To begin with, lets examine
the present misconception there is between the meaning of biblical slavery and
servantry, while we
are touching on the subject of 'force' as opposed to 'freedom of
choice'. Once again it is important to express the
importance of differentiating the two, by rightly dividing the word of
truth. While understanding at the same time, how one is a
compulsion (as in bondage - being forced or engineered to comply)
while the other is the opposite ... freedom in the Spirit. Here we go ...
After kicking-off this whole series titled
"Obedience, Freewill and the Sovereignty of God",I would first
like to make something very clear before moving on. That is by asking this
question: Did you know the
Lord has made you and me to such incredible specifics (PSA 139:14),
even to the
point it is His will
for us to be able to govern our very own life, granting us sovereignty
over our own individual spirit? This means putting us in the
drivers seat, directly under
the influence, guidance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost of
Furthermore, I betcha (in most cases) you have not
been taught this before,
have you? Probably because this would place you in a position of
learning a little bit more about
yourself and why God created you in the first place, as well as why He
has called and reconciled you back to Himself. Something devils
and religious powers would never fully want you to know, and would
(subtly) prevent you to know, while allowing you some sort of
autonomy in the process, to alleviate the situation and put you at eaze. Or, to put it this way ... all for the purpose
of appeasing you without questioning, in order to avoid you looking
further. Even to produce an (outwardly induced)
religious experience, to emotionally please and advertently
deceive you in the end!
if this secret got out (that's EPH 3:3-6) then there could be a
massive break-out from Christendom, as well as a great exodus to the kingdom of
knowing this first, "that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
private interpretation (hands off religious institutions, spiritual
clubs and latter day prophets and gurus!!)"! Plus, Calvinism would no longer be viewed as 'one and the
same' interchangeably with Christianity. But as a distortion of grace and
biblical redemption to all proportions. As well as an effective diversionary and dividing instrument.
However, if you really believe that Calvinism and Christianity happen to be 'one and the
not just rename Christianity as Calvinism anyway? As it looks
like, to many, we have both the Lord Jesus and "Johnny the Great", in
full and sound agreement. At least thatz the way its
pitched. Like ... we need "J the G" as much as the New T, to get the
overall true picture!
Going back in time, it's also the way JC's "Reformed Theology"
got a boost and approval from Johnny Knox and other
contemporary "qualified" kingpins at the time. To set to motion in full
swing, until the present. Best to ask the Lord Himself about
all this guff. Thatz what I say. Is this stuff extra
commentary and a vital boost to what the NT is
convey in the first place? Or is-ent the N Test sufficient in itself? While relying on absolutely no
add-ons or seminary assistance! Just you and your Bible (the real
authentic English one), in other words. Like going plain 'religious cold-turkey', just for once, pleez!
One other very important point to be made clear: If you happen to
get arrested by the authorities for being a Bible believer (may not be
too far off - 2
Tim. 2:9) and made to do forced labour without wages or privileges
(made a slave in other words) please don't misinterpret this treatise
as letting you off the hook (remember Paul being 'a prisoner' of Jesus
Christ)? This is because I am dealing with our calling in regards to our position before the Lord here. Not in the position He
may place us in through being witnesses. Or to refine us as proof of this.
Whether in good times or bad
times, lavishing in milk and honey, or suffering in trials and tribulations, there is no guarantee of being
exempt from any of these, if we are prepared to live for the
cross. After all, whatz that about the Lord
making His sun to rise on both the evil and on the good (oh, you say
there is no good do you, when it comes to folk? That's not what Jesus said? More on dis later). Or
the rain being sent to both the just and the unjust (shouldn't it be ... "both the
privileged and the deprived depraved")? While on earth we are bothcalled as a servant anda
With absolutely no surety about anything. Apart from God never
lying. Nor denying us our guaranteed salvation and eternal assurance, if we heed His call and remain inHim!
On this theme, someone once wrote to me
questioning the redeemed individual of having any say or sway over his
very own life or salvation. Like many, he was emphatic that as believers, we are
called to be slaves. Slaves of God that is! And
"slaves period" when on earth,
was the impression I was given. This was a swift reminder that
this is not the first time, nor the last time, I or you will be faced with
this hideous teaching.
Furthermore, this made me go back to my Bible and check it out again (you see, I do
like to be thorough in checking everything out, even when I am 99.9 % convinced
it is not in scripture). And guess what? Yes, the word slave is
only found ONCE in de WHOLE Bible! Moreover, NOWHERE is the word
slave found in the New Testament for that matter! Additionally,
'slaves' in the plural, is only mentioned ONCE in the WHOLE
Bible. This happens to be found in the New Testament this time (Rev.
