This word study centers on the term, serve, which in Greek, is the word diakoneo (dee-ak-on-eh’-o). We find this word 37 times in the New Testament text, 4 times in the Book of Mark, including being found in a discourse spanning chapter 10, verses 35-45, and 5 times in the Book of Matthew, including a parallel, albeit slightly truncated, account of the same events in Chapter 20, verses 20-28, both versions of which conclude with Jesus saying: “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45)
The word, diakoneo, is the verb form of the noun, diakonos, translated as “servant.” In the Matthew account, we find this word in verse 26: “Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant (diakonos).” Diakonos is the combination of two words, dia meaning “thoroughly” and konis meaning dust. The imagery provided here is of a person who “thoroughly” raises up dust in the performance of a task, running to do an errand with dust rising from his feet, in short, “kicking up dust.” It is the Greek origin of the English word, deacon, a person who ministers to others. In Matthew 25, Jesus foretells his second coming, at which time people will be “separated” as one separates “sheep” and “goats”. Those referred to as “goats” protest against Jesus’ accusation that they did not “care” for him: “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?” (Matt. 25:44) The word translated as “help” in the NIV translation is diakoneo, translated as “minister” in the KJV.
The world in which Jesus walked was dominated by the authoritarian presence of Rome. The Roman Empire was a class-based, hierarchical society with a slave-dependent economy. At the upper end of the class structure were two classes, the senatorial (nobles–position based on ancestry) and equestrian (position based on wealth). At the bottom were slaves–persons considered property under Roman Law with no legal standing, and in its purest iteration, no rights, no personhood. They could be abused, forced to work under horrific conditions, or even executed, at will. In between these extremes, though by no means the semblance of a middle class, were “plebs”–freeborn Roman citizens. The Apostle Paul counted himself in this group (Acts 22:25). They often performed the same work as slaves–as craftsmen, artisans, household servants–and though they had rights under Roman Law, they had very limited upward mobility. This entire class structure was upheld by a system of patronage. A patron (patronus) entered into a relationship with a client (cliente) whereby both had mutual obligations to the other. A patron would confer rights and privileges (fides–trust, reliability) to his client, and in return, receive pietas (dutiful devotion). In the final analysis, the favoritism of patronage–the patronus favored his cliente and in turn received favored treatment from the cliente–was all about maintaining the stability of the class structure–those at the top would remain at the top, the “first would remain first,” so to speak. Slaves, of course, were at the bottom of the Roman societal order and Roman Law authorized that, with some exceptions, they would stay there. The bottom would stay at the bottom, the last would remain last. This was, in very broad strokes, the order of things in the Roman Empire.
The Hebrew word for servant is ebed. It derives from the word abad, meaning work or serve. In Hebraic culture, work was both a duty and something to be esteemed and loved–in Rabbinical literature, there is a dictum: “Love work, for Adam did not taste food until he had done work.” Genesis 2:15 states: The LORD God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden to work (abad) it and keep it” whereupon he immediately instructed him “of every tree of the Garden you may eat”. (v. 16) Work, therefore, was embedded in God’s “order of things” for mankind from the beginning. Whereas work in its various forms was identified in Roman society with pre-existing class divisions, Hebrew culture embraced work as a great equalizer between men, bonding them together for the common good and the worship of God. In Rabbinical literature we find the following statement: “I am a creature of God and my neighbor is also His creature; my work is in the city and his in the field; I rise early to my work and he rises early to his. As he cannot excel in my work, so I cannot excel in his work. But perhaps you say, I do great things and he small things! We have learned that it does not matter whether one does much or little if only he directs his heart to Heaven.” Directing one’s heart to Heaven in conjunction with performing work (abad) reveals much about the “order of things” in Hebraic society. When one submits oneself to the authority of one’s master–in this case, the authority of the LORD God–one takes one’s place in the order of God’s government, regardless of the amount of work performed, the type of work, or one’s civil status. As opposed to the Roman order infested by patronage, God’s governance, His Kingdom, allows for no partiality. The word, ebed, is not only translated as servant, but also as slave, a word that makes no distinction between the two since it was the work done according to the Master’s purpose that counted, not one’s social position.
Being an ebed simply meant to be under someone else’s authority. As opposed to the cruel hierarchy of Roman rule, an ebed, whether considered servant or slave, had rights accorded to them by the Torah. Whereas the Roman slave was the property of his owner, a Hebrew ebed was temporarily indentured, authorized to be released in the 7th year of his service. (Exodus 21:2, Deut 15:12) They were not to be released “empty handed”–the master was required to supply them with provisions for food and drink (Deut. 15:13). A “slave” had the right to continue his service for life should he so choose. (Deut. 15:16) A fellow Israelite who became indentured due to poverty was to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident and must not be ruled over with severity. (Lev. 25:43) A foreign slave who escaped was not to be returned to his foreign master and was accorded the right to live wherever they chose all the while protected from mistreatment. (Deut. 23:16) Roman slaves, on the other hand, were hunted down and if captured, returned for a reward.
