Christian contentions part 1: biblical slavery
Disclaimer
I am not a scholar. I am not a theology genius. I use this blog as an expression of what I am currently studying, debating, or learning. One of the best ways I have found to grow is by sitting down and writing. It is challenging for me simply to absorb information and later spit it back out. I prefer real-world application and the ability to debate around a topic. By “debate around a topic,” I mean truly knowing and understanding the positions I hold so that I am not merely repeating a statistic or viewpoint that supports my claims. Instead, I want a genuine grasp of how my arguments function—whether from a philosophical angle, a theological or apologetics angle, or a completely secular one.I use this somewhat contentious example often, but I believe a policymaker can separate certain issues into different categories. Take homosexuality, for instance. Separate from Christianity, I can argue that a person has the right—even in the eyes of God—to live as a homosexual, and therefore I would not create legislation that forbids gay people from thriving. However, if you ask me how one inherits the kingdom of God, I would say that homosexuality is objectively a sin in God’s eyes, and that a person must take up their cross and overcome temptations and sins just as everyone else must.
In this pursuit of knowledge I have discovered a plethora of contentious verses in the Bible. Who would have thought! I do not see this as a problem but as an opportunity both to learn and to teach. The difficulty people face when dissecting the Bible is the need to look at Scripture objectively. The problem with objective principles is that they conflict with an atheistic viewpoint. A consistent atheist cannot submit to objective morality. If an atheist responds, “Objective truth does not exist, whether religious or secular,” a simple reply is, “Was that an objective statement?” This places a significant constraint on whether atheists can fully reject objective principles while also forcing them to reckon with the possibility that objective morality could exist. It is not a grand slam, but a base hit still advances the runner.
With all of these biblical contentions, Christians can become overwhelmed. When you encounter a post that strings together snippets of Old Testament Scripture under a title such as “All the Times the Biblical God Says Women Should Be Stoned,” it is easy to feel buried. This also gives any unbeliever an immediate height advantage. Do you know how challenging it is to work through every one of those out-of-context verses—examining them through the lens of Hebrew and Greek vocabulary, the cultural trends of biblical time periods, and the broader biblical context—and still produce a timely response? Only to be met with, “Wow, you’re only going to refute that one?” This category of posts for PAC and the Dawn’s Early Light Podcast will take those commonly questioned passages and place them under a large microscope, one topic at a time. If you have your own concerns, if you think I did not dig deeply enough, or if you believe I missed a critical detail, please comment. I wholeheartedly welcome opposition and discourse. That is how we get better.
The first claim I want to address is this: “People much smarter than us have been debating this for centuries.” I agree with the statement—I have used it myself. My only issue with it in the present context is the accompanying idea that because people disagree, we should simply disagree in peace. Nonsense. Debate, discourse, dialogue, and disagreement are healthy habits. When I use that phrase, it is usually when a conversation is going in circles, when someone attacks my intelligence, or when someone appeals to authority. “I have studied this for fifty years and you are only twenty-one!” is a common “get-out-of-jail-free card” when someone is losing a debate—at least that is how I read it. I have heard insights from children that made me pause and think. In addition, something that goes hand-in-hand with the pursuit of knowledge is the concept captured in the well-known observation (often associated with Aristotle) that “the more you learn, the less you know.” People bring different outlooks and perspectives shaped by different upbringings, cultures, and ways of life.
I apologize for the lengthy opening, but I feel we now live in a world where, if you do not preface your arguments with disclaimers, people will take things out of context and nitpick. At least now, if someone clips a portion of this article, I can ask, “Did you even read the first several paragraphs?” With that said, here are the passages and topics I plan to address over time. If you have others you would like me to examine in the future, feel free to let me know.
