Why is There Slavery in The Bible? Does God Condone Slavery? 

We have all heard a lot of skeptics talk about this subject and I would like to take a closer look at it. When you read verses like Exodus 21:4, 20, 21, and Leviticus 25:44-46, you will see that as part of God’s law, slavery was indeed allowed. Now, a lot of people like to cite this as a source that God is evil, or even that he is imperfect because he did not abolish slavery. To God, morals don’t change, so slavery is something that he would know to be bad. 

The Difference Between Condoning and Allowing:

In the case of Trump's claim that there were fine people on both sides of a protest, he has been accused of "condoning" white supremacy.

Regardless of whether he is a racist or not, some have interpreted this as him saying white supremacists are fine people, therefore, accusing him of morally supporting or condoning them. Slavery was permitted by God, and that is undeniable, but the idea that God allowed it because he morally supported it is. A bait-and-switch tactic is also used with the word “Instructions.” The claim is often made that God made instructions for slavery. However, these were laws. Drug laws aren't instructions about what drugs to take, nor are traffic laws instructions about how to drive. It is the literal opposite.

The Argument From Silence:

In this fallacy, someone claims that the absence of a statement within a historical text makes a statement true. For example, one may say, “God never outlawed slavery so he must support it.” This is fallacious for it assumes God did not have some other motive for slavery. Perhaps the Israelites would have not followed God if he had made a complete removal of slavery at the time. We already are aware of the Jew's poor skills at the task at the time, e.g. they worshiped a golden statue in the shape of a cow once Moses left. The point being, with such a seemingly harsh law at the time, a complete denial of God could ensue causing even worse sin(see here for more information). Whatever God's reason may be, I'd seem unlikely a condoning of slavery would be it(Keep reading to see why).

Composition Fallacy:

This fallacy occurs when something is claimed to be true as part of a whole sees it as factual. a person will say something along the lines of "In the past Christians owned and fought for slaves; therefore, Christianity condones slavery. Now, there is a large issue here. Just because someone claims to be of God, a Christian, they may not be. This is called the No True Scottsman fallacy. A claim may not be true just because it is said. I can say I am a handsome supermodel, but anyone who is both honest and not mute can say that I would be a liar. 

It should also be noted that Christians were on the other side as well. Books such as "A Condensed Anti-Slavery Bible Argument" by George Bourne in 1845 and "God Against Slavery" by George B. Cheever in 1857. “You shall not possess a slave either for your own use or for your monastery or for the fields, since man was created in the image of God.” Theodore the Studite, sometime in the 8th century. [1]

Before I do a deep dive,

I would like to take some time to discuss why the Torah(law) was put into place. The Torah is the first 5 books in the Bible, many don’t realize this, but these laws were an effort from God to reduce the amount of sin until Jesus could come and fulfill the law and die for our sins. The entire story of the Bible points to Jesus. Thousands of years before he walked this earth, he was written about. The law was given during a time when things were very bad, Humans had not learned that the more barbaric you act the worse off you will be.

This is why in 1 Timothy 1:9 it says "9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers."

You see we aren’t all-knowing, God is. This is why it takes us so long to learn the things that God has known since the dawn of man. We now know so much that we can extend human life by double what it was in these times, and it is still not a fraction of what God knows! To bring society to the point it was when Jesus walked the earth, and eventually the new earth, God gives us guidelines. This is why oftentimes you see such specific examples of things that are against the Torah. It may seem oddly specific to us, but we have to remember who wrote the law, God did. Romans 8:28 - "God causes all things to work together for good to those who love."

If God designed the whole universe, then he knows how everything works, including how things will happen. Even if God does not set these things into motion, he designed every human who did, he knows them infinitely better than the knowledge themselves. So by giving a man all these laws, God knew exactly how they would react to them. God knew that Israel would violate the laws time and time again, and he knew that this would lead them into being overshadowed by the Roman government during Jesus’ time. He also knew that this law would help change the actions of the Israelites leading to lawful marriages and the preservation of the messianic bloodline. However, the law was by no means God’s perfect law for humanity, because the purpose of this law was to move humanity to a point where we could have the perfect law written on our hearts. In Matthew 19:8, Jesus explains how divorce was allowed because of the hardness of their hearts. This means that the law was changed, and as we know, God does not change, many atheists take this to be a contradiction, but when you look at the biblical OT law it is very clear that this law was being used as a “bandaid” to patch up specific problems. 

It’s pretty clear from reading the whole law all as one whole law, and not singling out offensive things, that this law was written to fix specific issues. This is why I make the case that the Torah law, is not representative of the law that God would have ideally for the land.

