First Impressions of MacArthur's Slave

Update: Find my final thoughts on Slave here. 

So I've read the Preface and Chapter One of MacArthur's new book Slave. I will of course continue reading the book but I think my first impressions are worthy of being captured here before they are lost in a whatever new thoughts come from exposure to the rest of the work.

MacArthur's pride is NOT my issue with his theology. That being said, one initial reaction to the promotion of the book (See this promo video for example) has been consistent and this sentiment as written by Bruce Bauer in his review at Amazon.com is a great example:

The back paper jacket to the book caught my attention: “A COVER-UP OF BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS: Centuries ago, English translators perpetrated a fraud in the New Testament, and it’s been purposely hidden and covered up ever since. Your own Bible is probably included in the cover-up!” 

WHAT? Are we to understand that Bible translators for centuries, hundreds if not thousands of highly-trained knowledgeable men of God, have kept a well-guarded secret about the true meaning of the Bible that only NOW Dr. MacArthur will be the one scholar who will bring us the real scoop? 

Is this reaction to the promotional material justified by what is contained in the book? Well this is a tough one to answer - properly. The short answer is yes, but here's the long answer. MacArthur cites two other people who have written on the subject. In 1966 Edwin Yamauchi wrote an article in his own publication the Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society entitled "Slaves of God." MacArthur's inspiration for Slave is the second. Murray J. Harris 1999 book "Slave of Christ" was his reading material on a long flight, and it gave him the idea of the big "cover-up."   So MacArthur doesn't set himself up as the "one scholar" who will save us from the "cover-up."  HOWEVER,  MacArthur sets himself above the Reformers, and all those who have followed in their tradition. He gives them praise and then writes in the Preface:

"Though all those noble theologians in the rich Reformation tradition of gospel truth touched on this matter - no one had pulled the hidden jewel all the way into the sunlight." 

So yes, MacArthur is portraying himself as this one great scholar who is doing for us what the Reformers and their followers never did. Those are big shoes to walk over... but well just because the guy has a big head doesn't mean I can discount his work. That would be the same time of behaviour that he and other Lordship Salvation preachers engage in, and I'll have nothing of it.

So with the sensational stuff out of the way let's get to the real issues!

This early in the book I have come across three practices in his teaching which give me concern.

1. Double speak. Was there an intentional "cover-up" of the meaning of doulos or not? Is MacArthur the saviour of doctrine or just following a long tradition?

In the preface he writes that Harris' Slave of Christ made him:

"realize there had been a centuries-long cover-up by English New Testament translators that had obscured a precious, powerful, and clarifying revelation by the Holy Spirit. Undoubtably, the cover-up was not intentional--at least not initially."

So it wasn't intentional at first but now it is? Then in Chapter One:

"this cover up.....almost seems like a conspiracy"

If it's intentional then then it must be a conspiracy? This double speak on this topic is classic MacArthur. Whether he's talking about how he's going to expose a long hidden truth, which has been spoken about in every generation since the Apostles.... or an intentional world wide cover-up that isn't a conspiracy.... or whatever controversial doctrine he is teaching on - it's all of grace but if you're not working as a slave of Christ you're not really saved.... MacArthur is highly adept at presenting his doctrine in such a way as to give those who follow him quotes which seem orthodox outside of the context of his teaching.

2. Using MacArthur's interpretation to define other's words. This one is a bit hard to explain. In The Gospel According (TGATJ) to Jesus MacArthur would make a claim, offer his reasoning which was never fully convincing and then a few pages later say "Since we know.... then the Apostle Paul meant..." It was down right offensive to me as I read the book. In Slave MacArthur offers stories of the torture and deaths of some martyrs. He notes how the people he talks about would only answer their questioners with "I am a Christian." Over a few pages MacArthur declares that "christian" = "slave of Christ" and then goes on to state that this is what these martyrs were stating.  MacArthur makes it seem as though one person did actually say the words "I am a slave of Christ" but doesn't actually quote the man, nor the question being asked of him, or give any other context.

One interesting example may be hard for some to catch. MacArthur writes:

"In fact, whereas the outside world called them Christians the earliest believers repeated referred to themselves in the New Testament as the Lord's slaves."  

While it is true that several of the writers of the NT used the word "doulos" to describe themselves and their service to Christ - they were not using it as MacArthur describes. These were a few specific people describing their own relationship to the Lord, explaining their purpose and lives. This is not how Christians talked about themselves, it is how Apostles and other men with offices in the Church spoke of themselves - and rightfully so.

3. Using extra-bibilcal reasoning to define what the Bible says. I'm all about the Grammatical Historical Hermeneutic. That being so, MacArthur throws out the context of word usage in the Scriptures and inserts the Greco-Roman view of slavery in it's place.

My first impressions are not all that surprising.

NOTE: I cannot figure out how to give page references because I'm using an eBook version of Slave and reading it on my laptop & iPod.

Update: Find my final thoughts on Slave here.