Slaves and Masters (Ephesians 6:5-9)
This is a passage that skeptics love, for Paul condoned slavery (at least, according to the skeptics), and why follow a book which encourages masters to beat their slaves? Obviously, Scripture encourages nothing of the sort.
However, there is a problem in our culture from this passage: Why did Paul not call for the abolition of slavery? Slavery is an old institution. Abraham, the father of the faithful, held slaves, and he even had a child with a slave. The Israelites, of course, served as slaves in Egypt. God permitted slavery in the Old Testament. “Every slave that is bought for money may eat of [the Passover] after you have circumcised him” (Ex 12:44). God did provide laws about slaves (Ex 21:1-11). “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death” (Ex 21:16). “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money” (Ex 21:20-21). “If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned” (Ex 21:32). Leviticus 25:39-46.
The Old Testament seems to permit mistreatment of slaves. If you struck you slave and he died that day, you would be put to death; however, if your slave survived into the next day, you would not be put to death. I don’t think that should cause us too many problems. Remember that the Old Testament was written to stand as a testament to the Christ who was to come (cf. Gal 3:23-24).
The Old Testament also took into account the weakness of the flesh. When Jesus was asked about why if a husband and wife are not to be separated God permitted divorce in the Old Testament, he said, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt 19:8). It seems to me that many Old Testament laws could come under that same umbrella. Jesus, however, elevated his law from the weakness of the flesh to strength of the heart. “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt 5:38-39). Therefore, what Paul said about slaves and masters here was changed by the cross and love of Christ. Slaves and masters had a different relationship because of the cross. Paul instructed them to act like it.
Yet, all of this begs the question as to why Paul didn’t call for the abolition of slavery. Slavery could be very cruel in antiquity: “Aristotle lays it down that there can never be friendship between master and slave, for master and slave have nothing in common; ‘for a slave is a living tool, just as a tool is an inanimate slave.’ A slave was nothing better, and had no more rights, than a tool. Varro, writing on agriculture, divided agricultural instruments into three classes—the articulate, the inarticulate and the mute. The articulate comprises the slaves; the inarticulate the cattle; and the mute the vehicles. The slave is no better than a beast who happens to be able to talk. Cato gives advice to a man taking over a farm. He must go over it and throw out everything that is past its work; and old slaves too must be thrown out on the scrap heap to starve. When a slave is ill it is sheer extravagance to issue him with normal rations. The old and sick slave is only a broken and inefficient tool.” Slaves faced great abuse: they could be subject to torture, beatings, sexual abuse, and sold away from family members. If a slave served as a gladiator or in the mines, he was likely to die. If a slave worked out in the field, he faced a lifetime of hard labor. However, household slaves (the class Paul specifically addressed in this passage) often fared better than poor peasants. They could work on the side and gain extra income. They could even gain their freedom. When they did gain freedom, these former slaves often bought slaves themselves.
No one was calling for the abolition of slavery in antiquity. This was a widely accepted social order; it was what people knew. Even the violent slave revolts in the Roman Empire were not to end slavery; rather, they were intended to gain better treatment for slaves. Christianity was a small, marginalized sect. No one in authority would have paid them any attention at this point.
Paul called for a change in the treatment of slaves. The treatment he called for in this passage ended up leading many religious leaders to call for the abolition of slavery in this country. Many religious leaders were invaluable in protecting people on the Underground Railroad. The only way slavery as it was practiced in the United States of America could be condoned was to take Ephesians 6:5 out of context.
“Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not man.”
The Greek term Paul used for “bondservant” was doulos, which does mean slave or servant. The word was used opposite a master, as Paul did in this passage, or opposite a free person or opposite a son in a household (cf. Jn 8:35; Gal 4:7). The English Standard Version has chosen to use the words “bondservant” or “slave” or “servant,” depending on the context. They did so largely because modern concepts of slavery often envision the dehumanization often practiced in the antebellum American South.
The English Standard Version preface also mentions that slaves in the Roman Empire served for 7 years and then they were paid all their wages at the end of those 7 years (slaves in Caesar’s house served 14 years). However, I have not found that mentioned anywhere else. In fact, the authoritative Greek lexicon of this time period says the word refers to someone born a slave, opposed to someone who was captured in war and became a slave (the Greeks had a different word for that situation). I’ll consistently use the word “slave” (unless I’m quoting the ESV).
I know many modern Christians like to apply this passage to the modern workforce. There are a few fitting parallels. However, we must remember that Paul was addressing a very specific situation in his day. He was in no way addressed the modern workforce. He didn’t tell employers and employees how to act; he told slaves and masters how to act.
Slaves are to obey their earthly masters. Since slaves in Paul’s era served in a household, it shouldn’t at all be surprising to find that the apostle discussed slaves and masters in this household code. Why did slaves need to obey their earthly masters? Why did Paul refer to them as “earthly” masters?