Slavery
Exodus 21:2–6 — Hebrew servitude and permanent service
Exodus 21:20–21 — A master striking a slave
Leviticus 25:44–46 — Foreign slaves as property and inheritance
Ephesians 6:5 — “Slaves, obey your earthly masters”
Colossians 3:22 — Slaves commanded to obey their masters
1 Peter 2:18 — Servants told to submit even to harsh masters
Main Question: Does the Bible permit, regulate, or endorse slavery?War and Alleged Genocide
Deuteronomy 7:1–2 — Destruction of the Canaanite nations
Deuteronomy 20:16–18 — “Do not leave alive anything that breathes”
Joshua 6:20–21 — Destruction of Jericho
1 Samuel 15:2–3 — Destruction of the Amalekites, including children
Main Question: How can a good God command the destruction of entire populations?Women Captured in War
Deuteronomy 21:10–14 — Marriage to a female captive
Numbers 31:17–18 — Midianite virgin girls spared after the battle
Main Question: What do these passages imply about consent, marriage, and the treatment of female captives?Killing Children and Collective Punishment
Exodus 12:29 — Death of Egypt’s firstborn
2 Samuel 12:14–18 — David’s child dies following David’s sin
1 Samuel 15:3 — Amalekite children included in the destruction
Psalm 137:9 — Babylonian infants being dashed against rocks
Main Question: Why do children sometimes suffer or die because of the actions of adults?Women and Gender Roles
1 Corinthians 11:3–10 — Headship and head coverings
1 Corinthians 14:34–35 — Women told to remain silent in churches
Ephesians 5:22–24 — Wives submitting to husbands
1 Timothy 2:11–15 — Women teaching or exercising authority over men
Main Question: Does Christianity treat men and women unequally?Homosexuality
Leviticus 18:22 — Male same-sex intercourse prohibited
Leviticus 20:13 — Death penalty under Mosaic law
Romans 1:26–27 — Paul discusses same-sex relations
1 Corinthians 6:9–11 — Malakoi and arsenokoitai
1 Timothy 1:9–10 — Arsenokoitai appears again
Main Question: What sexual behavior does Scripture prohibit, and do these prohibitions apply to Christians today?Hell and Eternal Punishment
Matthew 10:28 — Destruction of body and soul in Gehenna
Matthew 25:46 — “Eternal punishment” and “eternal life”
Mark 9:43–48 — Unquenchable fire
Revelation 14:10–11 — Smoke of torment rising forever
Revelation 20:10–15 — Lake of fire and final judgment
Main Question: How can eternal punishment be reconciled with a perfectly loving and just GodPredestination and Free Will
Exodus 9:12 — God hardens Pharaoh’s heart
Romans 8:29–30 — Foreknowledge and predestination
Romans 9:10–23 — God has mercy on some and hardens others
Ephesians 1:4–5 — Believers chosen before creation
Main Question: If God determines or predestines events, are human beings genuinely free and morally responsible?Violence and Harsh Old Testament Laws
Exodus 21:15–17 — Death penalties involving parents
Leviticus 20 — Numerous sexual and religious offenses punished by death
Deuteronomy 22:20–24 — Sexual offenses and capital punishment
Main Question: Why did God’s law prescribe death for offenses that modern societies would punish differently?Sexual Violence and Difficult Sexual Laws
Deuteronomy 22:23–29 — Laws concerning sexual assault and sexual relations
Judges 19:22–29 — Rape, abuse, and death of the Levite’s concubine
Main Question: How should biblical laws and narratives involving sexual violence be understood?Divine Command Morality
Genesis 22:1–12 — Abraham commanded to sacrifice Isaac
Judges 11:29–40 — Jephthah and his daughter
Main Question: Can something normally considered immoral become morally permissible simply because God commands it?Jesus’ Harsh Sayings
Matthew 10:34–39 — “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword”
Luke 14:26 — Disciples must “hate” their families
Luke 19:27 — “Bring them here and kill them in front of me” within Jesus’ parable
Main Question: How should apparently violent or extreme statements by Jesus be interpreted?Alleged Failed Prophecies
Matthew 16:27–28 — Some standing there would not taste death before seeing the Son of Man coming
Matthew 24:34 — “This generation will not pass away”
Mark 9:1 — Some would see the Kingdom come with power
Mark 13:30 — “This generation will not pass away”
Main Question: Did Jesus predict events that failed to occur within the expected timeframe?Alleged Bible Contradictions
Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 — Creation order
Matthew 27:3–10 vs. Acts 1:18–19 — Death of Judas
Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20 — Resurrection accounts
Main Question: Can apparently different biblical accounts be reconciled, or do they genuinely contradict one another?Textual Variants and Allegedly Added Passages
Mark 16:9–20 — Longer ending of Mark
John 7:53–8:11 — Woman caught in adultery
1 John 5:7–8 — The Comma Johanneum
Main Question: If scribes changed or added passages, how reliable is the biblical text we have today?Faith vs. Works
Romans 3:28 — Justification by faith apart from works of the law
