Sal asked CFA: “I appriciate what you all are trying to do, but I'm not buying it. I'm a person who believes in good morals, as I'm sure you also claim to be. But if your "God" truly claims to have any morals, why does he not only accept but even encourage slavery? I'm specifically refering to the following verses in Leviticus 25(39-46):
"If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: he shall be with you as a hired servant and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and go back to his own clan and return to the possession of his fathers. For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. You shall not rule over him ruthlessly but shall fear your God. As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly."
Haven't we declared slavery to be inhumane? If your precious "God" is so loving, then why is he saying this? Do you and all Christians think slavery is okay, or does the bible have some kind of Typo?”
Great question! One I’ve heard before—the answer is actually quite surprising to most people. Let’s dive into the response.
Does the Bible Allow for Slavery?
Yes it does actually, but the difference is in definitions. What the United States, the UN, and the 21st century define as slavery isn’t what the Bible is talking about in the passage you quoted. The 21st century conception of slavery is that of African slave trade ships. The mind conjures images of poor, huddled people with little to eat and no sanitation. Concepts like “malnutrition”, “thirst”, and “death” come to mind. When we come to the Bible, however, we don’t find theses thoughts. Instead, we find something akin to the word “servant.” Consider some of the passages regarding slave treatment (including a section of the one quoted in the question):
Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV), “20If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”
Leviticus 25:44-46 (NIV), “44“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You 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. 46You 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.”
In the first passage we find how to interpret what happens to those in the second passage. At first, the command to beat the slave until death in order to affect punishment on the master may seem inhumane, but you must remember several things.
Firstly, notice the passage says “with a rod”. That is incredibly significant in this passage as it means the master of a slave is only to discipline them—not ever hurt them or mistreat them for no reason. Consider the words of Dr. John Gill (1697-1771) concerning this very passage: “only with a rod for the correction of them, and not with a sword or any such destroying weapon, which would seem as though he intended to kill”. The rod was for discipline, never for abuse. This is in stark contrast to the slavery of the present world. Slaves weren’t abused or harmed for no reason—just disciplined. That’s quite a change from African slave trade.
Secondly, notice the passage itself! This passage is the first ever recorded law in history concerning treating slaves as more than property. As Albert Barnes (1798-1870) puts it, “The protection here afforded to the life of a slave may seem to us but a slight one; but it is the very earliest trace of such protection in legislation, and it stands in strong and favorable contrast with the old laws of Greece, Rome, and other nations. If the slave survived the castigation a day or two, the master did not become amenable to the law, because the loss of the slave was accounted, under the circumstances, as a punishment.” The Bible is the first place where we even see protection of slaves. So to the contrary of the idea of the Bible being a proponent of evil slave practices, it is actually the first document to legislate protection of slaves. Also, Barnes notes that the punishment of beating the slave was just that: the slave couldn’t work for a few days and thus you lost his labor. So in both circumstances, there is a reprimand on the master.
Also, please understand where the slave was going: Israel. Israel was a theocracy whose Ruler said (Exodus 34:6B-7A, NIV): ““The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.” With a Ruler like that, what would compel the Israelites to be unkind, ruthless tyrants to their slaves? Nothing!
Conclusion
I hope this shows you, Sal, that though Slavery was permitted in the Old Testament, it wasn’t an inhumane practice. In fact, it would’ve been better in that day to be a slave in Israel than a free person in one of the surrounding countries.
God bless,
Robert A. Rowlett