The Prodigal Son and the Slave Brother

http://www.cooneyillustration.com/zparable-prodigalson.htm

Much is said of the (so called) parable of the Prodigal Son, yet not nearly enough if you ask me! In fact the common name for the parable itself is a big part of the problem. It leaves out half the story!! It leaves out the part about slavery! Perhaps we should call in international conspiracy theorist Dr. MacArthur (Dr. Jones of the Bible perhaps??) who keenly picked up on how there had been an international, near double millennia conspiracy to coverup the concept of slavery in the New Testament scriptures. See The Bible X-Files? and my Final Thoughts on Slave (the doctor's latest book). 

Perhaps there has been a conspiracy to cover up the slavery concept that is clearly portrayed in the original Greek but not often revealed in the English translations of the New Testament? Let's crack the case by going to the source! 

The whole parable is found in Luke 15:11-32, but let's start with a few English translations of verse 29. In this verse we find the complaint of the elder brother to the father who had just accepted his lost son back into the warmth of the family with a celebration! I have bolded the words which are rendered from the Greek word douleuó which is a from the word doulos which Dr. MacArthur claims to have uncovered 'a conspiracy of biblical proportions' to cover up the true meaning of "slave." douleuó means "I am a doulos" or "I have been a doulos." Check out Strong's Numbers Greek 1398.

NKJV - which is my preferred preaching & teaching version because of its readability. 

²⁹ So he answered and said to his father, ‘Lo, these many years I have been serving you; I never transgressed your commandment at any time; and yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might make merry with my friends. 

NIV (2011 - I'm not sure how the previous version rendered it) 

²⁹ But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends.

ESV - The version Dr. MacArthur heaps praise on.

²⁹but he answered his father, 'Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends.

OK so what's my point? I have to admit I have more than one. Least important is the obvious incongruence between MacArthur's video about his new book Slave, and his video about his new ESV Study Bible. The ESV is said to be an accurate word for word translation, but it calls slavery service? 

More important is the fact that the elder brother had served his father like a slave, and the prodigal son had not - yet the father welcomed him as a son he was delighted with! Read the whole parable again. Luke 15:11-32. 

The younger son is horrendous to the father, takes off with his wealth and squanders it on his fleshly desires. No one can deny that this was a horrible thing for him to do. Things quickly got miserable for him. He was a Jew and it got so bad that he had to try to feed himself by looking after pigs - unclean animals according to Levitical Law; Lev 11:7 (for example). 

Then the ESV says that the young man "came to himself" Luke 15:17, and decided that even his fathers slaves/servants were more prosperous than he was! Much is said about the son's intent to serve his father, but he never actually said that to his dad. He only managed to say that he was not worthy to be called his son. At that point the father, who had already ran out to meet the young man before he could return home, sent his servants for the finest robes and put a ring on his hand. Then they had a huge celebration! 

Now there is much debate about the application of this parable to salvation. Is this about restoration of fellowship or is it about a sinner getting saved? Is it a son who was always a son who went away and was welcomed back or is it about a son who "was dead, and lost, but now is alive and found"? I actually tend to think of it as a salvation message, he was dead and is now alive.... but it really doesn't matter for the point of this article. 

The elder son had slaved for his father, and the younger son didn't and was not required by the father to do so. They both had full fellowship, and sonship. The only difference is that the younger prodigal one enjoyed the celebration because he knew he was not worthy to be called a son.  Luke 7:47 comes to mind.

God the Father doesn't require slavery for one to be saved. He requires us to see ourselves as we are, and see our need for reconciliation to Him met fully in His Son Jesus Christ. We are not worthy to be called sons and daughters, but He runs out to us and cloths us in the finest Robe anyway. 

Galatians 3:26-29 

²⁶ For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. ²⁷ For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. ²⁸ 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. ²⁹ And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. 

Final Thoughts on Slave

I finished reading John MacArthur's new book "Slave: the hidden truth about your identity in Christ" back on January 14th. Before I started reading Slave I had intended to do a huge review of the work. All the way back on January 13th I recorded my initial impressions of the book.  As I was formulating those initial impressions I was still expecting Slave to be the focus of a detailed review, and a new focal point in the pro/anti Lordship Salvation heresy discussion. I stand by my initial impressions, but my anticipation would have been better spent waiting on the ketchup to come out of a bottle...

