[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There is no difference between the terms "slave" and "servant"

Colossians 3:22
Servants(doulos), obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;

1401 // doulov // doulos // doo'-los //

from 1210 ; TDNT - 2:261,182; n

AV - servant 120, bond 6, bondman 1; 127

1) a slave, bondman, man of servile condition
1a) a slave
1b) metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will
those whose service is used by Christ in extending and
advancing his cause among men
1c) devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests
2) a servant, attendant

Yes, part of a SLAVE’S duties entailed SERVING.

Study Roman customs of the First Century. A Roman could own slaves. He also could hire servants. The slave had NO rights. The servant was a hired hand. He had Roman rights and was paid a wage.

Study, brother, study....