What you'll learn
- Compare servitude in the Law of Moses with transatlantic chattel slavery, naming both the protective laws and the hard texts honestly
- Explain how the New Testament and Christian abolitionists undermined slavery, while admitting that some professing Christians defended it
- Defend the equal dignity of women from Genesis 1:27 and the ministry of Jesus, and answer the charge that complementarian roles are misogynist
Facing the charge honestly
Few objections land harder today than this one: "The Bible endorses slavery and treats women as property. Why would I take my morals from it?" Sam Harris pressed it in Letter to a Christian Nation (2006), and Richard Dawkins presses it in the chapter of The God Delusion (2006) on the Bible's morality. The charge is not silly. The Bible does contain laws about slaves, and it does give men and women different roles in the home and the church.
Two wrong answers tempt us. One is denial: pretending the hard texts are not there. The other is embarrassment: quietly conceding that the Bible was simply wrong. Because Scripture is God's inerrant Word (Know Your Faith, Lesson 1), we neither hide its words nor sit in judgement over them. We read each text in its setting, let Scripture interpret Scripture, and ask where the critic's own moral standard came from.
Define terms first. Chattel slavery means owning a human being as movable property, usually for life, with the slave's children born as property too. That is what the transatlantic trade practised from the 1500s to the 1800s: Africans kidnapped, shipped across the Atlantic and held, with their descendants, on the basis of race. The question is whether the Bible endorses that.
What two wrong answers tempt Christians when the Bible is accused of endorsing slavery, and what is the better approach?Show answer
One wrong answer is denial, pretending the hard texts are not there; the other is embarrassment, conceding that the Bible was simply wrong. Because Scripture is God's inerrant Word, we neither hide it nor judge it. Instead we read each text in its setting, let Scripture interpret Scripture, and ask where the critic's moral standard comes from.
- Denial hides the texts
- Embarrassment concedes error
- Read texts in setting
- Ask about the critic's standard
Servitude in the Law of Moses
Most servitude in Israel was debt servitude. A poor Israelite could sell his labour to clear a debt, but he went free in the seventh year (Exod 21:2) and was not to be sent away empty-handed but supplied "liberally" (Deut 15:12-14). The reason given is striking: "You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you" (Deut 15:15). Israel's identity was built on God's rescue from slavery. The law also contains protections with no parallel in the Atlantic trade:
- Kidnapping was a capital crime. "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death" (Exod 21:16). The Atlantic trade was built on exactly this crime.
- Injury meant freedom. A master who destroyed a servant's eye or knocked out a tooth had to set the servant free (Exod 21:26-27).
- Runaways were sheltered. Israel must not hand an escaped slave back to his master (Deut 23:15-16). The Code of Hammurabi (laws 15-16) made harbouring certain runaway slaves a capital crime, and the United States' Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 required escaped slaves to be returned.
- Sabbath rest belonged to servants as well as masters (Exod 20:10; Deut 5:14-15).
Name three protections in the Law of Moses that set Israel's servitude apart from transatlantic chattel slavery.Show answer
Kidnapping and selling a person was a capital crime (Exod 21:16), which is the very crime the Atlantic trade was built on. A servant who lost an eye or a tooth through a master's violence went free (Exod 21:26-27). Israel had to shelter runaway slaves rather than return them (Deut 23:15-16), unlike Hammurabi's code or the Fugitive Slave Act; servants also shared the Sabbath rest.
- Kidnapping capital crime
- Injury meant freedom
- Runaways sheltered
- Sabbath rest for servants
The hard texts, read honestly
Now state the hard texts plainly. Leviticus 25:44-46 allowed Israelites to buy slaves from surrounding nations and keep them permanently, passing them on to their children; the seventh-year release applied to fellow Israelites. Exodus 21:20-21 says a master who kills his slave is to be punished, but not if the slave survives a day or two, "for the slave is his money." Do not explain these away.
Three truths help. First, these were civil laws for one nation in the ancient Near East. The Westminster Confession says the judicial laws given to Israel "as a body politic" expired with that state, binding others only by their "general equity" (WCF 19.4). Nowhere does the law command anyone to acquire a slave. Second, Jesus taught that some Mosaic laws regulated fallen practices "because of your hardness of heart" while pointing back to God's purpose "from the beginning" (Matt 19:8). A law can restrain an evil without approving it. Third, even a purchased foreigner could share Israel's Passover (Exod 12:44), and the laws on injury, kidnapping and Sabbath applied to him. Paul Copan works through these texts in Is God a Moral Monster? (2011, chs 12-14).
