Hey Justin, what an interesting and well articulated essay. Multiple decades ago when I was in high school, one of the debate topics was slavery. Even though I was vehemently against slavery I was given the task of developing a debatable case for pro-slavery. The teach was also extremely anti-slavery but it taught me how to develop viable arguments for almost anything. In my case, even though I wasn’t a believer at the time, I used many biblical references to support my argument (although as you pointed out, probably not correctly).
Thank you James! I really appreciate you sharing that with me.
The Bible is rich with description, so it can be really easy to invoke Bible verses out of context to support any world view. I have certainly done this mistakenly myself.
You hit the nail on the head though. One can develop arguments that seem viable on the surface for almost any position! Kind of scary when you think about it!
If the Bible clearly condemns slavery, why was sustained Christian opposition to it so rare and marginal for over a millennium after Pentecost? Isolated voices existed (such as Gregory of Nyssa in the late 4th century), but the mainstream church — from the New Testament through the patristic and medieval periods — consistently tolerated and regulated slavery as a legitimate institution. If Scripture and the Holy Spirit made the evil of slavery obvious, why did that clarity only become dominant in the 18th and 19th centuries? The historical record indicates that abolition was not the plain reading of the biblical slavery texts, but a later moral development that Christians eventually used to challenge interpretations that had long treated those texts as permitting slavery
That’s a fair observation. I would argue that the entire Old Testament account is a people group rejecting God’s ideal and redefining good and evil for themselves. The New Testament shows that same people group rejecting the living Jesus Himself after witnessing countless miracles.
What should be plain is often clouded by sin and selfish desire.
It’s why we need a Savior at all. If people were capable of consistently getting it right, there would be no need for one. If the Church was perfect, the Church would save, but it doesn’t. Only Jesus can.
But to your point, it was Christians who eventually conquered the evils of slavery they had inherited.
I don’t see that as evidence that Scripture was unclear. I see it as evidence that even when truth is clear, fallen people are often slow to submit to it.
Thank you for engaging. As a fellow Christian, slavery is something I have really wrestled with, and I think we need to be more honest about the complexity of the biblical and historical evidence.
I agree that fallen people are often slow to obey moral truth. But is that is the best explanation for why Christians condoned slavery for so much of Christian history? The problem is not merely that Christians failed to apply clear biblical teaching. The problem is that the Bible contains slavery-specific texts that regulate and permit slavery.
Pro-slavery Christians were not simply ignoring Scripture. They appealed to texts such as Leviticus 25, Exodus 21, the New Testament, passages commanding slaves to obey their masters, etc. Abolitionists, by contrast, often appealed to broader biblical themes such as the image of God, neighbour-love, spiritual equality, and human dignity. That suggests the Bible was contested on slavery, not clearly abolitionist.
I fully agree that Christians were central to abolition. In fact, I think Christian abolitionism is one of the greatest faith-based movements in history. But Christians were also central to defending slavery for centuries. So saying “Christians eventually conquered slavery” only tells half the story.
The more honest conclusion is that the Bible contains moral resources later used against slavery, but it also contains texts that regulated and permitted slavery. That is why the explanation that Christians were simply “slow to obey clear truth” just does not satisfy me.
So my concern is this: if the Bible gets credit for the abolitionists who used it, how do we account for the many centuries of slaveholders and churches who also used it? I do not think it is enough to credit Scripture for abolition while placing the entire history of Christian pro-slavery interpretation solely on "sin and selfish desire". History just does not support that premise.
Thank you for your thoughts. I will leave you with this.
In Matthew 12, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for weaponizing the Sabbath. They used Scripture to justify not helping someone in need on that day. Jesus corrected their interpretation, and in response they began plotting how to kill Him.
Broken people misinterpreting and weaponizing Scripture for their own purposes is neither new nor unique to the issue of slavery.
