The new Christian Standard Bible

[biscuit1953]

About 4 years ago I was considering using the HCSB as my primary translation because I found it to be one of the clearest modern translations I had seen since leaving KJV onlyism.  It was truly a joy to read the Bible in modern English and many verses I had read for years in the King James really opened up.  However, there was one thing that caused me to dump that idea and maybe it was just something that only bothered me to the point of rejecting it but it was the way in which they translated the the word "servant" or "bondservant" to "slave."

Rom 1:1 Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus
Eph 6:6 Don?t work only while being watched, in order to please men, but as slaves of Christ, do God?s will from your heart.
Phil 1:1 Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus:
Col 4:12 a slave of Christ Jesus, greets you.
Titus 1:1 Paul, a slave of God

There is a difference between a slave under bondage against his will and one who serves out of love.  In Exodus 21 a "bondservant" is one who decides to willingly serve his master for life as opposed to one forced against his will.  The new CSB which came out a few months ago has changed that and now I am planning on buying and using this new translation.  Here is what Dr. Thomas Schreiner has to say about the change.
https://blog.logos.com/2017/01/interview-tom-schreiner-christian-standard-bible/

"In many cases we made a change where the word rendered ?slave? in the HCSB is rendered as ?servant? in the CSB. In our context, the word ?slave? primarily brings to mind our history of race-based slavery. The theologically appropriate connotation of the word is lost on most readers. In light of this obstacle, it seemed best to the Translation Oversight Committee to choose a word that is less apt to cause distraction and misunderstanding. Furthermore, the choice to render doulos as ?servant? rather than ?slave? aligns with the Old Testament?s use of ?eved in reference to followers of God, and the New Testament?s use of a Greek word specifically meaning ?servant? rather than ?slave? when quoting from the Old Testament. The CSB retains the use of ?slave? in contexts where slavery or a slave are clearly in view, but for references to Christian discipleship, ?servant? is used."

I can't over emphasize how much I enjoyed reading the HCSB.

 

[biscuit1953]

I might add one more thing.  When word came out about the NIV becoming "gender neutral" among other translations, that almost made me want to go back to the KJV and just forget about modern translations.  There has been concern that the new CSB has gone the same route but after reading various articles I'm convinced there is a difference between "gender neutral" and "gender accurate."  The CSB  is the latter.
https://cbmw.org/public-square/is-the-csb-really-gender-neutral/

 

[Ransom]

There is a difference between a slave under bondage against his will and one who serves out of love.

Paul's point is not about serving willingly vs. against his will, but about ownership. When he says he is a slave of Christ, he means he has been bought.

Consider Romans 6:

thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. . . .

For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. (Rom. 6:17-18, 20-22)

Our legal standing before our conversion is slavery to sin (v. 17). But through Christ we have been set free from our slavery to sin and become slavery to righteousness (v. 18), which is to say, slaves of God (v. 22). As he says elsewhere, "You are not your own, for you were bought with a price" (1 Cor. 6:19-20). Paul's teaching on soteriology actually makes little sense without the idea of a transfer of ownership.

Schreiner is probably right when he says the topic of race-based slavery is a sensitive one. But Paul was also writing from a society in which slavery was normal, even though race had little to do with it. It's not helpful, out of a perceived sensitivity to America's original sin, to actually water down the message of the Bible. Christians deserve clarity, not obfuscation.

 

[biscuit1953]

I look at the phrase of being a "servant of Christ" and willingly serving Him as indicating true repentance and having one's heart changed at the point of conversion.  I look at being a "slave of Christ" as serving against one's will.  To me that makes a big difference.  The translation in the first edition is just a hurdle I couldn't personally get over even though I enjoyed reading through the entire Bible.

 

[Ransom]

I look at the phrase of being a "servant of Christ" and willingly serving Him as indicating true repentance and having one's heart changed at the point of conversion.  I look at being a "slave of Christ" as serving against one's will.  To me that makes a big difference.

One may serve his master willingly out of love, and still be his property.

I would say this is a mark of a Christian: he is a willing slave to God, because he has been rescued from slavery to sin. Nonetheless, Paul did say that he preached the Gospel under compulsion (1 Cor. 9:16). As a slave of God, he was obligated to do his will.