In this passage, Paul listed seven (7) qualities which define appropriate obedience from a slave to his master.
One: The obedience is to be with “fear.”
Like in many other passages, “fear” here should be understood as “reverence” or “respect.” Why did a slave need to respect his master? What would a slave need to do if he could not respect his master?
Two: The obedience is to be with “trembling.”
The idea is that a slave would need to be careful not to make a mistake. Why should a slave be careful not to make a mistake?
Three: The obedience needed to be “with a sincere heart.”
A sincere heart would be one free of hypocrisy. Why did a slave need to make sure that he wasn’t acted hypocritically?
Four: The obedience should be as the slave would obey Christ.
It’s almost as if the slave should imagine Christ giving him the order. How would that help a slave to obey? Are there times when someone gives us an instruction and we should see it as an order from Christ?
Five: The obedience was not to be “by the way of eye-service.”
In other words, the obedience was to be rendered consistently, whether the master was watching or not. Why did a slave need to be consistent in his service?
Six: The obedience was to be from proper motives: “as bondservants of Christ.”
How would regarding oneself as the Lord’s bondservant change the way he acted? Why are proper motives important for one’s actions?
Seven: the obedience was to be “with a good will as the Lord and not to man.”
Slaves, in other words, were to be concerned with the general welfare of their masters. How difficult would it be to care about the welfare of someone who owned you?
It would be highly appropriate to ask why we would even bother with this section of Ephesians since we are not bondservants with earthly masters. Obviously, this is God-inspired Scripture; therefore, we can expect to learn truth from it.
Before we move into truth we can glean from this text, it seems wise to think generally about how we glean truth from Scripture. We often hear about direct command, example, and necessary inference. That premise behind that method is sound; however, there are many flaws in it.
Direct commands.
There are no direct commands for us in the Scriptures at all. There is no Bible verse that says, for example, “Justin Imel must repent and be baptized.” There is such a command in Scripture (Acts 2:38); however, it was a direct command to the crowd at Pentecost, not me.
There are a multitude of direct commands in the Scriptures you cannot obey. Matthew 21:1-3. You cannot possibly go and find a donkey and her colt and take them to Jesus.
Every single one of you immediately recognizes the difference in Acts 2:38 and Matthew 21:1-3. In Acts 2:38, Peter was telling people what they needed to do for the remission of their sins. It’s no leap at all to understand that as a universal truth for how all people at all times receive the remission of sins.
The important thing in both Matthew 21:1-3 and Acts 2:38 is context. Peter was speaking to people in sin; Jesus was speaking to his disciples and giving them a one-time command. Many people miss context and apply commands that are not valid. “These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover” (Matt 16:17-18). Totally forget any discussion about whether or not the Longer Ending of Mark is original. Some folks forget that Jesus was speaking to his apostles and try to carry out such stunts today. Tammy and I come from an area of the country where deadly snakes are often used in small churches. It’s utterly ridiculous to put one’s life in jeopardy over a text that doesn’t apply today. Of course, the miraculous age has ceased. Furthermore, Jesus wasn’t even speaking about everyone; he was speaking to his apostles and to those who would receive the miraculous gift of the Spirit. Except for drinking deadly poison, we have examples in Acts, where Jesus’s disciples did all those things.
“I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you” (Matt 17:20). Jesus never promised you that you could have the faith to move a mountain. He spoke these words to the apostles. I firmly believe that if the apostles had needed a mountain moved, they could have told it to move and it would have. No matter how much faith you have, you can never literally move a mountain.
It’s best to think about direct statements. One then must determine which statements in Scripture apply today and which do not. Context is the big key here (along with CAREFULLY reading what the text actually says).
Examples.
The only issue with examples is that one must carefully determine (with the help of other Scriptures) what’s necessary in the action and what is coincidental.
For example, take the Lord’s Supper. The only example we have of the Lord’s Supper being observed is in Acts 20:7-8. They gathered on the first day of the week late at night in an upper room with many lamps. There’s only one thing binding in that example: the first day of the week. I say that because the Corinthians also took the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week (cf. 1 Cor 11:17 and 1 Cor 16:1-2). We don’t need to do the Lord’s Supper late in the evening in an upper room with many lamps.
Two questions when determining when examples are binding and when they aren’t (this present text about slaves and masters is largely an example for us). Do other Scriptures support using this as an example for us today? What is binding versus what is coincidental?
Necessary inference.
Let me explain why you need to strike “necessary inference” from your vocabulary. This is somewhat splitting hairs, but I believe it’s an important hair to split. “Inference” refers to what the reader/hearer gathers from what is spoken. “I infer from this passage that . . .” “Implication” refers to what the hearer/writer intends to convey. “This Scripture implies . . .”