Moreover, I think it is important to maintain the distinction between man-stealing, which Scripture clearly forbids, and indentured servitude, which is what Scripture primarily regulates. The article makes that distinction clear. I am not arguing that Scripture forbids the practice of indentured servitude. That is a far different practice.
Yet regarding this, in my article I point out how Mt 19:8 shows Jesus explaining that just because something is regulated, does not mean it is God’s ideal. Regulation exists to limit evils. If we weren’t fallen we wouldn’t need regulation.
Lastly, those who appealed to Scripture in defense of the chattel form slavery you are likely struggling with often ignored the fact that it would have been punishable by death under Old Testament law (Exodus 21:16). In America, the slave trade was fueled by kidnapping.
There is a reason the “Slave Bible” of the 1800s omitted passages such as these.
I agree that man-stealing is condemned in Scripture and that regulation does not necessarily equal God’s ideal. However, these points do not resolve the core issue.
Condemning kidnapping does not equal abolishing slavery. A legal system can forbid the acquisition of slaves through kidnapping while still permitting the ownership of slaves acquired by other means. Just look at Leviticus 25:44–46 where it explicitly allows Israelites to buy foreign slaves, treat them as permanent property, and pass them on as inheritance. Is this temporary indentured servitude? It sounds more like chattel slavery of non-Israelites.
I also agree that Matthew 19 shows regulation is not always ideal. But that actually supports my point: the slavery texts regulate slavery rather than clearly abolish it. Abolition therefore requires prioritising broader biblical themes over the plain meaning of the slavery-specific laws themselves.
And the Slave Bible example also cuts both ways. Yes, pro-slavery Christians omitted some liberation texts, but they retained and emphasised slave-obedience passages such as Ephesians 6:5. This shows that the Bible contains both kinds of material, which is why it was contested rather than self-evidently abolitionist. While the Slave Bible demonstrates selective editing, the wider historical problem remains: for most of Christian history, Christians who had access to the full Bible still accepted, defended, practised, and benefited from slavery.
Very thoughtful with a true understanding of the culture of the Bible, Justin. I cover this with students and it is amazing how much abuse has been done to these texts taken out of context. The fact that the Bible often reports without immediately condemning doesn’t mean God is giving the green light. He often works in cultures that are anything but ideal knowing that something better was coming in Jesus.
However, I must endorse the principles laid out in the mosaical law covenant for establishing order where there is no order.
In accordance with that,slavery was implemented due to thievery or debt.
And apon the year of jubilee all debts were canceled.
Now, as far as the enslavement of Africans,
The heads of their tribes sold them unto various people who saw a way to fulfill their greed. They were sold much like Joseph was sold by his brethren. So the guilty party here is first the head of tribe,second the company's involved with the greedy act.
And again, slavery is NOT condemned in the scriptures if it is applied properly.
Sorry Justin but you talk about not taking verses out of context and then you use a couple of verses cherry-picked and out of context to make your claim that there is no chattel slavery in the Bible when there clearly is.
The first cherry-picking occurs in Exodus 21. You cite verse 16 but no other verse in that chapter around it. In verses 20-21 it reads:
"20 When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property."
Notice the words "the owner's property" which indicates chattel slavery. The very thing you claim does not exist in the Bible anywhere at all. The context is making it clear that taking slaves is not to be regarded as the same as kidnapping a person otherwise there would not have been such a regulation for it. So whatever kidnapping is in Exodus 21 it cannot possible be referring to the taking of slaves. Yet you take the verse out of context to suggest this applies to the taking of anyone including in a slavery context. Further on in the passage we also read:
"26 When a slave-owner strikes the eye of a male or female slave, destroying it, the owner shall let the slave go, a free person, to compensate for the eye. 27 If the owner knocks out a tooth of a male or female slave, the slave shall be let go, a free person, to compensate for the tooth."
Why is slavery being regulated if it was outlawed as you claim?
You then admit not long after:
"The Bible condemns man-stealing by making it punishable by death, yet it also regulates what appears to be slavery shortly after."