Another issue with Atheist's claim is that it only works when you single out the slavery verses. If you read the whole chapter in its context looking at original Hebrew words, suddenly, slavery in the Bible sounds more like indentured servitude in the Bible. I would also add that the version of slavery described in the Bible would be considered radical in these times. Ancient Egyptian slaves are often portrayed as very miserable and were often tortured by tieing their arms elbow touching their elbow. The version of slavery in the Bible would have been looked at by these primitive men similar to how racist shop owners felt in the late 60s and early 70s when laws were passed banning segregation. Many will still make the argument that these laws were still immoral, and that’s fine, but the fact that these individuals were so far ahead of their times definitely points to the fact that God was guiding them towards a better society. 

These 5 verses say a lot about slavery in the Bible. Starting off, the word used here was “ebed” referring to an unpaid servant. Verse 2 indicates that servants would be released after 7 years, something that would have been considered a radical change in ancient times. However, what is compelling about these verses is verse number 5, this verse indicates that sometimes, Hebrew servants would rather stay as a servant than go free. The reason for this is because often times when people would become poor or unable to support themselves, they would sell themselves into servitude, and instead of payment for their work, they would receive food and housing instead. This is something that occurred very often in these times, they never were released though, and were treated pretty similar to slaves. If these laws were so brutal, why would any servant choose to stay? This could have been due to the fact that the Israelites were often abusive and neglectful to the poor, as they were not protected by the law as servants were. This is even something referred to in the new testament and why Jesus seems to choose those who are poor and in debt. To sum this up, Hebrew servants often choose to remain with their masters because life as a servant was better than life as a poor person. 

In verse 6 it says “he shall serve him for ever," the word used is “Olam.” This word has been used to describe something that lasts eternally, but it's worth noting that it was also used in Genesis 6:4 to describe “old men of renown” 

The word in verse 7 is actually one I have not talked about yet, “amah”. This refers to a female servant, this falls under the same category of “Ebed.” The reason we know this is because later in that verse it refers to a “manservant” in the same context as the female one except it's a male. 

Verses 7-9 say that if someone sells their daughter to be a servant, then she shall not be set free as the male servants are, however, this does not mean she shall not be set free at all, just “as the male servants are set free”. In Verses 8 and 9 it says if the female slave does not please her master, he must allow her to be redeemed, as he has no authority to sell her to a foreign nation as he has “broken faith with her.” This phrase directly translates to “dealt treacherously” with her the NASB version of this verse it says “treated unfairly.”

“Betrothed for himself” is translated from the phrase “Yaad”. Yaad means to appoint. Verse 8 is saying that if a master appoints his female servant to be his wife, and she refuses or displeases him, he must let her be redeemed, and not sell her to a neighboring nation because he has dealt treacherously with her (by trying to appoint her to be his wife). Verse 9 describes a scenario where he appoints her to marry his son, and if he does this, and they marry he must, “deal with her after the manner of daughters.” This means that the master shall no longer treat her as a servant, but “after the manner of daughters.” 

"16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." This makes it clear that you cannot steal or sell men, making slavery nearly impossible. Now, this does not forbid servants from selling themselves unto masters, it only forbids forcefully abducting a man, and selling him (slavery).

This is the number one verse that people use to say the Bible is immoral. Starting off, the Hebrew word used here is the same word “Amah.” This falls into the category of “Ebed” or an unpaid servant. In these times, beating indentured servants was something that occurred a lot, not a single other civilization had a law saying you weren’t allowed to beat them to death because the majority of civilizations viewed these people as subhuman.

 When you look at verses 26 and 27 it makes it very clear though that to beat a servant and cause damage to them, such as taking out an eye or tooth, you have to set the servant free. This is not “instructions for how to beat your slave,” it is telling you that if you beat your servant to death, you will be punished.

 Verse 21 is referring to the hypothetical situation of a servant who dies within a few days of being hit by their master. This is not endorsing you to beat anyone, it is simply explaining the procedures to follow in the situation that a servant dies, within days of being beaten. This was elaborating so that the Israelites knew exactly when to punish someone and when not to punish someone. Verses 26 and 27 make it clear that abusing a servant is wrong. 

These two laws were likely figures of speech indicating that if you cause permanent damage or disability to your servant then you are required to let them go. Both of these verses are referring to unpaid servants. 

This law is a demonstration that God cared about the treatment of servants. This is also referring to an unpaid servant, saying that even if an ox assaults them in any way, even just pushing them, the ox shall be put to death and the owner of the ox shall pay their master 30 shekels. Technically speaking, the servant could receive the 30 shekels but this is an indentured servant, meaning they owe such a great debt that they’ve sold themselves into servitude. 

These verses are only the Exodus 21 laws about slavery, next, I'll take a look at Leviticus. Before that, I just want to point out that the entirety of Exodus 21 refers to unpaid servants. Unpaid servants usually sell themselves into servitude and with verse 16, it’s pretty easy to see that none of these people were forced to be a servant, but choose to be one. Verse 5 indicates that life as a servant must have not been as oppressive as many like to make it seem because if it was, why would a servant choose to remain that way? Why would it occur frequently enough that they felt the need to make a law about it? 