Galatians 2:16 — Justification through faith rather than works of the law
James 2:24 — “Not by faith alone”
Main Question: Is salvation by faith alone, or are works necessary for justification?Losing Salvation
John 10:28–29 — No one can snatch Christ’s sheep from His hand
Hebrews 6:4–6 — Those who have fallen away
Hebrews 10:26–29 — Deliberate sin after receiving knowledge of the truth
2 Peter 2:20–22 — Returning to sin after escaping corruption
Main Question: Can someone who has genuinely been saved later lose their salvation?Christian Exclusivity
John 3:18 — Whoever does not believe is condemned
John 14:6 — “No one comes to the Father except through me”
Acts 4:12 — Salvation found in no one else
Main Question: What happens to sincere non-Christians or people who never have an opportunity to hear the Gospel?Problem of Evil and God’s Sovereignty
Isaiah 45:7 — God creates “calamity” or “evil,” depending on translation
Amos 3:6 — Disaster coming upon a city
Job 1–2 — God permits Satan to devastate Job’s life
Main Question: If God is perfectly good and sovereign, why does He cause or permit suffering and evil?God Changing His Mind
Genesis 6:6 — God “regretted” making humanity
Exodus 32:14 — God “relented” concerning judgment
Numbers 23:19 — God does not change His mind like humans
1 Samuel 15:11, 29 — God regrets making Saul king, yet God does not “regret” like a human
Main Question: How can God be omniscient and unchanging while Scripture describes Him as regretting or relenting?Prayer and Unanswered Promises
Matthew 7:7–8 — “Ask, and it will be given to you”
Matthew 17:20 — Faith moving mountains
Matthew 18:19–20 — Agreement in prayer
Matthew 21:21–22 — Receiving whatever is asked in prayer with faith
John 14:13–14 — “Whatever you ask in my name”
Main Question: Why do apparently faithful prayers go unanswered if Jesus promises that believers will receive what they ask?Miracles and Extraordinary Claims
Jonah 1:17 — Jonah and the great fish
Matthew 12:40 — Jesus refers to Jonah
John 11 — Raising Lazarus from the dead
Matthew 28 — Resurrection of Jesus
Main Question: What evidence justifies believing extraordinary supernatural claims?“Greater Works”
John 14:12 — Believers will perform “greater works” than Jesus
Main Question: If Jesus promised believers would perform greater works, why do Christians apparently not perform miracles greater than Jesus’?Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus
John 1:1 — “The Word was God”
John 10:30 — “I and the Father are one”
John 14:28 — “The Father is greater than I”
John 17:3 — The Father called “the only true God”
Mark 13:32 — The Son does not know the day or hour
Main Question: How can Jesus be fully God while being distinguished from and apparently subordinate to the Father?Old Testament vs. New Testament Law
Matthew 5:17–19 — Jesus did not come to abolish the Law
Acts 10:9–16 — Peter’s vision
Romans 10:4 — Christ as the culmination/end of the Law
Galatians 3:23–25 — Christians no longer under the Law as guardian
Main Question: If God’s Old Testament law was good, why are Christians no longer required to follow much of it?
This will be a series of twenty-five-plus posts, so bear with me as we dive deep. As the title suggests, today we begin with biblical slavery. When we examine the relevant passages, we find several different forms of servitude in the Bible:
Debt servitude — A person could enter service because of poverty or unpaid debt.
Voluntary servitude — An individual could voluntarily enter or remain in another household’s service for economic security or protection.
Foreign/permanent slavery — Israelites were permitted to acquire slaves from surrounding nations who could remain in permanent service and be inherited by their children.
War captives — Ancient warfare could result in surviving members of a defeated population becoming servants or being incorporated into the victor’s society.
Penal or restitution servitude — In certain circumstances, someone unable to repay what he had stolen could be sold into service as a means of restitution.
Roman slavery (New Testament) — Some early Christians lived within the Roman system of slavery. Conditions varied widely: some performed skilled work; others endured much harsher circumstances.
An important distinction must be made immediately: the Bible does not describe one single form of slavery. The institution varied according to time period, the nationality of the servant, and the reason for servitude. This distinction matters because the modern word “slave” often carries heavily negative connotations. Yet something like regulated debt servitude, if instituted today, could in certain cases be viewed as preferable to alternatives. Imagine being unable to pay for a major purchase and instead entering a structured household arrangement with time off and eventual release, with a send off of more than you went into the servitude with. These milder forms are typically not the verses that cause the greatest discomfort, and I acknowledge that, but they can still form questions.
