Reading the Bible in an academic fashion has taught me a skill that has been extremely useful when reading other historical texts, but seems to be something that modern readers seem to be losing. I notice this especially when people struggle to read anything older than X year (e.g. 1960), because it has concepts that they fundamentally disagree with.

I call it “empathy for the author.” When reading a text and trying to understand it, my first goal is to try to learn as much about the author as possible and their worldview. Then, I attempt to understand the points they’re making. I think other people should do the same.

Here’s a specific controversy to ground my point - the New Testament’s views on slavery.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. 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 6:5-9 [NIV]

Today, we believe in the personal liberty of all. Autonomy is sacred; we’re willing to die so that others can have freedom. So reading text like the above can be difficult and triggering. Here’s a rough overview of responses I’ve heard to this passage:

  1. Downplaying the meaning and implications of the text: “slavery wasn’t that bad back then” or “at least it wasn’t chattel slavery”
  2. Anger at how this passage seems to justify slavery: “Paul is saying that it’s okay for masters to keep on owning and controlling slaves, and that is unacceptable.”
  3. Not a prevalent interpretation now, but was used by slave owners in the US South in the past: “this passage justifies slavery so it is okay for us to own slaves”
  4. More complicated, but interpret the point Paul is making within historical context.

(1) is intellectually dishonest. You could probably make an argument that the ceiling for how well a slave could be treated as well as their future prospects are lower in US chattel slavery. Also, some people in this camp try to weasel out by translating the word as “servant,” as the KJV translation does that:

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

Ephesians 6:5 [KJV]

But that isn’t a good translation based on the NET bible notes:

Traditionally, “Servants” (KJV). Though δοῦλος (doulos) is often translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another.

(2) and (3) make the error of assuming that the passage’s background setting is prescriptive instead of descriptive. The error is specifically saying “because Paul talks about slaves & masters, that means that he is saying that slavery is good.” People in the (2) camp sometimes use this interpretation as reason to discredit Paul all together.

My interpretation

Approach (4) is a bit more complicated. So we start by acknowledging that the Roman world had slaves that may or may not have been treated well. It would probably be insane to try to completely dismantle this system both within or outside of the church at the time of writing.

In this context, Paul is saying that both slaves & masters can honor God within their roles. Slaves are called to be good workers for their masters, as this is “serving the Lord” who will reward them. That’s an encouraging message, especially in the case where you’re forcefully working for a cruel and unreasonable master and don’t have any hope of escape or better work.

Masters are exhorted to treat their slaves gently. “Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven…” This would have been disruptive at the time, putting masters and slaves on an equal footing with God. Also, Romans treated their slaves harshly. Just some brief searching (including the Wikipedia article I linked earlier) has examples of Roman slaves being whipped, branded, tattooed, and even crucified.

To zoom out even more, this passage is in a broader set of relational exhortations:

  1. Eph 5: wives & husbands
  2. Eph 6: children & parents
  3. Eph 6: slaves & masters

To be transparent, I’m an egalitarian, not just because I know it to be right, but also because of how I read these passages. However, that’s a rabbit hole that would be a post of its own.

First, I want to call out the fact that (1) is separated from the other two with a chapter boundary is frustrating as it’s completely arbitrary (Paul did not write with chapter divisions) and it makes it harder to see the literary pattern.

Next, you want to note that all of these relationships involve a power imbalance. Then, the pattern is clear that Paul first addresses the weaker group and tells them mostly to just keep doing what they’re doing cheerfully; by doing this, they honor God. This is because being humble and serving others is what Christians are called to do, so they are already in the correct posture.

The disruption is that Paul tells the powerful groups to respect the weaker groups:

  • Husbands should cherish their wives as if they’re their own bodies, and feed and take care of them. Husbands should love their wives as Christ loves the church and should give up their lives for their wives 🫢.
  • Fathers shouldn’t provoke their children to anger.
  • Masters shouldn’t threaten their slaves.

When framed like this, it makes so much sense to me that Paul isn’t arguing for the status quo, nor is he propagating the Roman worldview on gender and slavery, but rather showing how people in these challenging situations as well as positions of power can still serve God as faithful followers.

Ok, so what?

So, what’s the takeaway? Whether you’re diving into biblical passages or any other historical text, reading with empathy for the author opens up a more nuanced understanding of the message. As modern readers, we’ll inevitably bring our values into the text. But that tension - between what was written then and what we believe now - doesn’t have to be an obstacle. If we approach ancient writings with humility and curiosity, we just might learn something about both the past and ourselves.

Further “reading”

I didn’t just get this lens from reading the Bible carefully. I’ve listened a lot to the podcast My Strange Bible from Tim Mackie; this episode in particular was eye-opening for me on learning & applying this historical lens to the Genesis creation account. There’s also a bundle of other content on interpreting Paul correctly, but I’ll save that for future posts when I talk more about gender & the Bible.