But you didn't cite the verses for people to read Exodus 21 in context and now you're asserting these regulations refer to 'indentured servitude' (as per Copan). You suggest slave is not a good translation and yet it appears even many conservative biblical scholars disagree with you on this point and continue to translate it as slave.
Okay so much later you do now make reference to Exodus 21:20-21 but now you are special pleading when it comes to this verse. It doesn't matter even if the verse is not prescribing laws for today. The point is YHWH was prescribing laws for then. And they are chattel slavery laws like it or not (and clearly for you it's not). Exodus is not merely "...describing how Israel governed and judged matters related to an already existing practice in the ancient Near East, at a specific moment in history..." It is revealing what YHWH prescribed at that moment in history and this is why the problem is so huge for modern defenders of these texts.
As far as I can see you also make no reference to other key passages such as Leviticus 25:44-46:
“44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.” (NRSVA)
Not only was chattel slavery endorsed by YHWH it was prescribed by him to be done on the basis of what we would now call an ethnic basis.
There are other passages which reveal even worse prescriptions by YHWH on slavery as well such as virgin girls being taken into forced marriages after conquests in Deuteronomy.
I'm sorry to sound elitist but Paul Copan is technically a philosopher not a biblical scholar and I'm sure he would be the first to admit this. The vast consensus of biblical scholars is that the Hebrew Bible does prescribe chattel slavery and it was as brutal as some modern forms even as found in the transatlantic slave trade.
I used to be a Christian apologist much like you but when I started reading proper biblical scholarship I began to see these books by Christian apologists are just riddled with mistakes and scholarly errors which don't hold water when you read and listen to proper scholars. I would have liked to get into how the NT doesn't improve things at all but I've already written enough.
Thank you for reading. I’ve addressed some of this elsewhere, but I want to clarify a few points.
1. This is a lay-friendly article, not a complete defense of every biblical passage concerning slavery. This is why I recommend follow-on works for deeper study that address many of your concerns.
2. I purposefully and specifically contrast biblical servitude with American chattel slavery and the transatlantic slave trade. I do not contrast it with chattel slavery in every historical sense. I think this is pretty clear throughout the article. If this weren’t the case, I would not have explicitly quoted Exodus 21:20–21, which references the slave as “property.” You are accusing me of cherry-picking without addressing the argument I am actually making.
3. Regarding Exodus 21:16, I believe you are making a logical leap. It does not follow that because servitude is regulated, kidnapping people for slavery is therefore permitted. That’s like saying because teenage labor is regulated, it must therefore be permissible to kidnap teenagers for labor.
4. I acknowledge that Copan is a trained philosopher. Pointing out his academic discipline does not refute his arguments, which engage extensively with biblical scholarship. His arguments need to be addressed on their own merits.
5. Similarly, saying there is a “vast consensus of biblical scholars” does not settle the translation issue. In America, the word slave is heavily loaded, so in contexts describing indentured servitude, different wording can and does better clarify the semantic distinction.
6. Your claim about women being forced to marry their rapists is itself a contextually debated issue. I plan to write about this in the future because I believe the passage is defensible in its proper context. However, introducing another disputed issue is beyond the scope of what I am arguing here.
The purpose of this short article was to help readers avoid importing American slavery into Scripture. I also aimed to show that biblical regulation does not necessarily equate to moral approval or God’s ideal.
I appreciate you taking the time to engage with the article. I will leave it at that.
I appreciate it’s a lay-friendly piece but I don’t agree that you’re taking this issue seriously enough. I would encourage you to listen to a real biblical scholar on the matter. He has pointed out that some of the slavery laws in the Hebrew Bible are worse than what happened in American slavery.
Hey Justin, what an interesting and well articulated essay. Multiple decades ago when I was in high school, one of the debate topics was slavery. Even though I was vehemently against slavery I was given the task of developing a debatable case for pro-slavery. The teach was also extremely anti-slavery but it taught me how to develop viable arguments for almost anything. In my case, even though I wasn’t a believer at the time, I used many biblical references to support my argument (although as you pointed out, probably not correctly).