The relationship between a Hebrew master and his Hebrew slave was established on the basis of shared humanity. “Did I ever brush aside the case of my servants, man or maid,” said Job, “when they made a complaint against me?. . .Did not He who made me in my mother’s belly make him?” (Job 31: 13, 15) God authorized humane treatment of His people with the reminder that they were once redeemed from slavery in Egypt. (Lev. 25:42; Jeremiah 34:13-14) It is not surprising that in Scripture the rules for treating slaves immediately follows the giving of the Ten Commandments, which in turn, was considered by the Jews to have been given 50 days after their release from bondage in Egypt. In Jewish literature, masters were instructed they were not to eat clean bread while serving moldy bread to their servants, that they were not to drink old wine while serving new wine to their servants, they were not to sleep on soft cushions while their servants slept on straw. There was a saying that “whoever acquires a Hebrew slave acquires a master for himself.” (Kid. 20a) Of God, the Highest Master, it was said that even He does whatever He commands Israel to perform.
One last thing before proceeding back to the Matthew text. It was widely understood among the Jews that the injustices and inequalities found in this world, the Olam Hazeh, would be addressed and corrected in the World to Come, the Olam Haba, the Afterlife. An ancient anecdote centered on the person of a rabbi named Joseph who, in the story, fell into a state of coma. After he recovered, he was asked what he saw. He answered: “I beheld a world the reverse of this one; those who are on top here were below there, and vice versa.”
In Matthew 20:25-28, Jesus called over his disciples to offer instruction. He began by saying “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.” The “rulers of the Gentiles” is a generic reference but would certainly include the Roman officials ruling the land of Judah. At first glance, Jesus’ statement appears to describe a civil hierarchy of authority–one set of the officials–“the rulers of the Gentiles” exercise authority over the people on the ground, and in a typical governmental hierarchy, are subject themselves to the authority of “high officials”, who theoretically at least, would be subject to the authority of higher officials, all the way to Caesar himself. The Greek for authority is exousia, something emanating from a source that has the inherent right to issue decisions but which are voluntarily submitted to by the receiving party. When we look carefully at the Greek words of Matthew 20:25, we can find the word exousia embedded there twice, translating the terms “lord over” and “exercise authority,” but in this case, exousia has a prefix, kat, therefore yielding the word katexousia. The prefix kat adds the meaning of a downward force from above to below, a top-down exertion of authority. This would plainly describe the behavior of a Roman master upon his slave–forced, abusive labor under potentially horrific conditions.
Jesus then “reversed” the order of authority (its hierarchy) in verse 26, exhorting his disciples that “whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.” As we shall see, the first would become last and the last first. The instructions given to the disciples here parallels the story told at the beginning of Chapter 26 in which The Kingdom of Heaven is likened to a landowner who hires workers for his vineyard periodically during the day, and who at the end of the day, pays them in reverse order to when they arrived at work, the last being paid first, and the first last. It is under the authority of the landowner to determine what is the just and right compensation, and likewise, it is under the authority of God in His Kingdom to determine the just and right relationship between master and servant. The master must act the part of the ebed, the diakonos, the “dust kicker,” the servant, and humbly submit to the authority of the servant. He then repeated the same instruction in verse 27, substituting slave for servant, both of whom are ebedim, there being no distinction between the two in the Hebrew language. An ebed served his master with dignity, and was imbued by the Torah with rights. To the Hebrew mind, being an ebed was a designation of very high regard, work being also something among the Jews that was highly esteemed. So much so that “whoever acquires a Hebrew slave (ebed) acquires a master for himself.” What precipitated this instruction by the Lord Jesus was the request by the mother of two disciples that her sons be seated at the right and left sides of Jesus in his kingdom. This was an apparent reference to the Olam Haba, the afterlife, in that Jesus stated that those places “belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father”–the occupancy of which would be a future event. In the Jewish conception, the Kingdom of Heaven–insofar as it might relate to the afterlife–was a world the reverse of this one, those on the bottom here would be on the top there. Bringing that principle into the here and now, Jesus chastened his disciples that those desiring high places in the Kingdom would need to humble themselves–an order of authority that was the exact opposite of the Roman order. Instead of the first remaining first and the last remaining last, those who were last in life–the ebed, the slave–would be first in the Kingdom. And this instruction also applied to the master, Jesus, that is, God, who “did not come to be served, but to serve (diakoneo).” God, in the context of Hebraic understanding, does whatever he commands His people to perform. Jesus would be the servant of mankind itself, giving his life as a “ransom for many.” (Matt. 20:28)