18:13)! While the good
news again ... this has got nothing to do with being a
Christian! It is merely referring to those outside of
Christ! Who fall short of being a citizen or mere servant in
How does this one and only verse go, the only verse
mentions the word 'slave' between the two covers of the whole Bible? Here it goes, Jeremiah 2:14 ... in regards to God's rebellious servant (or God's rebellious people in the plural sense):
"Is Israel a servant? is he a homeborn slave? whyishespoiled?"
There it is, the word slave! Only found ONCEin the whole word of God!
Now here's this verse broken down for clarification ...
"Is Israel a servant?" Is Israel called to serve other nations
and be subservient to them, in other words? Or, found in the
same verse again ...
Is "he (Israel) a homeborn slave?"
Or, is this Israel's calling
... to be brought under bondage (without rights, freedom or choices) to
other foreign peoples
Or howabout ... was Israel raised up to be a leader and a light
to all the peoples about, for and on behalf of Jehovah? While
knowing blessing, freedom and prosperity! In this special calling!
Yes, repeating again, the word slave is only
mentioned once in the whole Bible. This is
to do with a question in reference to God's people ... Were the
children of Israel born to be slaves? Nope! Never!
through disobedience, they got to know what being spoiled and real
slavery was all about
the foreign, pagan land of Egypt. Then later again, being brought into
captivity to Babylon this time.
Was this their calling?
Nope! Was this their chastisement? Yes! It was
certainly nothing to do with servantry or any willingness on their part. But
everything to do with bondage and entrapment, as well as forced
labour. Something God has
called us out of, where we are FREE to choose to serve Him. As well
as where the word servantry
(or should I say servant) scripturally kicks in.
Servantry! That's the word which is derived from the word
Furthermore, another question: Is this word 'servant' mentioned in the Bible?
scores and scores of times
for that matter!
Is this word 'servant' mentioned in the New Testament? Yes
... scores of times again! Just like in the Old Testament.
In fact, the word servant is mentioned 458 throughout the entire Bible
... 379 times in the OT and 79 times in the NT. A bit hard
to deny really, wouldn't ya say? Therefore, the conclusion here is that
the word slave (only mentioned once) and
servant (mentioned 458 times) are words of quite different
meanings. This is made clear in the above verse where both words
are used descriptively and independently.
Now let's get out de
world's English dictionaries and consider even the
Servant ... "someone who
has been employed by someone else!" No wonder we use to have
(before privatization) people who were employed by the government
who were called 'public servants'! These people were no way slaves to
public as any more to the government who employed them. They were
there for the good of the people and for the privilege of having the
security of regular employment for themselves, coupled with good
working conditions and earnings to boot.
Slave ... "someone who
has no rights at all and is banished to do what he is told. Without
or ever being rewarded or expecting to be rewarded. But serious consequences and repercussion if he failed or
questioned his bondage!"
This is the reason a slave would hope and pray
that somehow his
master would be a bit more lenient towards him than what others were to
their slaves. Additionally, servants are entitled to wages (Luke 10:7) whereas slaves are not. Proving this big difference is not only scriptural but real evidence the
world sees it this way too. Confirming a slave and a servant are
two different roles whether in the eyes of God or officially in the eyes
of the world.
Yes, we may be the property of God, as He has bought us with a great
price. However, within this same discourse, He has bought us while we were locked into slavery (under sin) in
to emancipate us, and not turn us over to another tyrant, where we may remain in
In fact, to be really scriptural, the Bible does not
even call sinners slaves in this context, but still uses the word servant. Do you
know why? Could it not be because we have chosen
to follow the
Devil after we were born the first time? Meaning, neither God
nor the Devil made us serve the Devil. The Devil simply did not
just come and take us over without our
approval (he has to convince us of course, through cunning, guile, fear or
deceit). Even God does not do this! He is not a tyrant but
the friend of sinners. From the words of
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servantofsin."
Or in the words of Paul (if you believe in choice that iz):
"Know ye not, that to whom(I'm sure this means EVERYONE)ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"
Look at this line again ... "whether of sin unto death (the lost and the damned), or of obedience unto righteousness (those that get saved)"! There, proof it is to EVERYONE ... those that miss out, and those that make it! Or, those that yield and those that choose not to yield. To God that is! In this case!
Do we yield through choice or are we forced to? If we are forced
to ... has the Devil made us do it or has God made us do
it? I can think of a much simpler explanation (which some would
detest by the way) and that is ... we yield (whether it's to the Spirit or to the
flesh - God or the Devil) by simply choosing to. This is by activating
our own will and not having our own will violated by anyone, by forcefully being taken over and
driven against our will. This is not God's nature. Nor is it the way He made us. That's in regards to the whosoever by the way!
Who is 'the whosoever'? This covers us all again, as the Holy Book says!