Thank you James! I really appreciate you sharing that with me.
The Bible is rich with description, so it can be really easy to invoke Bible verses out of context to support any world view. I have certainly done this mistakenly myself.
You hit the nail on the head though. One can develop arguments that seem viable on the surface for almost any position! Kind of scary when you think about it!
If the Bible clearly condemns slavery, why was sustained Christian opposition to it so rare and marginal for over a millennium after Pentecost? Isolated voices existed (such as Gregory of Nyssa in the late 4th century), but the mainstream church — from the New Testament through the patristic and medieval periods — consistently tolerated and regulated slavery as a legitimate institution. If Scripture and the Holy Spirit made the evil of slavery obvious, why did that clarity only become dominant in the 18th and 19th centuries? The historical record indicates that abolition was not the plain reading of the biblical slavery texts, but a later moral development that Christians eventually used to challenge interpretations that had long treated those texts as permitting slavery
That’s a fair observation. I would argue that the entire Old Testament account is a people group rejecting God’s ideal and redefining good and evil for themselves. The New Testament shows that same people group rejecting the living Jesus Himself after witnessing countless miracles.
What should be plain is often clouded by sin and selfish desire.
It’s why we need a Savior at all. If people were capable of consistently getting it right, there would be no need for one. If the Church was perfect, the Church would save, but it doesn’t. Only Jesus can.
But to your point, it was Christians who eventually conquered the evils of slavery they had inherited.
I don’t see that as evidence that Scripture was unclear. I see it as evidence that even when truth is clear, fallen people are often slow to submit to it.
Thank you for engaging. As a fellow Christian, slavery is something I have really wrestled with, and I think we need to be more honest about the complexity of the biblical and historical evidence.
I agree that fallen people are often slow to obey moral truth. But is that is the best explanation for why Christians condoned slavery for so much of Christian history? The problem is not merely that Christians failed to apply clear biblical teaching. The problem is that the Bible contains slavery-specific texts that regulate and permit slavery.
Pro-slavery Christians were not simply ignoring Scripture. They appealed to texts such as Leviticus 25, Exodus 21, the New Testament, passages commanding slaves to obey their masters, etc. Abolitionists, by contrast, often appealed to broader biblical themes such as the image of God, neighbour-love, spiritual equality, and human dignity. That suggests the Bible was contested on slavery, not clearly abolitionist.
I fully agree that Christians were central to abolition. In fact, I think Christian abolitionism is one of the greatest faith-based movements in history. But Christians were also central to defending slavery for centuries. So saying “Christians eventually conquered slavery” only tells half the story.
The more honest conclusion is that the Bible contains moral resources later used against slavery, but it also contains texts that regulated and permitted slavery. That is why the explanation that Christians were simply “slow to obey clear truth” just does not satisfy me.
So my concern is this: if the Bible gets credit for the abolitionists who used it, how do we account for the many centuries of slaveholders and churches who also used it? I do not think it is enough to credit Scripture for abolition while placing the entire history of Christian pro-slavery interpretation solely on "sin and selfish desire". History just does not support that premise.
Thank you for your thoughts. I will leave you with this.
In Matthew 12, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for weaponizing the Sabbath. They used Scripture to justify not helping someone in need on that day. Jesus corrected their interpretation, and in response they began plotting how to kill Him.
Broken people misinterpreting and weaponizing Scripture for their own purposes is neither new nor unique to the issue of slavery.
Moreover, I think it is important to maintain the distinction between man-stealing, which Scripture clearly forbids, and indentured servitude, which is what Scripture primarily regulates. The article makes that distinction clear. I am not arguing that Scripture forbids the practice of indentured servitude. That is a far different practice.
Yet regarding this, in my article I point out how Mt 19:8 shows Jesus explaining that just because something is regulated, does not mean it is God’s ideal. Regulation exists to limit evils. If we weren’t fallen we wouldn’t need regulation.