Since that time, perhaps, some of you have been anticipating my review of the book. After-all I've been saying that I would review it. In the two months since I finished reading Slave I've been contemplating how to review it fairly. I’ve decided to do less than a review and simply offer my “final thoughts” on the book. I had expected a much stronger work that would need to be answered in detail. I expected it to be compelling. I expected it to at least almost live up to how it was promoted.

Well before I get ahead of myself let's look at the promotional video for Slave. Even if you've seen it before please watch it again.  Back in December I described this video as the Bible X-Files, and I think that description is pretty close to the mark.

The very first words of this promotional video, spoken by Dr. John MacArthur himself, are "Exploring the New Testament I uncovered a distortion truth when it came to the word doulos." So Dr. MacArthur claims to have uncovered a distortion of truth when it comes to the word doulos. I want you to get this claim straight from his own mouth - because it is central to one of the most common criticisms of the book.

According to Amazon.com the hardcover is 240 pages long (I read it using the Kindle app on my Macbook Pro and iPod Touch). Though MacArthur claims there has been a cover-up of biblical proportions to hide an essential truth from the world he has 373 references, and a full chapter entitled "Voices From Church History"... it is true that some chapters have several scripture references, so we can take maybe 30 references out of that number... that would still give us around 343 references of other people telling us about the word doulos. On my kindle app the references for each short chapter are several pages long. The video for the book makes this “cover-up” sound, well impressive. The book makes the failed attempt seem pathetic, or perhaps it may make one think there was no cover-up at all.

When I read and reviewed MacArthur’s The Gospel According to Jesus, I found myself getting upset with the man. The book was filled with proof-texts (out of context short quotations of Scripture) and conjecture. He would posit something over a number of pages – without support from the Scriptures, then move on to another topic which would be supported by saying since we know such and such is true then… and the such and such would be whatever he had just posited without support. I really thought it was intentional, and perhaps I still feel like some of it was. Now though, I’m beginning to think he has been blinded by his own argument. He’s not able to imagine a real argument against it so he doesn’t even bother to try to support what he claims.

Slave is, in my opinion after having read it and then considered it for two months, is a shockingly limp, lazy and loose work which doesn’t even make a point let alone bother to argue for it. I realize that Slave is just one cog in a machine designed to drive MacArthur readers to embrace the theology that I can only describe as the Lordship Salvation heresy. The whole system might be described like this:

Christians are slaves, Roman slaves had no will of their own and were totally subjected to their masters, Christians therefore have this same relationship with their Master, Jesus Christ, therefore Lordship Salvation is true and one cannot be saved unless they are completely, radically, fully, wholly, subjected to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in every aspect of their life, for their entire life time.

Previous works by MacArthur fit later in the system than Slave does. Slave is an enterance book – a means to draw new followers of Lordship Salvation.  It’s a lite read, doesn’t draw too many conclusions and so won’t stir up many objections in the mind of a novice to the topic.

When I gave my initial reaction to a Brother I’m accountable to in regard to these matters, he counselled me not to make the review about the last page of the book. What is that last page? An advertisement for the Slave study guide.  Sadly it appears to me that the book has two purposes; first to give the impression that the word doulos can only mean “slave” and that the Roman slave trade is the definition of Christianity, without exploring what that really means to the individual; and second to sell the study guide. There is no good example of exegesis in this book. He quotes several passages but does not dig into any of them to any great depth at all. Perhaps the study guide does?

The problem is that the person who reads Slave and then decides to get the study guide has likely already bought into the Roman slave trade view of Christianity based on MacArthur’s convincing before they ever get a chance to examine the Scriptures. This is a horrible reversal of how theology is supposed to be developed in a Christian’s mind. Our understanding is to be driven by the Scriptures, not the other way around. Of course one might bring up that the Bereans listened to Paul first and then went to the Scriptures but I caution to you read what is said of the noble Bereans. Acts 17:11 They listened to Paul with ready minds and then went to the Scriptures to see if what he said was actually true. They did not listen to Paul and then have him lead them in a study. Likewise we ought to obey 1Thes 5:21

One sincere person recently showed a clear example of what happens when you get this wrong. In so doing he gave me the push I needed to actually finish this blog article. I will paraphrase him anonymously because I’m reasonably sure he would not want to be quoted.  

