"Slavery" in the Bible

[POI]

Allow us readers to be very careful. We must make sure we identify the proper context here, to assure against hasty and/or self-serving conclusions.

Exodus 21:2-3:

"2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him." <-- Okay, this seems clear enough, if you are a purchased Hebrew, with a wife, you are both to go free in year 7.

Exodus 21:4:

"4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free." <-- Here is where things start to look sketchy for the modern-day believer. If the slave is provided with a wife, and they have kids, the wife and kids are to stay with the slave master. They are not to go free.

Exodus 21:5-6:

"5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life." <-- More uncomfortability for the Christian here. Without getting into the weeds, common sense suggests a special rule is made to trick the male Hebrew into remaining a slave for life.

Leviticus 25:44-46:

"44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." <-- More awkwardness for the believer, as the Bible reader clammers to find a rationale to make this passage not read the way it does.

Here is a basic definition of chattel slavery --> "Chattel slavery is full slavery in its traditional form whereby slaves are the complete property of their master, can be bought and sold by him and treated in any way that he wishes, which may include torture and other brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation"

Looks like all the ingredients fit the given Bible description here, minus the torture. Wait a minute, this is covered in the rest of Exodus 21. (i.e.):

"20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." <-- So basically, since the slave is your property, beatings with impunity are acceptable. Just don't kill them.

For debate:

By applying common sense, does/did the Bible ever, and/or currently still sanction chattel slavery?

Again, by using common sense, can a believer effectively use the Bible in support of breeding chattel slaves?

************************

Before you answer, consider this.... Since the NT does not mention the abolition of 'slavery', and yet the Bible makes further proclamation(s) and/or addendums (in favor of retaining 'slavery',) this means the Bible is not against chattel slavery either. Further, the Christian may want to introduce the importance of the 'golden rule'. However, the specifics outweigh the generals. The specifics of the rules for engagement of slavery are outside the 'golden rule'. Otherwise, the Bible would be a one-pager. 'Slavery' is an expressed exception to the general rule. Thus, anytime a specific scenario is not invoked, yes, 'golden rule.'

[marke]

Just because so many professing Christians and confessing unbelievers refuse to believe God never encouraged slave trade or ownership among Christians doe not mean the unbelievers are right and the Christians are wrong.

Yes, it does. The Bible condones slavery and does not condemn slavery. Hence, you are wrong. So why follow a book which condones an act in which you despise?

If you want to live under the OT law and refuse to reject OT laws, ordinances, policies and the like for freedom in Jesus then you will not likely ever enter into a saving knowledge of the truth.

Yet again, if the NT either a) denounced slavery altogether, or b) remained silent on the topic, you might have some kind of a point. But instead, you have made absolutely no point. The OT condones slavery, and the NT reinforces slavery. So why follow a book which condones an act in which you despise?

You are not the first Bible interpreter who has views wildly different from those of Bible-believing fundamentalists like me.

[POI]

You are not the first Bible interpreter who has views wildly different from those of Bible-believing fundamentalists like me.

It is clear you have absolutely no case against the one I have presented. The Bible condones both lifetime chattel slavery and slave breeding. I know these facts bother you. However, these facts are something you will have to wrestle with...

[marke]

You are not the first Bible interpreter who has views wildly different from those of Bible-believing fundamentalists like me.

It is clear you have absolutely no case against the one I have presented. The Bible condones both lifetime chattel slavery and slave breeding. I know these facts bother you. However, these facts are something you will have to wrestle with...

Your determination to push your incorrect interpretations of the Bible for personal reasons is wicked.

[POI]

Your determination to push your incorrect interpretations of the Bible for personal reasons is wicked.

In order to demonstrate that I possess an incorrect interpretation, you will need to present passages which oppose the direct Bible passages I have placed forth.

You have not done that in the least. It is a fact that the Bible condones acts in which you admit you despise. This is your cross to bear, as you admit such acts are 'wicked'. Well, the Bible endorses/condones these wicked acts. Thus, until you can present the case that the Bible does not condone these wicked acts, all I can logically continue to ask you is:

Why follow a book which does not align with your own moral standards?

[marke]

Your determination to push your incorrect interpretations of the Bible for personal reasons is wicked.

POI: Why follow a book which does not align with your own moral standards?

I don't follow OT Jewish laws and ordinances because I am a member of the NT Church.

[POI]

I don't follow OT Jewish laws and ordinances.

Then you don't follow the 10 Commandments? Divorce is also no problem? Etc etc etc......? Exactly how many of these 613 laws do you now ignore, and why? Please remember what it states in the NT.... (i.e.): Matthew 5:18: "Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Further, the NT also reinforces said OT slavery practices rather than condemning them. Thus, you are still in quite the moral pickle. This is because you are proverbially backed into a self-identified morally corrupt corner regarding slavery in the Bible. Sorry buddy.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

The primary focus of the argument is not just slavery itself, but rather the implications of slavery being sanctioned in a book that is claimed to be divinely inspired and morally perfect. The critique is aimed at challenging the Christian claim that the Bible is the ultimate source of morality.

If the Bible were just another ancient text with no claimed divine authority, its acceptance of slavery would be historically interesting but not necessarily morally troubling. However, since many Christians argue that the Bible is God's Word and the foundation of absolute morality, the existence of slavery laws within it creates a serious problem:

If the Bible is divinely inspired and morally perfect, why does it regulate slavery instead of condemning it outright?
If slavery is inherently immoral, how can a morally perfect God allow and codify it?
If Christians reject slavery today as immoral, are they admitting that moral knowledge has progressed beyond the Bible?
If moral knowledge has progressed beyond the Bible, what does that say about the Bible’s claim to be the final word on morality?
Thus, while slavery is the topic of discussion, the real debate is about whether the Bible can still be defended as a divinely inspired moral guide when it appears to endorse something that modern believers find morally unacceptable.



