A “cover-up”? According to John MacArthur there has been a cover-up in English language translations for some time that successfully softens the force of doulos from “slave” to “servant.” If this is true, this cover-up is allowing cultural sensitivities to the subject of slavery to override the biblical lexicon, something that there’s currently debate whirling around in the discussion of how best to translate “Son of God” in a Muslim context.

One argument against a literal, formal equivalent translation of “Son of God” in Muslim-context translations is the sexual/biological implications of calling Jesus the son of God. In an effort to be culturally sensitive, the term is then softened to “God’s Chosen One” or something to that effect.

Are English language translations guilty of a similar cover-up by rendering doulos as servant or bondservant?