Slavery in the Old Testament: A Response to the Modern Critique
The world of the Old Testament was shaped by an ancient Near Eastern culture very different from our own, yet God’s redemptive purpose advanced through it.
Abstract
Modern critics of Christianity frequently argue that the Old Testament endorses slavery and that the God of Scripture allowed inherently immoral practices to endure within Israelite society. This argument is often presented without attention to linguistic distinctions, ancient Near Eastern socioeconomics, covenant structures, or the redemptive-historical trajectory that unfolds throughout Scripture. This essay contends that biblical servitude differs fundamentally from modern chattel slavery, that Mosaic law functioned as a reformative and restrictive force rather than an ethical endorsement, and that the New Testament completes a transformative arc that destabilizes slavery at its roots. By reexamining the biblical data within its historical, theological, and literary contexts, this paper argues that the critique rests on an anachronistic reading of ancient texts and a misunderstanding of the nature of progressive revelation.
1. Introduction
Atheist critics often raise the issue of slavery in Scripture as evidence that the God of the Bible endorsed moral practices that modern societies now condemn. The rhetorical strategy is straightforward. They cite selected passages from the Old Testament that regulate servitude and conclude that God approved of a morally corrupt institution.
However, the argument collapses under scholarly scrutiny. When evaluated within its linguistic, cultural, legal, and redemptive-historical contexts, the biblical material reveals a far more complex and ethically sophisticated reality. The law of Moses does not establish slavery as an ideal. Rather, it restricts, regulates, and reforms an already-existing ancient Near Eastern institution. Moreover, the New Testament issues principles that undermine slavery from the inside out by grounding human dignity in union with Christ and mutual belonging within the people of God.
This is not apologetic special pleading. It is the conclusion of a large body of academic research spanning historical linguistics, comparative ancient law, covenantal theology, sociology of antiquity, and New Testament ethics.
2. The Linguistic Problem: The Meaning of "Slave" and the Hebrew Word Eved
Modern debates often stumble at the very first step: the translation of the word "slave." In English, the term evokes the horrors of race-based chattel slavery practiced in the Atlantic world from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, including:
forced capture and transportation
perpetual, hereditary bondage
dehumanization of persons as property
complete lack of rights
racial subjugation
lifelong servitude without wages
This system is historically unique and morally abhorrent. It is categorically distinct from servitude in the ancient Near East.
The Hebrew term eved does not map neatly onto the English term "slave." Depending on context, eved may refer to:
a hired worker
a household assistant
an indentured laborer
a debt-servant
a lower-ranking official
a covenant vassal
a prisoner of war engaged in state service
The semantic range of eved is vast, and using "slavery" as a blanket translation imports connotations foreign to the original text.
Distinguished scholars such as Nahum Sarna, Moshe Weinfeld, and Gordon Wenham repeatedly caution readers not to conflate ancient Israelite servitude with modern slavery. The two systems differ not only in degree but in kind.
3. Comparative Ancient Near Eastern Law: Israel as an Ethical Outlier
Understanding the Old Testament requires situating its laws alongside contemporaneous law codes. When compared with the Code of Hammurabi, the Middle Assyrian Laws, the Hittite Codes, and various Ugaritic texts, the Mosaic law stands out for its humanitarian character.
Key differences include:
3.1. Servitude in Israel was usually temporary
Most servitude ended in the seventh year. This regulation has no precedent in surrounding cultures.
3.2. Physical harm led to emancipation
In Exodus 21:26-27, any significant bodily injury inflicted by a master required immediate release of the servant. No such provision appears in any other ancient law code.
3.3. Kidnapping for slavery was a capital crime
Exodus 21:16 prescribes death for anyone who abducts a person for servitude. This single verse, if applied in the eighteenth century, would have obliterated the Atlantic slave trade.
3.4. Runaway slaves were not to be returned
Deuteronomy 23:15-16 forbids Israel from returning runaway slaves to their masters. This law is unique in the ancient world and incompatible with chattel slavery.
