Tag: Slave

November 13: John 15:15

John 15:15

“No longer do I say you (are) dou=loi, (in) that a dou=lo$ has not seen [i.e. does not know] what his lord does; but I have said (that) you (are) fi/loi, (in) that, all the (thing)s that I (have) heard (from) alongside my Father, I (have) made known to you.”

The final statement in this unit of the Vine-exposition further expounds the declaration in verse 14 (discussed in the previous note), in which Jesus identifies his disciples as those dear to him (“his dear [one]s”). The noun used to express this is fi/lo$ (plur. fi/loi), related to the verb file/w (“have/show affection”)—a verb that is largely synonymous (and interchangeable) with a)gapa/w (“[show] love”) in the Gospel of John. Thus the term fi/lo$ relates to the theme of love, and to the duty (e)ntolh/) of disciples/believers to love each other, that is so prominent in the Last Discourse. For more on the use and significance of fi/lo$, cf. the previous notes on vv. 13 and 14.

Here, in verse 15, fi/lo$ is juxtaposed with the noun dou=lo$, which properly denotes a slave. This creates a stark contrast: a dear friend or loved one vs. a slave. Unfortunately, the term “slave” in English brings to mind certain aspects of slavery that would have been somewhat out of place in the first-century Greco-Roman world. For this reason, many commentators prefer the translation “servant”, but this can be misleading as well, and too general a term, lacking the characteristic of a state of bondage or servitude. In Greco-Roman society, a household slave was not necessarily treated harshly, and could even hold a relatively prominent position in the administration of the house. Cf. the use of the term in 4:51; 18:10, 18, 26.

There are two occurrences of dou=lo$ elsewhere in the sayings/teachings of Jesus that are worth noting. The first occurs in the Sukkot Discourse of chaps. 7-8, within the Discourse-unit of 8:31-47, which deals with the theme of freedom and bondage. The central statement by Jesus (in vv. 31-32) ties this theme to a person’s identity as a disciple:

“If you would remain in my word, (then) truly you are my learners [i.e. disciples], and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

In addition to the principal theme of being a true disciple of Jesus, the use of the verb me/nw (“remain, abide”), along with an emphasis on Jesus’ word (lo/go$), makes for a clear connection between this statement and the Vine-exposition (vv. 4-11). In particular, the expression “remain in my word” is precisely parallel with those in the Vine-exposition (“remain in me,” vv. 4ff; “remain in my love”, vv. 9-10); cf. also v. 7: “if you should remain in me, and my words [r(h/mata] should remain in you…”.

Some of the people respond to Jesus’ statement by basing their freedom not on being his disciple (i.e., trusting in him), but on their ethnic-religious identity as ‘children of Abraham,’ along with what that implies—God’s chosen people (Israel), in covenant-bond with Him:

“…we have been enslaved [vb douleu/w] to no one ever, (so) how can you say that ‘you will come to be free’?” (v. 33)

In answer to them, Jesus expounds his statement in two ways. First, he defines freedom and slavery in terms of sin:

“every (one) doing the sin is a slave [dou=lo$] of the sin” (v. 34)

Second, he explains its meaning specifically in Christological terms—that is, in terms of his identity as the Son (of God):

“the slave [dou=lo$] does not remain in the house into the Age, (but) the Son remains into the Age.” (v. 35)

On the surface, Jesus is simply making a distinction between a household slave and a (human) son of the house; however, on a deeper level there can be no doubt that he is also referring to his identity as the Son—one who remains in God’s house forever. In this regard, the two aspects of vv. 34-35 are unquestionably related, since, in the Johannine theology (and the Gospel), sin (a(marti/a, vb a(marta/nw) refers principally to the great sin of unbelief—of failing or refusing to trust in Jesus as the Son of God (see esp. 16:9).

The second occurrence of dou=lo$ is the saying by Jesus in 13:16 (alluded to also in 15:20):

“a slave [dou=lo$] is not greater than his lord, nor is (one) sent forth [a)po/stolo$] greater that the (one hav)ing sent [vb pe/mpw] him”

This saying comes from the Last Supper scene, in the context of the foot-washing episode (13:4-15), and serves as its culmination. It emphasizes the need for the disciple to follow the example (and command) of his/her master. But there is also, in this saying, a strong Christological emphasis, as in 8:34-35 (cf. above). In the Johannine Gospel, the verbs a)poste/llw / pe/mpw (“send [forth]”) refer primarily to Jesus’ identity as the Son who was sent (to earth from heaven) by God the Father. This implies that a disciple is one who trusts in Jesus as the Son.