The central question is this: Does God regulating an existing institution mean that God morally endorses that institution as His ideal for humanity? I will argue that the answer is no. Regulation does not equal moral ideals. Consider Jesus’ discussion of divorce (which I addressed in an earlier post). Jesus explains that Moses permitted divorce because of the people’s “hardness of heart,” yet adds, “from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:8). From the beginning God established an ideal—perfection and order. In a sinless world, marriage would never break; sexual immorality, cheating, and abuse would not exist. God created the ideal; humanity sinned; and in the New Testament Jesus addresses the reality of a fallen world. Mosaic law governed people living within a broken social structure rather than instantly transforming that society into the ideal.This principle is sometimes called divine accommodation: God meets people where they are. If someone is deeply entrenched in a destructive pattern and every external support for that pattern is suddenly stripped away, resentment rather than transformation often follows. God works with people in their actual condition and gradually leads them out of it.
Human beings may occupy different social positions, but one human being is never ontologically more valuable than another. Genesis presents God’s ideal creation without slavery. In the New Testament we read: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28, ESV). This equality is affirmed after the Fall, not as part of the original creation mandate. Significantly, Israel’s own history begins in slavery. In Exodus 3:7–8 God declares that He has seen the affliction of His people, heard their cries, known their suffering, and has come down to deliver them. The repeated reminder “you were slaves in Egypt” becomes part of Israel’s moral reasoning for treating the vulnerable with care. God identifies suffering in bondage and intervenes against it.
A common objection is that the Bible allows people to own other people. In the case of Hebrew debt servitude, however, servants were normally released in the seventh year. This is not synonymous with American chattel slavery of the 17th–19th centuries, which was typically involuntary, racial, hereditary, and lifelong. Deuteronomy 15 expands the release requirements: the servant was to be sent away with provisions from the master’s flock, threshing floor, and winepress, again with the reminder that the Lord redeemed Israel from slavery in Egypt. This was a functional economic arrangement intended to prevent permanent destitution. It is still far from ideal by modern standards, which is why we must understand the specific institution the text is regulating before equating it with later forms of slavery.
Exodus 21:16 is crucial: kidnapping a person in order to sell them, or being found in possession of a kidnapped person, was punishable by death. The same condemnation of “man-stealers” or slave traders appears in 1 Timothy 1:10. This creates a major obstacle for any attempt to use Scripture to justify the transatlantic slave trade. Historical figures such as William Wilberforce, motivated by Christian conviction, worked against that trade rather than in support of it. This simply shows that while the Bible allows slavery, it actively condemns it.
Exodus 21:20–21, concerning the striking of a slave, is another frequent point of contention. People often summarize it as “You can beat your slave as long as they don’t die.” The passage does establish consequences if a master beats a slave to death. Additional context from Exodus 21:26–27 is essential: if a master permanently injures a slave—even by destroying an eye or knocking out a tooth—the slave is granted freedom. There is no endorsement of unchecked abuse; rather, there are clear legal consequences for serious harm. God is regulating an existing practice in a way that places limits and protections rather than abolishing the entire social structure overnight.
Leviticus 25:44–46, addressing foreign and permanent slavery, is the passage many believe collapses any defense of the biblical material. “God allows Israel to have permanent slaves; therefore God’s morality is faulty.” Why does Mosaic law permit this at all? Here divine accommodation is fully on display. Civil law regulated institutions already present in a fallen society. Regulation does not establish God’s ideal. Foreign slaves in Israel received protections and a degree of religious recognition unusual for mere property: they shared in the Sabbath rest (Exodus 20:10), could participate in Passover under certain conditions (Exodus 12:44), gained freedom if permanently injured (Exodus 21:26–27), and escaped slaves were not to be returned but were allowed to live wherever they chose (Deuteronomy 23:15–16). These provisions do not make slavery just, moral, or ideal. They do demonstrate that enslaved persons were still regarded as human beings under the law of God’s people, even while living in a social arrangement that fell short of God’s original design—just as many of our own social arrangements do today.
Many further objections and questions can arise from these texts. Rather than trying to anticipate and answer every possible contention in a single post, I prefer to leave room for genuine conversation. If you see a weakness in the argument, a passage I have under-emphasized, historical context I have missed, or a perspective I have overlooked, please leave a comment. Civil, honest discourse is one of the best ways we refine our thinking and grow.
This is only the first installment in what will be a long series. My goal is not to hand down final answers or silence every critic. It is simply to examine these difficult passages carefully, distinguish regulation from ideal, and invite others to do the same. Whether you agree, disagree, or remain unsure, I hope we can approach the text, and one another, with both clarity and humility. I look forward to the discussion.