“God said it, I believe it, that settles it!”
I heard that little maxim many times in the beginning stages of my walk with Christ. In one respect, I’m incredibly grateful for the heart behind such a statement.
It’s why I’ve continued to have a settled conviction that the Bible is truly God’s Word. I appreciate the submission to God’s Word, which such a statement engenders.
Yet, I must confess these days, I find it a little unsettling. While I appreciate this maxim, I wonder if another saying might be a bit more fitting.
This one comes from The Princess Bride, “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
There is a danger in assuming the “God said it” portion of that little maxim — and by doing this, not digging further into the meaning of the text. I’ll give you an example.
“Slaves, obey your masters…” (Ephesians 6:5).
God said it, I believe it, that settles it!
Hopefully, you see the problem. Does Ephesians 6:5 really mean that the Bible supports slavery?
What Did Slavery Look Like in the New Testament?
First, we must consider the wise words of Indigo Montoya (that’s the character from The Princess Bride quoted above). That word, slavery, doesn’t mean what you think it means. Or at least it might not mean that.
When we think of the word slavery in our context, we tend to think of chattel slavery. This was not what slavery looked like in Paul’s day when Ephesians 6 was written. Because of this, some have translated Ephesians 6 as if the meaning is “employees.”
While that might be a bit closer to the original than chattel slavery, it’s still not entirely consistent. Consider that according to Greek law, there were four differences between a slave and a free person.
- A free person could represent themselves in court.
- Free people couldn’t just have their property seized; slaves could.
- Free people could own their living however they desired; slaves had to do what the owner asked.
- Free people could live where they wished, but slaves had to live where their owners desired.
This means that if you can clock out of your job, if you are able to have a promotion, if you can quit your job and find another one and get to keep your stuff when you leave, then you aren’t exactly a “slave” in first-century terms.
If your identity is your own and you are your own person, then we’re not talking about the same slavery that we see in the New Testament.
But it’s also not exactly like the slavery of the 1700-1800s. Though it could, at times, be just as brutal if one was bought by a horrendous master.
Yes, there are instances in the Bible where people (especially the Israelites) fell into a similar type of involuntary slavery as a race of people.
But when we read this phrase in the New Testament, in the Roman world, the word doesn’t apply to the involuntary enslaving of a people group.
First-century slaves were often highly educated and trained. The people would often sell themselves into slavery (for protection and security), knowing that eventually they could become free. This is why it is estimated that 50% of those in Rome were slaves. As Geoff Thomas has put it:
They constituted the work force, the engine room of the Roman Empire. They included not only domestic servants and manual labourers but educated people as well, like doctors, teachers and administrators. Slaves could be inherited or purchased, or acquired in settlement of a bad debt, and prisoners of war commonly became slaves. Nobody queried or challenged the arrangement. It was so completely accepted as a part of the labour structure of the time that no-one considered it as a “problem.”
When you add to this the fact that slaves could eventually become free and Roman citizens, it places slavery in the New Testament at least a smidge closer to an employee than it did to the scourge of chattel slavery. But we still cannot so quickly replace the word “employee” with the word “slave” in our Bible.
Slavery, even in New Testament times, was not a practice that created flourishing for all within the Empire. It wasn’t good. Therefore, if we too quickly replace the word “slave” with “employee,” we’ll miss something huge.
Why Didn’t the Gospel Immediately Outlaw Slavery?
Slavery, even in the form of the Roman Empire, was not a universal good. In other words, you will not have slavery of either form in the New Heaven and the New Earth.
As such, it's understandable that we are unsettled by a verse like Ephesians 6:5. Isn’t the gospel supposed to transform everything — even society? Why would Paul kowtow to the culture and not immediately call for the eradication of slavery?
It is here that we might have a lesson even for our day. As Harold Hoehner rightly said,
“Christianity’s emphasis has always been on the transformation of individuals who will in turn influence society, not the transformation of society which will then transform individuals” (Harold Hoehner, Ephesians).
Because of this, Paul doesn’t create a political revolution by attempting to overturn the long-held practice of indentured servitude.
Instead, he took a big-picture approach and focused both master and servant upon their new identity in Christ. He was planting seeds that would be picked up years later.
Consider this from the fourth century from Gregory of Nyssa. He was in a much better position to begin seeing a transformation of society. He thus argued for the abolition of the Roman practice of slavery. In his commentary on Ecclesiastes, he said:
“What are you saying? You condemn man who is free and autonomous to servitude, and you contradict God by perverting the natural law. Man, who was created as lord over the earth, you have put under the yoke of servitude as a transgressor and rebel against the divine precept. You have forgotten the limit of your authority which consists in jurisdiction over brutish animals. Scripture says that man shall rule birds, beasts, fish, four-footed animals and reptiles [Genesis 1.26]. How can you transgress the servitude bestowed upon you and raise yourself against man’s freedom by stripping yourself of the servitude proper to beasts?”
I would argue that woven into Paul’s argument here are the seeds for the abolition of all forms of slavery. Yet, sadly, many used this verse to argue that God was on the side of slaveholders. This was a horrendous and damaging misapplication of this text. How should we apply this verse?
How Do We Apply a Verse Like This Today?
It’s not entirely a one-to-one comparison to the workforce. Nevertheless, the heart underneath Paul’s admonition here would certainly apply to work. It applies to both employer and employee. Both are to know that their labor is before the Lord and unto the Lord.
This means that the worker is to work diligently, even in the mundane tasks of life. This is what Paul says to employers in this passage. Rather than harshly lead, the employer is to serve those in his/her charge. This is what slowly transformed society and the principle of work.
God said it. I believe it. That settles it.
What did God say in this passage? Work diligently unto the Lord, even in menial tasks. And if you’re in a position of authority, use that to bring flourishing to others — serve them as you would serve Christ.
For further reading:
Does 'Bondservant' Mean the Bible Condones Slavery?
What Does the Bible Say about Slavery?
What Is the Slave Bible? Who Made it and Why?
Photo Credit: ©GettyImages/Boonyachoat
Mike Leake is husband to Nikki and father to Isaiah and Hannah. He is also the lead pastor at Calvary of Neosho, MO. Mike is the author of Torn to Heal and Jesus Is All You Need. His writing home is http://mikeleake.net and you can connect with him on Twitter @mikeleake. Mike has a new writing project at Proverbs4Today.