3.5. Servants were integrated into households
Servants participated in Sabbath rest, shared in household religious observances, and were included in covenantal life.
These regulations reveal a fundamentally different system, one shaped by a theological commitment to the dignity of persons made in the image of God.
4. Servitude as Social Safety Net, Not Racial Subjugation
The ancient Near East lacked banks, bankruptcy courts, insurance systems, and governmental welfare programs. Servitude functioned as the default economic safety net for individuals who fell into debt through misfortune, famine, or poor harvests.
It provided:
food
shelter
protection
repayment mechanisms
economic stability
Indentured servitude in Israel was closer to modern employment contracts with restitution agreements than to American slavery. To remove servitude from such a society would have created economic collapse, starvation, and widespread vulnerability.
Therefore, Mosaic law reformed the system rather than abolishing it.
5. Theological Context: Mosaic Law as Transitional, Not Final
A central hermeneutical failure in atheist critiques is treating Mosaic law as God’s ultimate ethical ideal. Scripture itself rejects this notion. According to both testaments:
the Mosaic law was temporary
it accommodated human hardness of heart
it operated within fallen social structures
it pointed toward a more complete redemption
The same is true of regulations concerning polygamy, the monarchy, divorce, warfare, and patriarchy.
As Jesus Himself declared, God permitted certain arrangements "because of the hardness of your hearts," not because they reflected His original design. The law established protections and restraints in a fallen society while anticipating a moral transformation rooted in the new covenant.
Thus, the Mosaic system is not the end of the story.
6. The New Testament: Undermining Slavery at Its Roots
The New Testament does not introduce a social revolution through political decree. Instead, it initiates a theological revolution that erodes slavery’s foundations.
Key principles include:
6.1. All persons share equal dignity in Christ
Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11 establish spiritual and social equality within the new community.
6.2. Masters and servants are brothers
Paul addresses masters and servants as co-members of the body of Christ, something no ancient religion had ever done.
6.3. Masters are accountable to God
Ephesians 6:9 warns masters that they have a Master in heaven who judges impartially.
6.4. The case of Philemon
Paul appeals for the man Onesimus to be treated as “no longer a servant but a beloved brother,” which functionally overturns the relational structure of slavery.
6.5. Early Christian ethics birthed abolition
Historically, abolition movements in Britain and America were led by Christians drawing upon biblical anthropology and New Testament ethics. No purely secular or atheist movement in antiquity ever argued for abolition. Christianity is the only global movement that has consistently fought against slavery across centuries and cultures.
7. Why God Did Not Abolish Slavery in Ancient Israel
This question requires nuance. Immediate abolition would have created:
economic collapse
a crisis of unpaid debts
widespread poverty
destabilized family structures
social chaos
Thus, God worked by transforming the moral core of the system rather than instantly eliminating the institution.
The theological rationale is clear:
God often reforms before He abolishes
God moves societies toward His moral ideal through redemptive trajectories
Scripture reveals progressive revelation rather than static ethical codes
Modern critics often assume an idealized modern state with law enforcement, banks, and social welfare. Ancient societies lacked these but critics often impose modern expectations onto ancient contexts.
8. Conclusion
The claim that the Old Testament endorses slavery rests on faulty hermeneutics, historical anachronism, and a failure to differentiate between descriptive regulation and ethical ideal. A rigorous examination reveals that:
Biblical servitude differed fundamentally from modern slavery
Mosaic law consistently humanized and protected the vulnerable
The law served as part of a progressive moral trajectory
The New Testament ultimately undermined slavery at its roots
Christianity, not secularism, birthed historical abolition
Rather than legitimizing slavery, Scripture reveals a God who enters fallen human cultures, restricts their broken systems, and gradually transforms them through redemptive grace until they reflect the dignity of persons created in His image.
This is not a concession to critics. It is the testimony of Scripture itself and the consensus of responsible scholarship across theological traditions.