In the narrative context of the Last Discourse, the disciples do not yet truly understand the nature of who Jesus is. They have trust, but not yet a true awareness or understanding. Therefore, it is still possible for Jesus to refer to them as “slaves/servants” (dou=loi), as is implied in 13:16. However, with the Vine-illustration, which lies at the center of the Last Discourse, this situation begins to change. Now Jesus says to them, “I no longer [ou)ke/ti] say you (are) slave/servants [dou=loi]…”. The characteristic of the household slave is that, while he is obedient, he does not fully know (or understand) what his master is doing. That has been the disciples’ position up to this point. Now, however, it has changed:

“but (now) I have called you dear (one)s [fi/loi]”

The basis for this change is that now they are beginning to know and understand “what their lord does” —implying a growing awareness in his identity as the Son sent by God the Father. This Christological point is clear from the wording:

“…(in) that all the (thing)s that I (have) heard (from) alongside my Father, I (have) made known to you.”

This has been a key emphasis throughout the Gospel—viz., that the Son’s words come from the Father, that Jesus speaks to believers what he has heard from the Father. He has been doing this all along, but now, during the Last Discourse, it has been revealed to his disciples in a new and more complete way. It begins a process of revelation that will continue, through the presence of the Spirit (14:16-17, 25-26; 15:26-27; 16:12-15).

The disciples are to remain in both his word (8:31; 15:7) and his love (15:4ff, 9-10ff), even before the coming of the Spirit (cf. the context of 14:15-21). Ultimately the true disciple (believer) remains in him, in this same way, through the presence of the Spirit.

 

October 20: Philippians 2:7b

Philippians 2:7b

Our analysis on the first phrase of verse 7 (cf. the previous note on 7a), a)lla\ e(auto\n e)ke/nwsen (“but he emptied himself”), can be summarized with the following two points:

    • The adversative particle a)lla/ (“but”), and the main point of contrast, relates primarily to the phrase a(rpagmo\n h)gh/sato (cf. the discussion below)
    • The figurative use of the verb keno/w (“[make] empty”), in common with the other 5 NT occurrences of the verb (all by Paul), is applied here to a person (Jesus); it should be understood in the sense of make him(self) to be of no significance or importance.

The following phrases in the verse are subordinate and explanatory, beginning with v. 7b:

morfh\n dou/lou labw/n
“taking (the) form of a slave”

That is to say, this phrase explains what it means that Jesus “emptied himself”, and indicates what this “emptying” entailed. Our analysis again will look at each word in detail.

morfh\n (“form, shape”)—the noun morfh/ in the accusative (object of the following participle labw/n). The same noun was used in verse 6a, and the expression morfh\ dou/lou (“form of a slave”) is clearly intended as parallel with morfh\ qeou/ (“form of God”). The noun was discussed in detail in the prior note (on v. 6a). The two instances of the noun here in vv. 6-7 are the only occurrences in the New Testament (apart from the ‘long ending’ of Mark [16:12]), and it is equally rare in the LXX (occurring just 8 times). A related verbal noun mo/rfwsi$ is also rare (Rom 2:20; 2 Tim 3:5), along with the verb morfo/w (only in Gal 4:19); neither word is used in the LXX. The fundamental meaning of the morf– word-group is that of the (external) form or shape of something—often specifically of human beings or animals, but it could apply to any object or feature of the visible world. It is important to keep in mind that the emphasis is on the visible form or appearance of something.

doulou/ (“of a slave”)—The noun dou=lo$ refers to a slave; related is the corresponding feminine noun dou/lh (for a female slave), the more abstract noun doulai/a (“slavery”), adjective dou=lo$ (“enslaved, [act]ing as a slave”), and verb douleu/w (“be a slave”). It is a common noun, occurring 126 times in the New Testament, including frequently in the Pauline letters. Paul sometimes uses it in reference to people who are actually slaves (in Greco-Roman society), but just as often it is used figuratively or metaphorically, either in a negative (e.g., human beings enslaved to the power of sin) or positive sense (e.g., believers bound in service to God). Of particular importance is the idiom of believers (esp. ministers of the Gospel) as “slaves” (dou=loi) of God and Christ (Rom 1:1; Phil 1:1, etc).

