Does the Bible condone slavery?
Ed Brayton has posted some interesting thoughts on what the Bible has to say about slavery. This was in response to something raised in comments to another (unrelated) post, wherein David Heddle brought up the standard modern Christian explanation of Ephesians 6:5-6, that is, Paul is exhorting slaves to obey the law–not endorsing the institution of slavery. To this, Ed responded:
The problem with this reasoning is that it requires that we condemn those who fought against slavery in America, where it was also legal at the time.
To which I respond: No, there is nothing in the Bible prohibiting people from working to change unjust laws. But what about those who broke the law by helping with the underground railroad? Were they violating Paul’s admonition in Romans 13? Ed answers his own question in this case:
Now, a Christian might reply that Paul’s admonition only applies when the government’s law does not violate God’s law…
Absolutely. And this is not merely a cop-out, it is a central point of Christian doctrine. We must obey God’s laws first. We are to obey human governments in those areas that are not addressed by the Bible (e.g., don’t evade taxes, don’t violate copyrights, etc.) Ed continues:
…but bear in mind that there is not a single verse in the Bible that condemns slavery and dozens of verses that support it.
But we also must bear in mind that the slavery which existed in the times and cultures in which the Scriptures were written was not the same as the enslavement of Africans in North America during the 18th and 19th centuries. It was not as brutal, not based on race, nor was it always lifelong. Some have compared Biblical slavery to military service. Probably the Biblical example of slavery that is most similar to slavery in early America is that of the Israelites being enslaved by the Egyptians. And, judging by the plagues God unleashed on Egypt and the eventual drowning of Pharaoh’s army in the Red Sea, it would seem that God was none too happy with the Egyptians.
Ed points to the Bible’s treatment of slavery as “one of the primary reasons why [he] can no longer accept the Bible as the word of God, as [he] once did.” I find this unfortunate, because I believe it is mostly a skewed modern perspective that leads one to condemn the Bible for “condoning slavery.”
52 Responses to “Does the Bible condone slavery?”
A note on the comment about Hebrew vocabulary being different than today’s English.
In the Tanakh [note 1] (an acronym for the Jewish Bible, or Old Testament) the same Hebrew word “eved” is used for slave and servant. For example, the land of Egypt is called the “beit avodim” (house of slavery) Exodus 20:2. Moses is described as an “eved Adonai” (servant of the Lord) Deuteronomy 34:5.
God freed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt so that they could be servants to Him.
“Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.” Leviticus 25:42
“for the Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.” Leviticus 25:55
So, while the same word is used to describe slavery and service to God, they are vastly different concepts. Slavery, while permitted, is not necessarily condoned. (See Lev. 25:42 “they must not be sold as slaves”). But all Israel is to be in service of God. “You will be for Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” Exodus 19:6.
Be well,
Joseph
1 Tanakh stands for the three-part division of Scripture: Torah (
Can I just mention one thing?
In regards to the whole issue of being able to see all the nations of the earth from a mountain, and claiming this proves the Bible in error. This is absurd.
First- you’e quoting the English translation, and it’s not always accurate. The word “world” is used to describe a famine- we know it wasn’t referring to a global famine. The phrase all the nations is English…what the original shows precisely, I don’t know.
Common sense alert- the Biblical authors weren’t idiots. They lived in a region of mountains and very tall ones at that…now, anyone with common sense knows that men who lived thousands of yrs in mountain terrain would surely know that a mt won’t allow you to see all the world. It’s clearly either a supernatural vision or a figure of speech. The writers would have to have lived their entire lives in a cave to not know you can’t see all the world from a mountain/hill. So, you take the obvious answer- they weren’t fools, they had been on many mountains themselves, thus it was a vision or figure of speech.