§ 15 Instructions for Slaves ( 1 Tim. 6:1–2a )
§15 Instructions for Slaves (1 Tim. 6:1–2a)
These two verses, which give instructions about the attitudes of slaves toward their masters, present difficulties for the contextual questions: What’s the point of all this, and what is it doing here? The section is related to the preceding two sections on widows and elders in its concern for timēs (“honor,” or respect; cf. 5:3, 17). However, it also differs considerably from them in that both of the previous sections were concerned that the church both honor genuine widows and worthy elders as well as discipline the erring ones. Here the words are strictly for the slaves, with no corresponding word either to the church or to the masters.
But why these words at all? First, it needs to be noted that slavery in the first-century Greco-Roman world was considerably different from that of recent American history; it was rarely racially motivated. Most people became slaves through war or economic necessity, although by the time of this letter, the majority of slaves were so by birth (born of slaves). Manumission, the freeing of slaves, was a common occurrence, although in many cases slavery was preferred to freedom because it offered security—and, in some cases, good positions in a household.
Nonetheless, slavery was the bottom extreme of the human social condition and was scarcely a desirable status. Slaves, along with most freedmen, constituted a large element of “the poor” to whom the gospel came with good news of acceptance with and freedom before God. From the evidence of the NT and beyond, it is clear that slaves made up a considerable portion of early Christian communities in the Hellenistic world. Hence this passage fits in with several others in the NT that speak to the behavior of slaves (Col. 3:22–25; Eph. 6:5–8; 1 Pet. 2:18–25; Titus 2:9–10) or their situation (1 Cor. 7:21–24; Philem. 10–17). It is perhaps worthy of note that the other two Pauline passages (Colossians and Ephesians) were written to churches in this same geographical area, and that in each case the word to slaves is much longer than the corresponding words to masters or parents and children. One wonders, therefore, whether the false teachings being propagated in this part of the world were putting considerable tension on the master/slave relationship in the church.
One cannot be sure that such was the case here, but it is altogether likely in view of the position of this section in the argument. Furthermore, as with the two preceding sections, the concern seems to be with the second item taken up, namely, the attitudes among believers. If so, then perhaps problems have arisen among some Christian slaves and their attitudes toward Christian masters similar to those among the younger widows. Has an over-realized eschatology or an elitist spirituality caused them to disdain the old relationships that belong to the age that is passing away? One cannot have certain answers to such questions, of course, but such a reconstruction does make sense of Paul’s instructions. In any case, it is clear that Paul’s concern, as before (2:2; 3:7; 5:14), is not only with relationships within the church but also with how the problem was affecting the church’s witness.
6:1 / Because Paul mentions believing masters in verse 2, it is common to interpret verse 1 as referring to attitudes toward pagan masters. That is altogether possible. However, it seems very likely that verse 1 is introductory—and general—and therefore has to do with attitudes toward all masters, but that even here it is anticipating verse 2.
All who are under the yoke of slavery (lit., “slaves under yoke”). Paul says, should consider their masters worthy of full respect. Slaves, of course, were automatically considered to be “under yoke:” Thus the redundancy, slaves under yoke, may point to the chafing of some under their pagan masters; or it may be a Pauline reminder to the believing slaves that even though their status in Christ is that of freedmen, they are otherwise still in the old social order.
The instruction that they should consider their masters worthy of full respect tends to strike a discordant note to twentieth-century ears, especially if such masters were pagans and unworthy of “all honor.” What if their orders violated conscience? Why not speak out against slavery? But Paul’s instruction is quite in keeping with the entire NT understanding of Christian behavior as essentially reflecting servanthood (cf. Mark 10:43–45; 1 Cor. 9:19; Gal. 5:13; Eph. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:16–17) and of Christian existence as basically eschatological—the form of this world is passing away; as an eschatological people, our present status is irrelevant (1 Cor. 7:17–24, 29–31). Therefore, precisely because it is essentially irrelevant, one may live one’s present status in loving obedience.
The purpose clause, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered, picks up the recurring concern about how the church is viewed by those on the outside (see disc. on 2:2; 3:7; 5:14). Such a concern would be immediate if Christian slaves for some reason were being disobedient to pagan masters. But it could equally reflect a concern for how pagans might view the church if they were seeing Christian slaves throwing off the yoke of their Christian masters.
The language slander (lit., “blaspheme”) God’s name comes from Isaiah 52:5, a text similarly quoted by Paul in Romans 2:24 to mean that God’s name was being dishonored among the Gentiles because of the “ungodly” behavior of God’s people, who bore his name. In this passage such dishonor to God’s name means that the outsiders slander our teaching—the gospel itself. For Paul, to blaspheme the gospel is to blaspheme the source of the gospel, and Christian slaves should do nothing as slaves to cause that to happen.
6:2a / As suggested above, this verse probably gives us the ad hoc reason for this short section. There is an untranslated de at the beginning of the sentence. If verse 1 were dealing with Christian slaves/pagan masters then this de is adversative: “But those slaves …” If verse 1 is more general, or prefaces verse 2, then the de means, “Indeed, those slaves …”
The latter would seem to make more sense of the whole of verse 2. The problem in the church probably lay right here: Those slaves who have believing masters were disdaining them as masters. The word show less respect for is the same as that translated “look down on” in 4:12 and almost certainly means something like that here (cf. RSV, “be disrespectful,” or NAB [and Kelly], “take liberties with”). Being on equal footing in Christ does not mean that one is thereby free to abuse the slave/master relationship; it does mean that the old relationship is worked out in an entirely new sphere. Thus, the reason given for slaves not treating Christian masters with disdain is precisely because they are brothers. Being brothers together in God’s household sets the whole relationship on a new footing.
In light of that new relationship, believing slaves must serve them even better, not meaning better than they would pagans, but “all the more so” because they are fellow believers. The words, who benefit from their service, could refer to the masters, and be translated “who devote themselves to good works” (BAGD; D-C), or “who reciprocate in good service” (Hendriksen). But these seem to miss the emphasis on the service of slaves for masters, who, Paul says, are dear to these slaves—although this translation might reflect a more ideal condition than the word agapētoi warrants. What Paul intends is that these masters are believers and therefore part of the brotherhood who are “beloved.”
Thus Paul’s word to Christian slaves is, Be Christians toward fellow Christians whom you serve as slaves, (1) so that unbelievers will not blaspheme God’s name or our teaching, and (2) because such masters are fellow believers.
6:1 / Barrett has made the intriguing suggestion that this material belongs to what has immediately preceded, and that the correlative hosoi (“as many as”) that begins the sentence should be translated, “As many elders who are slaves should …” If so, that would in fact intensify the problem as suggested in the interpretation presented here.
6:2a / It is not exactly clear in the Greek how the clause because they are brothers is to be understood. The NIV, and others, take it to go with the verb: not to show less respect for them [just] because they are brothers. That would fit well with our understanding of v. 1. Nonetheless, that seems to miss the point of the hoti (“for,” because), which, as in GNB, more likely serves to qualify the whole clause and explains why they must not show less respect for them (“for they are their brothers”).
D-C argue that agapētoi should be translated “beloved by God,” on the grounds that “slaves who must be admonished to serve cannot, in the same injunction, be expected to act out of love for the masters.” But besides taking quite a low view of the power of grace, that argues for a meaning of the word not found elsewhere in Paul.