ARAMAIC WORD STUDY – BOND SERVANTS – ‘AVADA עבדא Ayin Beth Daleth Aleph
John 15:15: “Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.”
The literal understanding it pretty clear. A little cultural background can be added to make it more clear, but you get the point. A friend is much better than a servant. A servant in first century Mesopotamian area were often just slaves. The word for servant here in the Aramaic is avada, which means servant, slave and/or bondservant. In its Semitic root it means human property. Slaves became slaves when a nation conquered another nation and took its citizens into slavery. Someone unable to pay his debt were often taken into slavery until he either paid off his debt or someone redeemed him. Sometimes a master would be so benevolent that the slave did not desire his freedom. In slavery with a benevolent master he was well fed, had a roof over his head and was protected. This was called a bondservant, one who willingly submits to the slavery class. Sometimes a disciple of a teacher is also called an ‘avada and the student would call his teacher – master. This is another form of servitude but like the bond servant it was voluntary.
Still, this servant was not a family member and the master would not share any family secrets with an ‘avada, no matter how trusted. It probably happened but it was a cultural violation to share family secrets with an ‘avada. However, a trusted servant might know everything about the masters business and even about the master himself if he was as personal ‘avada. He would know his master so well that it was like he could read his mind. In fact many masters expected his servant to know what to offer while the master entertained guest without the master saying a word. The servant would watch his master very closely, never take his eye off the master. Just a simple glance of the eye, a nod, a smile, a frown or some other form of communication was all that was needed for the servant to offer the guest more drink or food.
Jesus called his disciples and us avada’s and by the context this is not really a slave relationship but more of a student master relationship built out of love and trust. A master many times would not tell his student or apprentice everything. There was some jealousy or even competitiveness and the master would hold back certain secrets of the trade to keep his student from becoming better than he. This may be what Jesus meant when He said He would no longer call His disciples avada but philos in the Greek. Philos is a friend, not a lover, not on the level of one who has agape love, not a son or family member, just a friend. A step up from an ‘avada and step below a ben – son. Actually, if Jesus spoke Greek and said he was calling His disciples philos they would probably be disappointed and hurt. A philos is not a family member, just a friend who has no real obligation as a family member would have. The disciples would have really been let down maybe insulted for they were hoping to be an actually member of God’s family, a son, not a servant nor a philos. My point is, there is something not right here in the Greek.
However, the Aramaic makes it right. The word Jesus used in the Aramaic to describe his disciples would have been not only satisfied to hear, but overwhelmed for He did not call them friends ra’aha in the Aramaic but racham. There is that word again this time as a noun to describe a relationship. Jesus did not call His disciples friends, they were establish on that level of the relationship. They were not just disciples who were trying to learn all they could from a master, Jesus did not call them avada’s servants, slaves or even bondservants, but He called them the highest possible position they could hold in a relationship a racham. That is a newborn baby in the arms of the mother. A racham is more than an adopted child, it is the very child from the womb of the mother. The disciples were called racham, actual family members who came from the womb of God and as a result would share in secrets not shared with avada, philos, or even sons as a sons could be adopted, but as the child from the very womb.
This makes perfect sense when taken in context of being born again. How could translators miss this very important fact. With all the original Aramaic manuscripts and scrolls destroyed they could still figure this one out.
Baffled!!
Beautiful!!!