How should the word be understood here? We must bear in mind, first, that the expression “form of a slave” is set as a contrastive parallel with “form of God” in v. 6, with “slave” (dou=lo$) forming a precise contrast to God. As a contrast, this can be taken two ways:

    • By “slave” is meant primarily a human being, in contrast with God
    • The term signifies a lowly status and position, contrasted with the exalted status/position of God (in heaven)

If the former were intended, we would perhaps expect the parallel to be with “form of a man” (morfh\ a)nqrw/pou), rather than “form of a slave”. The noun a&nqrwpo$ does occur in the final two phrases of v. 7 (to be discuseed), making it clear that we are dealing with a human slave; however, this does not change the fact that the wording carefully avoids making a precise contrast between deity (God) and humanity (man) per se. The further terminology (in vv. 8ff), of “making low” and “making high,” strongly suggests that the point of the contrast here is one of status and position. God in heaven has the highest, most exalted position, while a human slave has one of the lowest.

Given the early Christian usage of the noun dou=lo$ to refer to believers (esp. ministers) as “slaves” of God and Christ (cf. above), is it possible that the term is meant to indicate Jesus’ position as a slave (or servant) of God? Some commentators have thought so, even suggesting that the Isaian “Servant of the Lord” motif is in view, by way of the “Servant Songs” of (Deutero-) Isaiah (esp. 52:13-53:12). There is no doubt that Jesus, as the Anointed One (Messiah), in his earthly life and ministry, and all the more in his sacrificial death, was seen by early Christians as fulfilling these Isaian Servant Songs (Acts 8:30-35, etc). Moreover, there does seem to be a certain similarity of theme between, for example, Isa 52:13-53:12 and our hymn. However, an emphasis on Jesus as the “slave of God” here, in my view, defeats the force of the contrastive parallel. The point is that Jesus went from the highest position to the lowest, which is symbolized by the motif of a human slave, a person with limited rights and freedoms, dependent entirely on the power and control of one’s human master(s), which could (at times) be harsh and cruel.

labw/n (“taking”)—an aorist active participle of the common verb lamba/nw (“take, receive”). It is clearly epexegetical to the main aorist verb e)ke/nwsen (“he emptied”); the only real interpretive question is whether the participle should be understood as a consequence of Jesus’ “emptying”, or characteristic of it. In other words, does his “taking the form of a slave” describe the emptying, or is it the result of a prior action? I believe the participles of v. 7 are best understood as descriptive—i.e., what Jesus’ “emptying” of himself entailed. It was an action, not of seizing/holding to an exalted heavenly/divine status (v. 6), but of taking on a lower and humbling status instead. This will be discussed further in the next note.

This may be an appropriate time to consider again the three lines of interpretation I put forth for understanding the term a(rpagmo/$ (“seizing, [something] seized”) in v. 6b (cf. the earlier note):

    • Though Jesus had an exalted position alongside God, he was not equal to God in all respects; he might have been inclined to seek this greater status, this equality, but he chose not to grasp after it. Some commentators see here a contrastive parallel between Jesus and Adam, who was tempted by the promise of becoming just like God.
    • Jesus did possess this equality with God, but not as something which one grasps hold of in an ambitious way, or to protect one’s position; he was willing to let go any attachment to his divine status for the sake of his redemptive mission on earth.
    • The exalted position of Jesus alongside God, by which he shares equal rule with the Father, is not characterized by a grasping after power, such as ambitious human rulers do; rather, it is characterized by a willingness to sacrifice oneself for the good of those over whom one rules.

The analysis above suggests that the second view is closest to what is being expressed in the hymn—viz., a willingness by Jesus to give up his exalted divine position (equal to God) and take on the low position of human “slave”. At the same time, the contrast between God and “slave” suggests the natural contrast between the slave and a lord or master (i.e. ruler). This, indeed, would frame the contrast even more sharply: ruler with God in heaven vs. lowly slave among human beings on earth. Thus, I believe, there is also an implicit emphasis in the hymn on Jesus’ willingness to abandon his ruling position for the sake of his redemptive mission on earth. The idea, common to many strands of developed orthodox Christology, that Jesus became a human slave while still maintaining his ruling position in heaven, is foreign to the hymn and should not be read into it. Indeed, I would assert that such a Christological interpretation, while legitimate in its attempt to balance the full weight of the theological implications brought about by the New Testament witness, actually contradicts (and defeats) the thematic structure and thought of the hymn itself. This will be discussed further in the upcoming notes.