Christian Slaves and Masters? (Eph. 6:5-9)

The household code speaks to the various members of the household. Paul has addressed wives and husbands (5:22-33), then children and fathers (6:1-4). Although he addresses slaves and masters next (6:5-9), most pastors speak about employees and employers.

I actually agree that there is a connection. The Westminster Larger Catechism 127 gives several examples of “the honor that inferiors owe to their superiors” including “willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels,” (referencing Eph. 6:1-2, 5-7).

However, while there is a correlation between slave/master and inferior/superior relationships, this approach too often avoids answering the more challenging question: Is Paul condoning slavery?

Pray & Read Ephesians 6:5-9.

From the outset, let me say unequivocally, I’m thankful slavery was abolished in America. There were a host of problems, not the least of which was exemplified by the practice of segregated worship spaces in the same congregation. This had absolutely no place in the Church (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11). God shows no partiality to the master or the slave—all are spiritual equals before him (Eph. 6:9). But the American church, showed partiality every Sunday.

We naturally gravitate toward people who look like us, think like us, and live like us. We sinfully create hierarchies—social, economic, racial—and then assume those hierarchies reflect worth. Instead of seeing fellow believers as family, we subtly rank them.

“In Christ’s body, there are no superior members—only redeemed servants of one Master.”

My goal this morning is three fold:

1. Uphold the constancy/perpetuity of the moral law.
2. Recognize significant evils associated with slavery throughout history.
3. Consider the context of slavery in the American Church.

But, before doing that, I want to begin with…

Slavery in the Current Context

While many pastors avoid the thorny issues of this passage by speaking only of our duty as employees and employers, others have tackled the issue head on—with disastrous results. I’ll provide two negative examples:

1. In Fresno I occasionally swapped pulpits with the pastor in a sister denomination. A few weeks ago I learned that he was defrocked and excommunicated for violating his ordination vows. In summary, he argues that white supremacy is a proven historical fact and that America should never have abolished slavery. He believes there are moral and intellectual characteristics inherent in different races. According to a friendly podcast interview he has held these views from childhood, growing up in the South. I know he is not alone, but racism is not peculiar to the South. This is an alarming movement—once on the far fringes—but now affecting several denominations (including our own).
2. Another pastor preached a sermon titled “Slavery and the Bible” in which he said, “Go to hell Paul!” He argued that he can say that because of the authority of Christ. According to him, Paul’s teachings on slavery are so contradictory to Christ that he doesn’t even look at them. He suggests rating the value of each verse. There are quarters, dimes, nickels, pennies, and counterfeit verses in the Bible. He says, “There are a whole lot of pennies…And a whole lot of verses in the Bible are counterfeit!” As such, he has proven himself to be a false teacher who doesn’t deserve a penny for his thoughts.

Both of them made the same error of “false equivalence”—my friend condemns abolition based upon a faulty correlation between the Bible’s teaching and American slavery. The second “pastor” condemns the Bible based upon his faulty assumption that it commends American slavery.

That is like comparing Marxism to the early church selling their possessions and sharing the proceeds with those in need (Acts 2:44-45). Communism has very little in common with early Christian charity. Likewise, slavery in the Bible had little in common with slavery in America.

The primary context for slavery that we know about is one of the worst examples you could have in mind when reading this passage. The evils perpetrated by the Atlantic Slave Trade were “unsparingly condemned” by Scripture.

So let us consider…

Slavery in the Old Testament

Slavery in the ancient world was widespread and not rooted in race. Slavery was nearly universal—across cultures, colors, and continents—with a remarkably high percentage of the population falling under that status. None of this justifies it. But it helps us see that the American version of race-based chattel slavery was not the norm in the ancient world. And yet, neither was the African Slave Trade an original sin that only infected our nation’s white forefathers. If it is anything like original sin, it is that it effects all mankind.

People typically entered slavery as prisoners of war or through voluntary debt repayment, but some were kidnapped—much like Joseph who was sold to Midianite traders by his own brothers (Gen. 37:26-27). Slavery was simply an accepted part of reality throughout the vast majority of human history.

What is unique about Scripture is that it placed restrictions upon the practice for the protection of slaves. Rather than promote slavery, the Bible curbs it. Slave laws served as accommodations for unfortunate circumstances. We should view them similar to the way we view Scripture’s laws on divorce. Rather than encourage divorce, they limit its practice.

In Leviticus 25, God forbids owning Hebrew slaves. They could be indentured servants for up to six years v.40 (cf. Exod. 21:1-6). In this same passage, God permits buying foreign slaves and passing them down as an inheritance (vv.44-46). This permission must be read in combination with other passages that regulate the harsh treatment of slaves. For instance, God clearly forbid man-stealing and forced slavery. The penalty for such crimes was execution (Ex. 21:16; Deut. 24:7). God even required the harboring and fair treatment of escaped slaves (Deut. 23:15-16).

• Indentured servitude is regulated in Exod. 21; Lev. 25.
• Protection laws were given in Deut. 23-24.

Slavery in the New Testament

It would have been shocking for the presence of slaves participating alongside the rest of the congregation in Ephesus. And, yet, this direct address to slaves is the norm (Col. 3:22; 1 Tim. 6:1; Tit. 2:9; Philemon 1; 1 Pt. 2:18).