I much prefer to think about implications in the text rather than inferences. The Word of God is true and must speak to us. We must do what it implies, not what I infer from what is written.
Since we’ve taken some time to think about the principles of biblical application, it seems wise we know think about how to apply these verses to the modern world. It seems that this passage is full of modern application. Slaves were to obey their earthly masters with fear (reverence) and trembling (trying not to mess up).
The principle we can take here is the submission to those in authority. Why is authority important? Do you think many people today respect authority? Why or why not?
The Christian has many people who are over him. What are some examples of people who are over the Christian? How can the Christian obey those authority figures with fear? How can the Christian obey those authority figures with and trembling?
Slaves were also to serve “with a sincere heart.” Why is sincerity important? Do we see a lot of sincerity in the world today? How do we demonstrate sincerity in our obedience to authority figures?
Slaves were to serve as they would serve the Lord Jesus. How might imagining Jesus bodily sitting beside us change the way we live? How would you obey Jesus? How should the way you obey Jesus influence the way you obey other authority figures?
Slaves were not to obey “by the way of eye-serve, as people-pleasers.” What is wrong with being a people pleaser? In other words, if I’m doing what I’m asked by an authority figure, what does it matter if I’m doing it to please him?
Slaves were to serve their masters “as bondservants of Christ.” We are, of course, slaves of Christ. In what way(s) is a Christian a slave of Christ? How should our slavery to Christ impact our daily lives? Do enough Christians truly understand that they are slaves of Christ? Defend your answer.
Slaves were to be “doing the will of God from the heart.” How important is God’s will? Why is God’s will important? What is God’s will? How do you know what God’s will is? How do you perform God’s will? How do you perform that will from the heart?
Slaves were to be “rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man.” How does someone serve “with a good will?” If we viewed anything we did in life as doing it “as to the Lord and not to man,” how might our lives be different?
The slaves were to serve their masters appropriately because they knew “that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord.”
This verse obviously applies to everyone; Paul said that it did.
Why is it important to do good? Here’s the real question: Paul—through the Spirit—has just promised that whatever good someone does he will receive it back from the Lord; therefore, should we only do good to receive good back from the Lord? How can we keep our motives pure when we’re doing good? What good should we be doing? What are some specific examples of good deeds that you can do?
Let’s face it: At first glance, this verse may appear to be false instead of true. Here’s what I mean: How many times have you or someone you know done good and then had it “backfire”—i.e., how many times have you been repaid evil for doing good? How many times have you done good and not had it return? What is the good one will receive back from the Lord?
I believe the truth in this verse is an excellent reminder that this life is temporary, heaven is eternal, and this life may not always go as planned; however, God has great things in store for his people. The good the Lord has planned for us is eternal, not temporary, and it is a far better good than we can even imagine.
“Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.”
We need to see some eternal truths right at the start.
One: The church is a family.
Slaves and masters, although they had vastly different roles in society and in the home, were part of the same family if they were in Christ. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). How could slaves and maters show themselves to be family? How can this congregation show itself to be a family? Why is family important?
Two: Different roles in the church do not elevate one person or denigrate another.
The masters weren’t better in the eyes of the Lord than their slaves, and the slaves weren’t belittled in the Lord’s eyes.
I personally believe that for many people in today’s society that this is a vitally important point. Some feel that the Scriptures denigrate women because of submission in the church and the home. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. How can the church demonstrate to the world that women have the same standing before God and us, just different God-given roles?
The same thing we just said about male leadership could be applied to elders, deacons, Bible class teachers, etc. Just because they have a God-given role in the congregation, they aren’t elevated above anyone else in the eyes of our Lord.
Three: God shows no partiality.
Why is God’s showing no partiality important? What does his showing no partiality mean for us today? Should we show partiality if God does not?
The masters were to “do the same” toward their slaves. Paul had just told the slaves to do good. Thus, it only seems natural to read this that the masters were to do good to their slaves. Think about that for just a moment. Paul has just told the superiors, those who own the slaves to do good to them. Why should someone in a position of authority do good to an underling? Can you think of anyone in a position of authority who did good to those under him?
Paul clearly (through the Spirit) did not envision a position of leadership as lording over anyone at any time.
The masters were to stop their threatening. What good does threatening people do? Why should a Christian not threaten?
The masters were to know that “he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven.” The masters may have been over their slaves, but they had a Master in heaven. Why would it be good for people in authority to remember that they have a Master in heaven? Heaven here seems to be a symbol of authority—i.e., the place where the throne of God is.
“There is no partiality with him.” Why should the Christian be thankful God shows no partiality? How should the Christian live because God shows no partiality?
This Bible class was originally taught by Dr. Justin Imel, Sr., at Church of Christ Deer Park in Deer Park, Texas.