Lastly, those who appealed to Scripture in defense of the chattel form slavery you are likely struggling with often ignored the fact that it would have been punishable by death under Old Testament law (Exodus 21:16). In America, the slave trade was fueled by kidnapping.
There is a reason the “Slave Bible” of the 1800s omitted passages such as these.
I agree that man-stealing is condemned in Scripture and that regulation does not necessarily equal God’s ideal. However, these points do not resolve the core issue.
Condemning kidnapping does not equal abolishing slavery. A legal system can forbid the acquisition of slaves through kidnapping while still permitting the ownership of slaves acquired by other means. Just look at Leviticus 25:44–46 where it explicitly allows Israelites to buy foreign slaves, treat them as permanent property, and pass them on as inheritance. Is this temporary indentured servitude? It sounds more like chattel slavery of non-Israelites.
I also agree that Matthew 19 shows regulation is not always ideal. But that actually supports my point: the slavery texts regulate slavery rather than clearly abolish it. Abolition therefore requires prioritising broader biblical themes over the plain meaning of the slavery-specific laws themselves.
And the Slave Bible example also cuts both ways. Yes, pro-slavery Christians omitted some liberation texts, but they retained and emphasised slave-obedience passages such as Ephesians 6:5. This shows that the Bible contains both kinds of material, which is why it was contested rather than self-evidently abolitionist. While the Slave Bible demonstrates selective editing, the wider historical problem remains: for most of Christian history, Christians who had access to the full Bible still accepted, defended, practised, and benefited from slavery.
Very thoughtful with a true understanding of the culture of the Bible, Justin. I cover this with students and it is amazing how much abuse has been done to these texts taken out of context. The fact that the Bible often reports without immediately condemning doesn’t mean God is giving the green light. He often works in cultures that are anything but ideal knowing that something better was coming in Jesus.
Solid work brother!
Amen and Thank you Matt. I really appreciate the feedback!
You’re crushing it Justin. Keep going!
Good read Justin.
However, I must endorse the principles laid out in the mosaical law covenant for establishing order where there is no order.
In accordance with that,slavery was implemented due to thievery or debt.
And apon the year of jubilee all debts were canceled.
Now, as far as the enslavement of Africans,
The heads of their tribes sold them unto various people who saw a way to fulfill their greed. They were sold much like Joseph was sold by his brethren. So the guilty party here is first the head of tribe,second the company's involved with the greedy act.
And again, slavery is NOT condemned in the scriptures if it is applied properly.
Thanks Robert.
I agree that mosaic law establishes order where there was disorder. I do state that in the article.
“These regulations were meant to limit abuse and preserve human dignity in a very broken world.”
Also, I think it’s important to define terms properly. Your comment says “slave” in both the context of “man stealing” and “indentured servitude.”
These are distinct moral issues. This is where much of the modern confusion lies.
Wow, this was such a joy to read. Very well explained, this has helped me greatly thank you.
Thanks Joseph! I really appreciate it.
Sorry Justin but you talk about not taking verses out of context and then you use a couple of verses cherry-picked and out of context to make your claim that there is no chattel slavery in the Bible when there clearly is.
The first cherry-picking occurs in Exodus 21. You cite verse 16 but no other verse in that chapter around it. In verses 20-21 it reads:
"20 When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property."
Notice the words "the owner's property" which indicates chattel slavery. The very thing you claim does not exist in the Bible anywhere at all. The context is making it clear that taking slaves is not to be regarded as the same as kidnapping a person otherwise there would not have been such a regulation for it. So whatever kidnapping is in Exodus 21 it cannot possible be referring to the taking of slaves. Yet you take the verse out of context to suggest this applies to the taking of anyone including in a slavery context. Further on in the passage we also read:
"26 When a slave-owner strikes the eye of a male or female slave, destroying it, the owner shall let the slave go, a free person, to compensate for the eye. 27 If the owner knocks out a tooth of a male or female slave, the slave shall be let go, a free person, to compensate for the tooth."
