Ephesians 6:5 states, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ” (NIV). This verse emerges from the socio-economic reality of the Roman Empire, where slavery functioned as a fundamental economic institution markedly different from later forms of slavery. Roman slavery was not racially determined but rather based on conquest, debt, or birth.
Importantly, slaves in the Roman world could attain freedom through manumission, save money to purchase their liberty, or even become citizens with full rights. Paul’s household code in Ephesians (chapters 5-6) addresses multiple relationships, including the slave-master dynamic. While instructing slaves to obey their masters, Paul immediately balances this with commands to masters: “And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him” (Ephesians 6:9). This reciprocal instruction established a radical ethical framework where both parties answered to a higher authority, effectively undermining absolute power structures.
During the transatlantic slave trade and American slavery, white enslavers systematically misappropriated Ephesians 6:5 and similar passages to provide divine sanction for racial subjugation. This distortion manifested in several calculated ways. Enslavers created truncated “slave Bibles” that deliberately omitted passages promoting liberation, equality, or resistance to oppression. The most famous example, the “Select Parts of the Holy Bible for the use of the Negro Slaves in the British West-India Islands” (1807), removed approximately 90% of the Old Testament and 50% of the New Testament, particularly excluding Exodus’s liberation narrative and other potentially subversive texts. Southern theologians like James Henley Thornwell and Robert Lewis Dabney developed elaborate theological frameworks asserting slavery as divinely ordained. They characterized enslavement as a “positive good” rather than a necessary evil, arguing that African Americans were better served under white Christian guidance than in freedom.
Pro-slavery advocates deliberately ignored historical differences between Roman and American slavery systems. They disregarded that Roman slavery was not race-based, permitted pathways to freedom, and included legal protections absent in American chattel slavery. While emphasizing slave obedience in Ephesians 6:5, enslavers consistently overlooked Paul’s revolutionary statements in Galatians 3:28 (“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free…”) and his letter to Philemon, where he advocated for the acceptance of a formerly enslaved person as “a dear brother” (Philemon 1:16).
The abolitionist movement mounted a powerful exegetical challenge to pro-slavery biblical interpretations. Abolitionists emphasized the scripture’s overarching themes of human dignity, justice, and liberation. They highlighted God’s opposition to oppression throughout biblical narratives, particularly in prophetic literature, where social justice features prominently. African American Christians developed distinctive interpretive approaches that centered on liberation theology. Figures like Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and Harriet Tubman employed biblical narratives—particularly Exodus—as spiritual frameworks for understanding their struggles for freedom. Scholars emphasized that Paul’s instructions, while working within existing social structures, subtly subverted those same structures through ethical teachings that undermined their philosophical foundations. By requiring masters to view slaves as spiritual equals, Paul introduced moral principles incompatible with institutionalized domination.
Abolitionists highlighted the vast differences between Roman and American slavery systems, arguing that Paul addressed the former without endorsing the latter. They contended that Paul’s letters offered pastoral guidance within existing social realities rather than divine endorsement of slavery as an institution. The misappropriation of Ephesians 6:5 illustrates crucial hermeneutical principles. Biblical interpretation requires careful attention to historical, cultural, and literary contexts. Isolated verses extracted from their textual environments become vulnerable to manipulation. Scripture contains an internal moral trajectory that moves toward greater justice and human dignity. While not explicitly condemning slavery as an institution, the Bible’s underlying ethical principles—particularly regarding human equality before God—ultimately undermine systems of human subjugation. Biblical interpretation carries profound ethical implications, especially when it affects vulnerable populations. The weaponization of scripture during American slavery demonstrates how selective reading can enable profound injustice.
The history of Ephesians 6:5’s misuse highlights how dominant groups have leveraged religious texts to maintain social control. This pattern demands critical awareness of how power shapes biblical interpretation. The painful history surrounding Ephesians 6:5 reminds us that scripture requires careful, contextual interpretation that considers both its original setting and its broader ethical trajectory. When properly understood, Paul’s teachings promote human dignity and mutual respect rather than systems of domination and exploitation.