Which two hard texts does the section name, and what three truths help us read them?Show answer
Leviticus 25:44-46 allowed permanent ownership of slaves bought from the nations, and Exodus 21:20-21 says the slave is the master's money. These were civil laws for Israel as a nation, which expired with that state (WCF 19.4) and never command anyone to acquire slaves. Jesus taught that some laws regulated fallen practices because of hardness of heart (Matt 19:8). And foreigners were still protected and could share the Passover.
- Lev 25:44-46 and Exod 21:20-21
- Civil law for Israel (WCF 19.4)
- Regulated hardness of heart
- Foreigners still protected
The New Testament and the abolitionists
In the Roman world slavery ran through the whole economy. The apostles did not call a tiny, persecuted church to armed revolt. Instead they planted truths that ate away at slavery's foundations: slave and free are "all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28); masters must stop threatening, because their Master is in heaven and shows no partiality (Eph 6:9); slaves should take freedom if they can (1 Cor 7:21); and "enslavers" are listed among the lawless (1 Tim 1:10). Paul sent the runaway Onesimus back to Philemon, but asked that he be received "no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother" (Philem 16), and offered to pay any debt himself (v. 18).
Those truths bore fruit. The Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded in London on 22 May 1787 by twelve men, nine of them Quakers, with Thomas Clarkson and Granville Sharp among the others. William Wilberforce (1759-1833), an MP converted in 1784-85 and counselled by John Newton, a former slave-ship captain and the author of "Amazing Grace", led the cause in Parliament. On 28 October 1787 he wrote that "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners." The British slave trade was abolished in 1807, and the Slavery Abolition Act passed the Commons on 26 July 1833, three days before he died. His friends were nicknamed the Clapham Sect.
Honesty requires the other half. Many professing Christians defended slavery; you met George Whitefield in The Story of the Church, Lesson 7. In 1995 the Southern Baptist Convention acknowledged that "many of our Southern Baptist forbears defended the right to own slaves" and apologised. Frederick Douglass saw "the widest possible difference" between "the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ". That is the right distinction: slaveholders were disobeying Exodus 21:16 and 1 Timothy 1:10, not reading them too closely.
How did the New Testament undermine slavery without calling for revolt? Refer to Philemon.Show answer
It planted truths that destroyed slavery's foundations: slave and free are one in Christ (Gal 3:28), masters answer to a heavenly Master (Eph 6:9), freedom is to be taken where possible (1 Cor 7:21), and enslavers are condemned (1 Tim 1:10). Paul asked Philemon to receive Onesimus as a beloved brother, not as a slave, and offered to pay his debt.
- One in Christ
- Masters under a Master
- Enslavers condemned
- Onesimus a beloved brother
Summarise the Christian role in British abolition and the honest admission that must go with it.Show answer
The abolition society of 1787 was founded mostly by Quakers, with Clarkson and Sharp, and Wilberforce, counselled by the converted slaver John Newton, led the campaign in Parliament until the trade was abolished in 1807 and slavery in 1833. But many professing Christians, such as Whitefield and many Southern Baptists, defended slavery. Douglass rightly distinguished the slaveholding religion of the land from the Christianity of Christ.
- Quaker-led society, 1787
- Wilberforce and Newton
- 1807 and 1833
- Some Christians defended slavery
- Douglass's distinction
Women: equal in dignity
Genesis 1:27 is the foundation: "male and female he created them," both in God's image. In the ancient world that was radical. Girl babies were especially likely to be abandoned: in a papyrus letter from Oxyrhynchus in Egypt, dated 1 BC, a man named Hilarion tells his wife to keep the child if it is a boy but to cast it out if it is a girl. Christians refused infanticide, and the sociologist Rodney Stark argues in The Rise of Christianity (1996) that this, with the higher status the church gave women, helped draw women to the early church.
Jesus' treatment of women was startling. He taught Mary as a disciple at his feet (Luke 10:38-42), spoke publicly with a Samaritan woman to his disciples' surprise (John 4:27), defended a sinful woman's devotion against a Pharisee's scorn (Luke 7:36-50), and was supported by women who travelled with him (Luke 8:1-3).
Above all, women were the first witnesses of the resurrection (Matt 28:1-10; John 20:11-18). That honours women, and it is also evidence. Josephus records a rule that women's testimony should not be admitted in court (Antiquities 4.219), and the apostles first dismissed the women's report as "an idle tale" (Luke 24:11). No one inventing a story to persuade first-century people would have chosen women as the key witnesses. God did.