This ties in with a thread I created "Christianity: Pagan Origins or Unique Truth?" where it points out that the bible God does not use unique methods but incorporates human belief systems in a manner of redirection from one type of world view to another.

The Bible doesn’t introduce a radical new stance on slavery; instead, it regulates an already existing institution, just as it does with other cultural norms (e.g., sacrifice, monarchy, temple worship).
This suggests that biblical morality, rather than being a divine, absolute standard, may simply be a product of historical and cultural evolution, where older belief systems were adapted and redirected rather than outright replaced.
If this is true for slavery, then it may also apply to other aspects of biblical teachings—suggesting that Christianity (or at least biblical religion) isn't unique but rather an adaptation of preexisting worldviews.

Does the bible itself claim to be the ultimate moral authority?
The Bible presents itself as a moral authority, and many believers interpret it as the ultimate authority. However, it does not explicitly state that its teachings are the final, unchangeable standard for all time. The presence of evolving moral perspectives within the text (e.g., changes from Old Testament to New Testament) suggests that the Bible may not be a static, universal moral guide, but rather part of an ongoing moral dialogue.

I think that in claiming the bible is the ultimate moral authority, certain types of Christians attempt to place the God beyond such type-Christian judgement, yet the OT God in particular isn't portrayed as beyond such reproach but rather sees such reproach as coming from ignorance rather than knowledge.

God is Not Portrayed as Above Explanation, But as a Teacher:

In the Old Testament, God often explains His actions, whether through prophets, direct speech, or historical lessons. This suggests that understanding God’s moral reasoning is expected, not forbidden.
Even when humans misunderstand God's ways, the assumption isn’t that God is beyond judgment—it’s that human judgment is often incomplete rather than inherently wrong.

The Modern Christian Position of ‘God Beyond Judgment’ is a Later Theological Development:

Many early Jewish traditions had a much more interactive view of God, where questioning and challenging divine decisions was seen as part of faith (e.g., the Psalms, where people cry out about injustice).
The idea that God's morality is untouchable and unquestionable became stronger in later Christian theology, especially with Augustinian and Calvinist doctrines about divine sovereignty and human depravity.

If Christians insist that biblical morality is unchangeable and ultimate, then they have to justify slavery's inclusion rather than dismiss it. If, on the other hand, biblical morality is adaptive and evolving, then this weakens the argument that the Bible is a final, infallible moral authority.

This perspective highlights an important inconsistency—if biblical figures themselves are allowed to challenge and question God, then Christians today should not be discouraged from critically examining the Bible’s moral claims or the claim that the bible is the ultimate moral authority et al. The attempt to place God "beyond reproach" is actually more of a modern theological defense mechanism than something rooted in the biblical text itself.

This inconsistency suggests that the real issue is not just biblical slavery, but rather the broader claim that the Bible is the final and absolute moral authority. The Bible itself does not demand blind submission, yet modern theology often discourages believers from questioning it. This contradiction weakens the argument that the Bible is a flawless moral guide and supports the idea that moral reasoning continues to evolve outside of biblical commands.

This raises an even deeper question: If the Bible is not the ultimate, unchanging moral authority, then what is the true basis for moral progress?

[POI]

Hello Christians,

William, in post 557, offered some thought-provoking questions. And all I see are proverbial crickets and/or tumbleweeds passing by, as none of you believers offer any answers. Here again are his questions:

1) If the Bible is divinely inspired and morally perfect, why does it regulate slavery instead of condemning it outright?
2) If slavery is inherently immoral, how can a morally perfect God allow and codify it?
3) If Christians reject slavery today as immoral, are they admitting that moral knowledge has progressed beyond the Bible?
4) If moral knowledge has progressed beyond the Bible, what does that say about the Bible’s claim to be the final word on morality?

***********************

Thus far, some of these can be fielded by given substandard Christians answers, as highlighted in post 334 (i.e.):

1) Human hearts were too hardened at the time.
2) Same as above
3) Same as above
4) Same as above

As I recently asked an interlocutor... Why follow a book which does not align with your own moral standards?

[1213]

1) If the Bible is divinely inspired and morally perfect, why does it regulate slavery instead of condemning it outright?

Probably because it is not a problem, if one loves as told in the Bible, and obeys all the other rules, like don't kidnap others.

3) If Christians reject slavery today as immoral, are they admitting that moral knowledge has progressed beyond the Bible?

Everyone who must pay taxes is a slave. If slavery would actually be immoral today, no one would be forced to pay taxes.

[POI]

1) If the Bible is divinely inspired and morally perfect, why does it regulate slavery instead of condemning it outright?

Probably because it is not a problem, if one loves as told in the Bible, and obeys all the other rules, like don't kidnap others.

How is it possible to 'love as told in the Bible' when the Bible condones/endorses a) lifetime chattel slavery and b) slave breeding?

3) If Christians reject slavery today as immoral, are they admitting that moral knowledge has progressed beyond the Bible?

Everyone who must pay taxes is a slave. If slavery would actually be immoral today, no one would be forced to pay taxes.

I've already spoke to this in post 334, point 7). Please try again. Further, you know darn well what William means when he states 'slave' (i.e.): "a person who is forced to work for and obey another and is considered to be their property; an enslaved person."