Everyone! Everyone on the face of the earth. Even though I
will cover this in more detail later on in this series, let me say ... everyone is the
whosoever. Wherez de proof? Out of the 93 "whosoevers" found in the NT (one word please note!) I will just choose this one wee passage as total proof for a start (MAT 10:32-33):
"Whosoever therefore (no group distinction made here) shall confess me before men, him will I confess
also before my Father which is in heaven. Butwhosoever(no group distinction made here again) shall
deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in
Therefore, we only have two types of whosoevers here
EVERYONE on the face of the whole earth): That is those who will
confess Jesus and those who will not! Think about it? This
is certainly not rocket science! Nor is it heavy
"revelation"! Just the same, nor is it lofty theological debate either! Nor complicating the simple issue of ACT 2: 21 fulfilling JOE 2: 32 ... "that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Of course there could be a
third lot ... 'those who would choose to remain neutral!"
However, I can't find this bunch of people anywhere in the Bible.
Can you? Besides, this would contradict Jesus who said (in regards to us ALL)
... "He that is not with me is against me!" Oh dear, there's
simple no escaping, is there? Moreover, hypothetically, should
there be such a third bunch, we would still have to call them 'the whosoever'
wouldn't we? Thatz, "Whosoever would choose to remain neutral"!
So there we have it!
Yes, there is certainly no escaping that 'the whosoever' in scripture is
referring to ALL! EVERY one of us on de face of de whole earth!
Moving on: What happens to a slave when a new compassionate master purchases the slave
in order to free him in some
cases (the word slave chosen only
for metaphoric purposes)? Then exchanges
very own son,
of whom he loves dearly? Handing him over to the slave's owner to deal
with in anyway he wishes? Even in terminating the son's life!
In some cases, would not this broken (former) slave be so
gratitude and overwhelmed with such relief, that
he will choose to follow and serve the new master with his whole
life? Knowing his new master is not a tyrant, but a kind
and caring saviour, who
was prepared to go all the way for him! Even though this slave
knows fully well he
did not deserve to be remembered or delivered at all.
Furthermore, would this
not be the product of what scripture calls unfeigned love? True,
selfless love, in other words! That is prepared to lay down its life
for others and be a friend of sinners! Is this not going against
your doctrinal grain?
Please note, I am not saying every slave will feel this way. The story of the ten lepers comes to mind here (LUK
17:12-19). Only one out of ten was grateful to Jesus the healer
and deliverer. Was this done out of choice? Or because this leper
was already programmed to respond instead of disengaging as the others were programmed to do?
In ROM 1:21 even they that actually knew God, these apostatized people who knew God, decided to give up on Him. They certainly were not automated or
controlled to, thatz for sure! If you read down to verse 24, you
will see that God gave them up, only after they gave up on Him first:
"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness throughthe lusts of theirownhearts".
It does not say anything about God giving up on them before they
rebelled. Nor giving up on them before Creation. Remember
... they knew God before the corruption process and before God gave up
on them (v 21-25). The important point to remember here ... after, not before. After the decision is made on God. Not before, due to God's pre Creation blueprint.
You know what? Many of us (being products of Christendom) have
been taught and told that we are slaves of God, and reminded that a
slave has no rights at all! Is that so? This type of
mindset would certainly make us ripe for the picking and easy to
manipulate. Would it also
mean we could not test and prove all things, as well as exercise our
right as Bereans? After all, this could put someone out of business in the
world of religions and 'many faiths', if the contrary proved to be
My Bible tells me
that "as many as received him, to them gave he power (the right)
become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his
name"! Moreover, if the poor have rights as Psalms 140:12 says,
then how much more the sons of God? There you go ... no one
owns you but God! This also rules out your pastor or minister. Or any
other "spiritual" mentor, roll model, or "spiritual" "mother",
you were conned into adopting, or embracing, after you came to the Lord.
Anything to get into you, and plausibly nurse you away from the truth,
in order to preserve the status quo and keep the religious machinery
ticking over, as a justified institution. Furthermore, if you
end up being corrupted spiritually, it is through choice of your own
(or allowance on your behalf - as we have just seen from Romans) and not
because your course has been set in motion prior.
Getting back to the slave thing, here's how it works: We have been adopted as sons and
Pretty simple really! Moreover, a faithful
servant does not demand his rights but honours and trusts his
employer. If we have really been called to be slaves, this would
mean we would have no right over anything and God could master us
at His whim. Basically, it would mean He could run all over us,
all the time, and
compel us to respond at His beckoning. Like we were just
machines. Scripture does not say, "Greater love hath no man than
this, that a man lay down his life for his machines," does it?
Or, that a man should lay down his life for his stamped-out clones! No, but it does say "for hisfriends"! That's what it says! God sees us as
Hisfriends! Jesus even called Judas friend, after Judas betrayed
Here iz how it goes ... "Henceforth I call you notservants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends"!