Why not just let the Word speak for itself? The word is doulos and it only means “slave.” Look it up, it’s Strong’s # 1401. 

Do you see the system I described above in this man's words? Do you see how if this teaching style is used, this one word can define Christianity without even the aid (not to mention the correction) of the rest of Scripture? If not, hopefully you will before the end of this article.

Following the same pattern that I found so offensive in The Gospel According to Jesus; in Slave MacArthur makes the argument that doulos only means slave, and therefore Christianity is like Roman slavery, and every time the Lord spoke of a person doing work, or being employed by someone else He was actually using what MacArthur calls “slave language” to show what true Christianity is. It is a brilliant practice to employ with people who will not test your argument rigorously.

You may have noticed in the video that MacArthur ties the word “bought” into the equation of understanding that true Christians are slaves of Christ. This of course gets discussed in the book as well. Frankly, it is an understanding of redemption that is corrupted by forcing the doctrine of Limited Atonement on it.

If those whom Christ bought are all “doulos” to Him, and if the word doulos can only mean slave, and this defines Christianity as slavery to Christ then all those who are bought are slaves in total subjection to Him. This is how Slave helps you think, and it is the intent of the paraphrased quote above.

2Peter 2:1-3

 ¹ But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. ² And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. ³ By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.

Here are a group of false prophets who were “bought” by the Lord. Most obviously these people are going to be destroyed in judgment – they will be going to the Lake of Fire. These are not saved people.

But what if I’m wrong, what if they are saved people who have gone astray and will face harsh judgement at the Judgment Seat of Christ, being "saved as though by fire"? 1Cor 3:9-15 Even that doesn’t help the MacArthur doctrine. The problem remains, they are either bought and going to be destroyed or they are bought and most obviously not in subjection to the Lordship of Christ in every aspect of their lives. There is no solution for the MacArthur doctrine in this example.

That ought to be enough, but Scripture is actually full of examples that show the complete failure of MacArthur’s doctrine. We’ll look at just one more.

Were the Corinthians saved people? Yes. Were they bought? Yes. (hint: Jesus Christ paid for everyone, and everything at the Cross. The Cross wasn’t just about the Elect because it wasn’t just about people – it was about all of Creation.)

Anyway let’s look at the Corinthians.

1Cor 6:20

For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

Paul is telling them that because they were bought that they are to glorify God in their bodies and spirits. Why would you have to tell someone to do this if they were a slave, without will and in total subjection to the Lordship of Christ? Were they saved or not?

OK well one Lordship Salvation proponent might say that since all Creation was bought by the Lord on the Cross, that Paul giving a Gospel presentation, a salvation appeal even! Well no, actually the Corinthians Paul was writing to had long before received the Gospel; as we read back in Acts 18.

Acts 18:5-8

5 When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. 6 But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook  his garments and said to them, "Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles." 7 And he departed from there and entered the house of a certain man named Justus, one who worshiped God, whose house was next door to the synagogue. 8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.

Paul was preaching that Jesus is the Christ, though many Jews rejected this message many of the Corinthians heard, believed and were baptized. These are saved people, and yet they went on to have a famously fleshy assembly filled with all kinds of infighting and sexual immorality. So can it be said that these bought and saved Christians lived in a Roman slave-like relationship to Christ for all their days? If you think they did, please… please read 1^st and 2^nd Corinthians.

In this article I have followed the example of the noble Bereans. I have listened to what MacArthur has taught and then I have gone to the Scriptures to see if what he teaches is true; it is not. I therefore must reject what he teaches in accordance with 1Thes 5:21.

Slave is a disappointing read and it builds a false view of Salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ.  

Just finished reading Slave

I've just finished reading John MacArthur's Slave this moment. My first impressions still stand - though some will require some tweeking when I publish my review of the book.

In short, I feel like I've just watched a movie that was promoted to be a summer blockbuster which would win all the awards.. and it turned out to be Transformers 2.

This book is WAY over hyped...

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. 

Purchased 'Slave' on Kindle

So I've purchased John MacArthur's new book Slave on my Kindle account.

I'm going to be taking my time reading it but I'm sure I'll be posting about it soon. Here's a screenshot of the first page after the cover however:

If there is anything good, at all, about this book being published it must simply be that followers can no longer deny that MacArthur preaches a works based salvation.  In the very first paragraph of writing in the book RC Sproul praises the work and states:

"Those who would be His children, must paradoxically be willing to be His slaves." 

