing with the people what was relevant 2000 years ago. The poor, the servants and the slaves would go to the church. Looking for something. The reality of Jesus in their lives gave them perspective, a meaning and purpose in life. The challenges with work and how it matters to God. He wanted to see His children thrive in the culture.

Jesus came for the sinners. He served people and He died for us. If He could come and serve His enemies, same power, same spirit. As children of God we carry that spirit in us as believers. If Jesus in His difficult times went through such agony and hardship in life. He has empowered us to do the same with hardship in our lives.

God inspired those words for Paul to write to help the people. Bondservant to me refers to your job or work that you do back in that time period. We all know Jesus is the only master, but Paul was writing in a time period in which there were servants and slaves and even the poor.

Ephesians 6:5 ⁵ Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

blessings,

desi

[Guest shiloh357]

As always, you bring up some good points.

I'd also point out that Paul is speaking in a manner that is consistent with the culture of his time...that is to say, the idea of being both a slave and a son may seem to us to be a contradiction in terms...but in Paul's time such occurrences were not outside the norm and as such would be readily understood. The Roman law of Patria Potestas is a good example.

Even in an absolute monarchy, the king's son, wife, friends, etc. are still subjects of the particular sovereign.

Yeah, but that is not the same as being a "slave." So I am not sure that it applies to this particular discussion. I think you are stretching the application a bit too far.

The illustration of the bondservant was used as an attempt to illustrate a foreshadowing (if you will) of what happens to us when we are born-again (e.g.eternally secure).

But the position of bondservant is not a redemptive concept. It is a voluntary decision of the slave. Furthermore, the use of "bondservant" by Paul pertains to service, not salvation. Being a bondservant appears to be the fruit of salvation, not a type or foreshadwoing of eternal security. It is important that we allow the Bible to instruct us on what things are "foreshadowings." Eternal security is again, I believe, rooted in the faithfulness of God and not our willingness to be a bondslave/servant.

When we speak of the issue of Eternal vs. Conditional Security, it almost always turns to a Calvin vs. Arminius debate...on one hand, (when taken to extremes) IMO Calvinism denies the free will of man, and the Arminian view casts aspersions upon the sovereignty of God. I don't believe either view sufficiently explains the wonderful mystery of what God does to and for us.

I believe in eternal security, but I have far different take on it than Calvinists who simply view it as a matter of being rooted in unconditional election. I am eternally secure because God is not going to be unfaithful to His promises. The whole debate on this matter is often based on the misguided view that I am in some way responsible for securing my salvation and that salvation is rooted in my faithfulness more than God's.

I think that biblically, there is room for a "third viewpoint" so to speak.

As you well know, one of the conditions necessary to become a bondservant was that the person loved his master and didn't want to leave...and from that desire a permanent relationship was established, as codified under law. Even if, having made that decision; one wished to recant later on...it couldn't happen...for a bondservant was a "forever" proposition.

My premise is similar in that, having responded to the gospel we surrender a certain part of our so called "free will" (for lack of a better term) and enter into a permanent relationship with God (as both sons and servants to His will) that He will not break; and one that we can not break.

The reason salvation can't be lost is that we cannot break the New Covenant. The New Covenant is not between man and God. It is between the Father and Jesus. They are the sole guarantors of the covenant. The only people who can break the New Covenant is the Father and Jesus. We, like Abraham are the benefactors of the blessings of the covenant by faith. God is eternally faithful and will never violate the blood covenant made at the cross 2,000 years ago. That is the basis of eternal security.

The bondservant concept pertains to service AFTER we are saved.

[Mcgyver]

Well Shiloh...first of all I fully agree with what you have written....you won't get any argument from me on anything except this:

Yeah, but that is not the same as being a "slave." So I am not sure that it applies to this particular discussion. I think you are stretching the application a bit too far.

How so? The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 6:15-19 the following:

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness. (emphasis mine)

Now to us, the term "slave" brings forth all sorts of negative connotations based (probably) on the American experience. If we substituted the word "servant", then we don't seem to have any sort of problem with the concept.

Paul says: "I speak in human terms..." something that we can understand...

The point that I was making with the OT law of the bondservant is one that is diametrically opposed to the view of either Pelagius or Arminius (actually Arminius' followers); who of course hold to the belief that one's free will can allow one to "walk away" from one's salvation.