Some estimate that there were 60M slaves in the Roman Empire, who made up roughly one-third of the population. Ephesus was a major slave hub for western Roman regions. Those sold in the slave market originally came from conquered lands, but by the time Paul is writing—they are in the middle of the Pax Romana. Most of the children of those slaves would have remained in the same household and passed down through each generation. The more common ways of entering slavery at this time would have been through voluntary debt bondage (permitted Exod. 21:1-6; Lev. 25:39-46), rearing foundlings into slavery (implicitly forbidden Deut. 10:18; Ezek. 16:1-5; 1 Tim. 5:8), and kidnapping free persons (explicitly condemned Exod. 21:16; 1 Tim. 1:10).

Aristotle suggested that slaves were animate tools, meant to be used. And they were often considered property with no legal rights. Masters were solely responsible for the discipline of their slaves. They could whip them, imprison them, isolate them, and even execute them. There are many accounts of horrible atrocities committed against slaves around this time (mutilation, crucifixion).

However, their situation was not the same as that in America. Harold Hoehner summarizes four general differences:

1. Slavery was not attached to a particular race.
2. Free persons could sell themselves into slavery and regain their freedom. Slavery was temporary (cf. Exod 21:1-6). Some even preferred the security slavery offered over their current situation.
3. Slaves could become trained and educated. Some actually chose slavery for social advancement (e.g., Epictetus)—they served as tutors, professors, philosophers, and physicians.
4. Slaves could become free, and then Roman citizens.

This is the context in which Paul addressed both slaves and masters, without supporting or forbidding the institution. Most modern scholars have argued that he did not outright condemn the institution of slaver in order to preserve Christianity. He would have invited severe persecution upon the Church. But, when did expediency ever govern the apostles teaching?

“They (speaking of apostles) openly assailed the institutions of paganism that were antithetical to the faith and morals of Christianity…The apostles were not afraid to upset an economic status quo when it violated the fundamental demands of equity.”

John Murray

Jesus and the apostles warned believers to expect persecution (Mt. 5:10; Jn. 15:20; 2 Tim. 3:12; 1 Pt. 4:12).

Charles Hodge points out that Paul’s address to slaves within the church eliminates the argument that slaveholding is sinful, in principle—that it was always wrong to own the labor of another human no matter the circumstances. If slavery were always sinful, Scripture would not simply place limitations on masters, it would condemn their owning slaves at all (cf. John Murray).

Was it possible to be a Christian master? Paul wrote to Philemon, a slave master, as a “fellow worker” who exhibited Christian faith and love (Philemon 1, 4-7). Slaveholding has never been the unpardonable sin. Some denominations excommunicated all slaveholders—considering them unbelievers. If this were an appropriate discipline, one wonders why Paul never required that in Ephesus or Colossae.

At the same time, Hodge argued that Scripture does not present slavery as “a desirable institution…to be cherished and perpetuated.” Paul corrects harsh masters, encouraging them to do good to their slaves (Eph. 6:9). He even exhorted Philemon to grant Onesimus his freedom as a brother in Christ (Philemon 15-16), and encouraged slaves to gain their freedom if they could (1 Cor. 7:21).

Slavery in the American Church

Biblical slave laws do not endorse slavery, rather they severely restrict it and categorically censure its abuses. The Atlantic Slave Trade in which 12.5M Africans over 350 years were kidnapped, sold, and shipped across the ocean—where nearly 15% of them died in-transit—is unequivocally condemned by both the Old and New Testament.

American slaveholders were guilty of violating God’s moral law in their complicity with man-stealing—whether or not they had any direct involvement in the kidnapping of the slave. Exodus 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”

The Bible was so clearly against the situation in America, that “many early U.S. slaveholders did not want their slaves exposed to Christianity, for fear that they would be compelled to free them,” (IVPBBC; Raboteau).

American slavery falls under Scripture’s condemnation—not its sanction. Christianity did not perpetuate the institution of slavery, it established and promoted the conditions for its abolition. As the Roman Empire was Christianized, slavery was diminished. Such is the effect of the gospel. And the Christian Church has always been at the forefront of the abolition movement.

Great Southern theologians like Robert Louis Dabney and James Henley Thornwell had unfortunate blindspots on race and slavery. I think they were wrong in several fundamental ways:

1. They defended the “pro slavery” position based upon an assumption of one-to-one correspondence with the slavery that is mentioned in Scripture. When opponents argued that slavery in America is sinful, they suggested that Scripture sanctioned it without any acknowledgement of the vast differences between the various forms of slavery.
2. They argued that the spirituality of the church means it should not interfere with state matters. They have separate spheres of authority. Bad slave laws are a state problem, not a church problem. That is true in principle, but when the state looks to the church for moral guidance—the church has a responsibility to provide clarity.
3. The most egregious blindspot was not limited to the South. The assumption that the black race was inferior allowed slavery to thrive in America. This pseudo-scientific hierarchy of race—which had philosophical advocates like Immanuel Kant and David Hume—was used to justify the Atlantic slave trade. Rather than rejecting this secular idea, it found sympathy among Christians. American Historian Mark Noll says, “It was acceptance of black racial inferiority that defended American slavery by appeal to Scripture.” In other words, to garner support for a poor anthropology, we appealed to Scripture. Our social circumstances dictated our hermeneutics. We misinterpreted God’s Word to justify a political and social agenda. According to recent trends, we are not immune from repeating this error.

We must see once again how the gospel undermines the very foundations of status-based superiority. There is no spiritually inferior class. Last year, the PCA overwhelmingly passed a statement of condemnation against this teaching. We joined two sister denominations (ARP & RPCNA):

…in condemning without distinction any theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics, and does call to repentance any who would promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by commission or omission.

Overture 48, PCA 52nd General Assembly