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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.