First review of MacArthur's new book 'Slave'

UPDATE: Here are my own thoughts about Slave (and here are my first impressions).

In the coming days I intend on discussing how we can, and if we should, follow Paul's example in Acts 21 with our dealings with Brethren who preach the Lordship Salvation message.  Here's the first review I've read of MacArthur's new book 'Slave.'

John MacAthur's New Apostate Book - at the Notes From A Retired Preacher blog. (a repost of Bruce Bauer's review at Amazon.com)  I am also going to repost it here. 

Please Note: This review by Bruce Bauer is from: Slave: The Hidden Truth About Your Identity in Christ (Hardcover), by John MacArthur

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? 

Yes, this is exactly what the book would have us to believe, that the common Greek term “doulos” has been mistranslated in every major version of the Bible since the earliest of printed Bible translations. According to MacArthur, “doulos” should be translated primarily if not exclusively as “slave.” Most modern translators (NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ESV) as well as common Greek-English lexicons interpret the term in a variety of ways as, “servant,” “slave,” “bond servant,” “bondman,” or “attendant.” MacArthur also states on pp. 29-30 that the proper meaning of the Old Testament’s nearest equivalent term, “‘ebed” has also been hidden by modern translators: 

“The King James Version, for example, never translates ‘ebed as ‘slave’—opting for ‘servant’ or ‘manservant’ the vast majority of the time. But contrast that with the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament from before the time of Christ. It translates ‘ebed with forms of ‘doulos,’ or ‘slave’ more than 400 times!” 

WHAT?? The LXX translated the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek, NOT to English! So MacArthur is leaping to an inappropriate conclusion about the meaning of the Hebrew in this case.  

My greatest problem with the book was that the author, MacArthur, took the ancient images of slavery and superimposed them onto modern Christianity with the intent to create the notion that our normative relationship with God and our service to God should be that of a slave to a master, instead of that of a child of God responding out of love and gratitude to an omnibenevolent (all loving) Father God. Romans 8:15 says, “For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba,” Father.” 

With this slave-to-master representation set into place, the author proceeded to promote his standard Lordship Salvation doctrine dressed in new clothes, slave garb. He even used much of the same argumentation that he used in “The Gospel According to Jesus.” And, once again, he freely denigrated and characterized Free Grace theology, especially in chapter five.

Recommended reading: “The Grace Awakening,” by Charles Swindoll

The Bible X-Files?

Dr. John MacArthur has a new book coming out. I heard about this a few weeks ago from a commenter here at On My Walk, but now there's a promo video!

Brother Martuneac, author of In Defense of the Gospel which was recently reviewed here has a discussion about MacArthur's new book "Slave" going on over at his blog. Lou quotes MacArthur's own explanation of the book.

“Studying the New Testament I discovered a distortion of truth when it came to the word ‘doulos.’ The book Slave is about the hidden word that unlocks the believer’s identity. There had been a conspiracy to cover up a truth that is so essential to the New Testament that without it we misunderstand our relationship to Jesus Christ.”

You "discovered" a distortion of the truth? Written about a "hidden word"? There's been a "conspiracy"? Wow, hold the show there Spooky Mulder... I'm sure you're just trying to sell some books but you're going a bit over the top here buddy. What is this? An episode of The Bible X-Files?

Well I don't know about any of that... last I checked the Bible has been completely open for study to everyone for a long time and ignorance of what it says, or doesn't say, is really the fault of an individual - not a conspiracy.  As for what MacArthur intends to explain to the world with his upcoming book "Slave"- well, I think this quote from his sermon "Slaves for Christ" sums it up pretty well.

“When you give somebody the gospel, you are saying to them, ‘I would like to invite you to become a slave of Jesus Christ…give up your independence…give up your freedom, submit yourself to an alien will, abandon all your rights, be owned by, controlled by the Lord’. That’s really the gospel.” (1:06 of video linked above)

"That's really the gospel." Really? Alright MacArthurites, remind me again how I have misrepresented this man's doctrine again and again...

Here's the promo video. I'll definitely be buying this book, if only because I want to show it to all the people who tell me that MacArthur doesn't pervert the Gospel of Jesus Christ.