Why is slavery being regulated if it was outlawed as you claim?
You then admit not long after:
"The Bible condemns man-stealing by making it punishable by death, yet it also regulates what appears to be slavery shortly after."
But you didn't cite the verses for people to read Exodus 21 in context and now you're asserting these regulations refer to 'indentured servitude' (as per Copan). You suggest slave is not a good translation and yet it appears even many conservative biblical scholars disagree with you on this point and continue to translate it as slave.
Okay so much later you do now make reference to Exodus 21:20-21 but now you are special pleading when it comes to this verse. It doesn't matter even if the verse is not prescribing laws for today. The point is YHWH was prescribing laws for then. And they are chattel slavery laws like it or not (and clearly for you it's not). Exodus is not merely "...describing how Israel governed and judged matters related to an already existing practice in the ancient Near East, at a specific moment in history..." It is revealing what YHWH prescribed at that moment in history and this is why the problem is so huge for modern defenders of these texts.
As far as I can see you also make no reference to other key passages such as Leviticus 25:44-46:
“44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.” (NRSVA)
Not only was chattel slavery endorsed by YHWH it was prescribed by him to be done on the basis of what we would now call an ethnic basis.
There are other passages which reveal even worse prescriptions by YHWH on slavery as well such as virgin girls being taken into forced marriages after conquests in Deuteronomy.
I'm sorry to sound elitist but Paul Copan is technically a philosopher not a biblical scholar and I'm sure he would be the first to admit this. The vast consensus of biblical scholars is that the Hebrew Bible does prescribe chattel slavery and it was as brutal as some modern forms even as found in the transatlantic slave trade.
I used to be a Christian apologist much like you but when I started reading proper biblical scholarship I began to see these books by Christian apologists are just riddled with mistakes and scholarly errors which don't hold water when you read and listen to proper scholars. I would have liked to get into how the NT doesn't improve things at all but I've already written enough.
Hi Michael,
Thank you for reading. I’ve addressed some of this elsewhere, but I want to clarify a few points.
1. This is a lay-friendly article, not a complete defense of every biblical passage concerning slavery. This is why I recommend follow-on works for deeper study that address many of your concerns.
2. I purposefully and specifically contrast biblical servitude with American chattel slavery and the transatlantic slave trade. I do not contrast it with chattel slavery in every historical sense. I think this is pretty clear throughout the article. If this weren’t the case, I would not have explicitly quoted Exodus 21:20–21, which references the slave as “property.” You are accusing me of cherry-picking without addressing the argument I am actually making.
3. Regarding Exodus 21:16, I believe you are making a logical leap. It does not follow that because servitude is regulated, kidnapping people for slavery is therefore permitted. That’s like saying because teenage labor is regulated, it must therefore be permissible to kidnap teenagers for labor.
4. I acknowledge that Copan is a trained philosopher. Pointing out his academic discipline does not refute his arguments, which engage extensively with biblical scholarship. His arguments need to be addressed on their own merits.
5. Similarly, saying there is a “vast consensus of biblical scholars” does not settle the translation issue. In America, the word slave is heavily loaded, so in contexts describing indentured servitude, different wording can and does better clarify the semantic distinction.
6. Your claim about women being forced to marry their rapists is itself a contextually debated issue. I plan to write about this in the future because I believe the passage is defensible in its proper context. However, introducing another disputed issue is beyond the scope of what I am arguing here.
The purpose of this short article was to help readers avoid importing American slavery into Scripture. I also aimed to show that biblical regulation does not necessarily equate to moral approval or God’s ideal.
I appreciate you taking the time to engage with the article. I will leave it at that.
I appreciate it’s a lay-friendly piece but I don’t agree that you’re taking this issue seriously enough. I would encourage you to listen to a real biblical scholar on the matter. He has pointed out that some of the slavery laws in the Hebrew Bible are worse than what happened in American slavery.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-p4AyCSeKM