The precept is very simple: That one who bound themselves to the master (in this case an individual, human covenant) was bound forever. Such a one had the "free will" to operate only within the constraints of the will of one's master...and they could not later recant and once again become a "free agent" as it were, for the covenant was in force for life. This was codified in the law of Moses.

The illustration or precept becomes obvious: Having responded to the Gospel and having been born again, by the power of God we are kept secure and are no longer "free agents", but have bound ourselves to the Master to do His will and serve at His pleasure...we have become "slaves to righteousness", even though we are also children of God...and of course that is His work and not ours.

In the illustration of a king in an absolute monarchy...history is replete with examples wherein sons, brothers, cousins, wives, etc. are in fact in servitude to the king...do what the king wants or suffer the consequences (remember Vashti?), and that is the basic definition of a "slave". Even the Magna Carta came about to diminish the absolute sway that the king had over his subjects.

Finally, there is the Greek construction of the NT wherein the Apostles refer to themselves individually as "doulos".

There are 5 Greek words for "slave" or "servant" used in the New Testament...but I want to focus on the definitions of two of them:

Doulos: Defined as: One that is in a permanent relation of servitude to another, his will altogether swallowed up in the will of the other..."

Therapon: Defined as: The performer of present services, with no respect to the fact whether as a freeman or slave he renders them; as bound by duty, or impelled by love; and thus, as will necessarily follow, there goes habitually with the word the sense of one whose services are tenderer, nobler, freer than those of the doulos.

Yet none of the Apostles...to include the learned Paul...refer to themselves as a "Therapon", but as a "doulos", even though they were obviously impelled by love for Christ.

So I really don't think that it's stretching the application of the above mentioned precept at all.

[Guest shiloh357]

Well Shiloh...first of all I fully agree with what you have written....you won't get any argument from me on anything except this:

Quote

Yeah, but that is not the same as being a "slave." So I am not sure that it applies to this particular discussion. I think you are stretching the application a bit too far.

How so? The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 6:15-19 the following:

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness. (emphasis mine)

Now to us, the term "slave" brings forth all sorts of negative connotations based (probably) on the American experience. If we substituted the word "servant", then we don't seem to have any sort of problem with the concept.

First of all, you are making a distinction with out a difference, so to speak. In Paul's cultural paradigm, slave and servant are not different concepts. Bondslave and Bondservant are the same thing. It's like pretending there is a difference between cutting down a tree and chopping it down.

Secondly, the application I stated you were stretching applies to the concept of Patria Potestos. You were trying to draw some kind of comparison between the son of the King being his subject in the context of a conversation about being a bondslave and that is why I said you were stretching the application. It simply doesn't work.

The point that I was making with the OT law of the bondservant is one that is diametrically opposed to the view of either Pelagius or Arminius (actually Arminius' followers); who of course hold to the belief that one's free will can allow one to "walk away" from one's salvation.

The precept is very simple: That one who bound themselves to the master (in this case an individual, human covenant) was bound forever. Such a one had the "free will" to operate only within the constraints of the will of one's master...and they could not later recant and once again become a "free agent" as it were, for the covenant was in force for life. This was codified in the law of Moses.

I get that. My point is that this is not how to approach the issue of eternal security. Eternal Security is God-ward not man-ward. That is why the Bible never uses the concept of bondservant to illustrate salvation. The image of a slave/servant is always in the context of service, not salvation. The concept of a bondservant is simply not a redemptive concept.

The illustration or precept becomes obvious: Having responded to the Gospel and having been born again, by the power of God we are kept secure and are no longer "free agents", but have bound ourselves to the Master to do His will and serve at His pleasure...we have become "slaves to righteousness", even though we are also children of God...and of course that is His work and not ours.

That only makes my above point on the fact that slavery or servanthood speaks to service.

In the illustration of a king in an absolute monarchy...history is replete with examples wherein sons, brothers, cousins, wives, etc. are in fact in servitude to the king...do what the king wants or suffer the consequences (remember Vashti?), and that is the basic definition of a "slave". Even the Magna Carta came about to diminish the absolute sway that the king had over his subjects.

I hear you, but the problem is that while the sons and family members of the king are also subjects of the king and are duly bound to obey his edicts, that doesn't necessarily make them slaves. Again, you are pushing this too far. Slaves had no rights, no privileges as sons, heirs or normal subjects. Slaves were less than subjects. So I don't think this is an good analogy to impose on the text of Scripture.