Just think about it!? The
implications would be enormous, if we were God's play things? It would also give husbands the
right to be like this over their wives (domineering masters) and
to be like this over their children (cold dictators). Moreover,
how could a husband love his wife as Christ loved His church, if she
was just a 'play thing' outside of being there just to do the chores?
aren't we made in the
image of God? While as Christians haven't we have been re created (reborn) to
mean 'slave it out' - joke) for God in this capacity, having the mind
of Christ? Being
reminded here, that God is not a tyrant. Nor an advantaged
thug. Therefore, He has not made
us, or intended on us, being this way either. Moreover ...
cancelling out steamrollers in the kingdom of God! That goes for
bulldozers too (although there is plenty of bull to bulldoze
away in the interim)! Where
husbands are to love their wives, "even as Christ also loved the
church, and gave himself for it". In the same sense that "we ought to lay down our lives
for the brethren."
The truth is, as well as being scriptural to the tee ... God does not
force His way
into our life at all. Oh spare me! No, Jesus is not "an
intrusive gentleman" as a dear young lassy tried to teach me the other
day through one of her regular send-outs (bless her heart). She certainly did not get it from the word. This
statement is nothing more than an oxymoron. Jesus does not invade
our lives in any sense of the word. However, this is the way
Satan goes about
doing things. Who will possess and run his subjects at whim, when
have yielded to his demands or enticements, and been lead away captive
by their own (nurtured) lusts.
You see, slavery means bondage, whereas servantry
means having the privilege to be able minister to. With the freedom to experience
and reward. Meaning, we yield to Jesus as to cooperate or be fellowhelpers
with Him ... JO3 1:8. "For we are labourers together with God" ... CO1 3:9.
Never to be automated by Him. Nor engineered to mechanically carry out
His will. Meaning, 'servantry' is another term (in fact the
correct term) for the biblical term 'ministry', as in ministering to
God and others. As, "a faithful minister and fellowservant in the Lord" (COL 4:7 - what a bummer for pastors and the like - and despite Juan Carlos Ortiz's top selling wee book "hit" ... "Disciple"!). Moreover, where a dividend is promised in the
end (HEB11:6). In great contrast, there are simply no rewards for a slave at all.
Okay, I know there will always be those who will still object at what I
have just written and will now use the other twist by quoting Paul as
addressing himself as "a prisoner of Jesus Christ" this time. As a
prisoner is suppose to have little rights. Therefore, let us
eliminate this objection also, by looking at the only two
verses mentioning this, while trusting the Lord to rightly divide
them. Here's the first one, with both verses only being found in the
one chapter book of Philemon:
V. 1 "Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer"
Notice Paul was the prisoner of Jesus here. This is solely because God had allowed him to
be arrested by the authorities due to his public stand for the
gospel. Paul does not say 'fellowsprisoner here, but just the word 'prisoner'
standing by itself. However, he did use the term 'fellowlabourer'
did he not? This was none other than him finding common ground here with the
other brethren, labouring together jointly with them, for the
gospel. It would not have been correct for him to have called
these other saints 'fellowprisoners' here. The reason being, coz
while Paul was
still in bonds (physically) the other fellowlabourers were free outside of prison. The
next verses proves this to be so ... V. 9-10:
"Yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ. I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds"
Because Paul found himself in physical bonds for the Lord and His
gospel (hence being imprisoned), he acknowledge this as God's will and purpose by seeing these
bonds as "the bonds of the gospel" (v.3).
In concluding and proving the difference between being a fellowprisoner and fellowlabourer of the Lord, verses 23-24 says this:
"There salute thee Epaphras, myfellowprisoner in Christ Jesus (as with Aristarchus - COL 4:10-12); Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, myfellowlabourers."
This is because while Paul and Epaphras were in prison, they were fellowprisoners
together. Moreover, while the others (Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas
and Lucas) were outside, but still labouring for the same common cause (the
gospel) they were fellowlabourers
together in this instance. Therefore, they could not be called or
identified with Paul, Epaphras and Aristarchus (all behind bars), as
in other words ... one smaller group were in physical bonds labouring
together (as prisoners of Jesus Christ), while the others were not
in physical bonds, but still labouring together as mere labourers or servants of Jesus
Christ and as freemen.
After all, another name for a slave could be bondservant. Whereas the
is also only mentioned ONCEin all of scripture!! Again only found
in the Old
The good news is that when we
come to Christ the word says we are neither "bond nor free: but Christ
is all, and in all." Furthermore, where the Spirit of the Lord is there is
liberty! Yes, former slaves set free! Now free to serve God
servantry)! Who "is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
From a God and Saviour who says to His children ... "For my yoke
is easy, and my burden is light." Yes, we maybe servants (in
fact, we are servants) but we are no way slaves of God!
Therefore, let us, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free"! And remain there!
Coz, at worst (if there is a worst - CO1
7:22) ... we are the Lord's servant! While at best ... we
are the Lord's freemen! Choosing to be servants due to us being