Verse 39 sets a clear difference between slavery and servitude. It starts off describing the process of how someone becomes an indentured servant “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you” then it says specifically NOT to treat them as slaves, and uses the word “abed.” The Hebrew term for a slave is kept in bondage. Then verse 40 says “they are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents” this is a summary of the Exodus laws, then it goes into the specifics of how they are to be released. 

Verse 42 says not to sell the Israelites as slaves using “abad” meaning a slave. Then verse 43 tells you not to rule over them ruthlessly. This is a continuation of the difference set by verse 39.   Verse 44 upon quick glance may seem to be referring to slaves, considering it says “slave” and I was actually surprised to find out that the word used is “amah” a feminine noun meaning “servant or maid.”  This is in the category of “ebed.” This was actually something that surprised me, it’s worth noting that “ebed” technically could be used to describe a slave however in the entire Bible it is only used 7 times to describe a slave, and 326 times to describe servants. “Abed,” on the other hand, is exclusively used to describe slaves and is the word used to describe the Israelites under Egyptian captivity. 

Verse 45 is unclear if it is “ebed” or “abad”. I would argue “ebed” because so far, not a single instance of “abed” has been allowed, and in these times when you owe such a great debt you can’t pay, you can “sell yourself” to someone else and work for them without pay to have your debt absolved. So they owned you, in the same way, that a prostitute “sells her body” for a night to a man. However, one could argue that verse 46 is a continuation of 45. (see 46 below)

This is the first verse that allows Israelites to own actual slaves (abad). A lot of people would argue that “them” is referring to the servants or slaves in verse 45. Assuming that is true, then yes, God allowed the Israelites to purchase slaves, however, it’s worth noting that the word “abad” is used much differently here than anywhere else in the Bible. For example, in Genesis 15:13 it says this, “where they will be enslaved and oppressed”. Yet this verse seems to say “you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly” and is saying “you can buy them”. Now we know that kidnapping a person is prohibited, this means that the slaves referred to in verse 46 were bought, and seeing as they could not have been forcefully enslaved, they had to have sold themselves to be slaves. Now, why would someone sell themself to be a slave? Well, in these times if you committed a crime, you were usually put to death or forced to pay a fine, If you are already in debt, and you can’t afford to pay a fine, then you can either be put to death or sell yourself into slavery to pay off your debts. According to verses 47-55, foreigners can buy Israelites too. This implied that in God's eyes, they were all equal. 

This is the process of an Israelite selling themself to a foreigner who is residing among them. This shows us that God did not see slaves as second class, but as people who owe a great debt. Even God’s chosen people we liable to be sold into indentured servitude. It also gives several ways they can be freed before the year of Jubilee, and if none of those work, they are guaranteed freedom. 

In closing of the Old Testament, there are 2 verses out of the dozens that give laws on indentured servants that actually refer to slaves, and these slaves would have had to sell themselves into slavery because of a crime or debt. The rest refer to indentured servitude. These verses specifically tell you not to kidnap anyone, meaning nobody was forced to be a slave or held in captivity. These verses tell you not to beat your servants to death, and if you beat them to a point where they receive a permanent injury or disability you will have to set them free. Even if a neighbor Ox hurts your servant, it is punishable. God specifically told his people not to treat their servants like slaves but as paid workers. My conclusion is that, yes slavery was allowed in the Bible, but for all of the reasons listed off, it does not mean that as a whole, the Bible promotes slavery. In fact, 1 Peter 2:18-19 specifically refers to slavery and indentured servitude as “suffering wrongfully” "18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle but also to the harsh. 19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully."

A lot of skeptics claim this is yet another “pro-slave” Bible verse, but the problem is that Peter has no authority, if he were to tell the servants to be rebellious it would end up causing them to be killed or further mistreated. So Peter says to be submissive because suffering wrongfully in the eyes of God is commendable to those who suffer.

The New Covenant Begins The Condemnation of Slavery:

So far, we have shown that at one point God did allow slavery for Isreal. However, we also see God tries to protect these slaves in the same by adding many restrictions to the laws. In the Old Testament, the people of Isreal have hard hearts and if God had entirely prohibited slavery, it seems a total rejection of God would be inevitable. God may not have agreed with the act, but to create a covenant with man God had to make such sacrifices. In the New Testament, God continues his restrictions on slavery.  As we see in Timothy, "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine," (1 Timothy 1:9-10 KJV). 

The Greek word used for "menstealers" was "ἀνδραποδισταῖς" which more literally means enslavers. The Bible is literally claiming that those who enslave people are contrary to sound doctrine. This is the start of the banning of slavery.

We also see in Peter,  "18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. 19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. 21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps," (1 Peter 2:18-21 KJV). Specifically, in verse 19, Peter claims slavery is "suffering wrongfully" which shows a feeling of distaste for the act.

Works Cited:

[1] Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders' Typika and Testaments. United States, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2000. p.77

Christian Faith and Cultural Heritage: Essays from a Greek Orthodox Perspective, p. 162.