Give two examples of Jesus' treatment of women, and explain why women as first witnesses of the resurrection matter in two ways.Show answer
Jesus taught Mary as a disciple at his feet (Luke 10:38-42) and spoke publicly with the Samaritan woman (John 4). Women as first witnesses honour women's dignity. They also count as evidence, because women's testimony was not admitted in court (Josephus, Antiquities 4.219), so no inventor of the story would have chosen them.
- Mary taught as disciple
- Samaritan woman
- Honours women
- Embarrassing detail, so evidence
Different roles, equal worth
This course holds the complementarian conviction shared by the teachers it follows: men and women are equal in worth, and God has given them distinct, complementary roles. In marriage the husband leads by loving his wife "as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Eph 5:25), and the wife submits to that loving leadership (Eph 5:22-24). In the church the office of elder belongs to qualified men (1 Tim 2:12-13; 3:1-7), a pattern Paul grounds in creation rather than local culture. Many evangelicals hold an egalitarian view, opening every role to both sexes. That is an in-house debate, not a gospel issue.
Role difference is not inequality. The incarnate Son is fully equal with the Father yet came "not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me" (John 6:38; 1 Cor 11:3). Headship in Scripture is a call to die for another, not a licence for selfishness: husbands must not be harsh (Col 3:19), and wives are "heirs with you of the grace of life" (1 Pet 3:7). Men who abuse women in the Bible's name sin, and the church must say so.
Finally, beware chronological snobbery, C. S. Lewis's name for "the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited" (Surprised by Joy, ch. 13). The critic assumes our age has reached moral heights the Bible never saw. But where did our conviction that every person has equal worth come from? You met Tom Holland's Dominion (2019) in Secular Society, Lesson 3: he argues that such values grew largely from Christianity. When a friend condemns slavery and misogyny, he stands on ground that Genesis 1:27 laid.
Example: In the staffroom: "Your Bible is pro-slavery and anti-women"
Colleague: Honestly, how can you teach from a book that endorses slavery and treats women as second-class?
You: Fair question, and I won't pretend the hard passages aren't there. Can I ask what you mean by slavery? The Atlantic trade was built on kidnapping.
Colleague: Well, yes. Chains, ships, people sold as property.
You: Exodus 21:16 makes kidnapping someone and selling them a capital crime. Deuteronomy forbids sending a runaway slave back. Israel's law regulated a harsh world, and I'll admit some of those laws are hard to read. But it never endorsed what happened on those ships.
Colleague: Christians still owned slaves, though.
You: Many did, and they were wrong. Paul calls enslavers lawless. It was Christians like Wilberforce who fought for twenty years to end the trade, from the conviction that every person bears God's image.
Colleague: And women?
You: Genesis says male and female are equally made in God's image. Jesus taught women as disciples, and he chose women as the first witnesses of his resurrection, in a culture that wouldn't let them testify in court.
Colleague: I didn't know that.
You: Here's what strikes me. You believe every person has equal worth. So do I. I think that belief makes most sense if we're all made by God, who sent Jesus to die for slaves and masters, men and women alike.
What does complementarianism teach, and why is a difference of role not inequality?Show answer
It teaches that men and women are equal in worth but have distinct roles: husbands lead by sacrificial love and wives submit to that leadership, and the eldership belongs to qualified men, grounded in creation. Role difference is not inequality, as the incarnate Son is equal to the Father yet does his will. Headship is a call to serve and die for another, never licence for harshness. Egalitarian evangelicals differ, but this is not a gospel issue.
- Equal worth, distinct roles
- Headship as sacrificial love
- Son equal yet submits
- In-house, not gospel issue
What is chronological snobbery, and how does it apply to the charge that the Bible is morally backward?Show answer
Chronological snobbery, in C. S. Lewis's words, is the uncritical acceptance of our own age's intellectual climate and the assumption that whatever is out of date is discredited. The critic assumes modern morality is superior, yet our belief in the equal worth of every person grew largely from Christianity, as Tom Holland argues. The critic borrows the Bible's standard to condemn it.
- Lewis, Surprised by Joy
- Old assumed discredited
- Equality grew from Christianity
- Critic borrows the standard
In their own words
“The Bible's God expects his people to keep slaves and tells them how to do it. The civilised world now rightly agrees that slavery is an abomination, so the Bible is a poor moral guide.” (Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (2006); citing texts such as Leviticus 25:44-46)
“Nobody actually takes their morality from Scripture. We pick and choose its texts using a changing moral Zeitgeist, which is why we now reject its slavery laws and its treatment of women.” (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (2006), ch. 7, 'The "Good" Book and the Changing Moral Zeitgeist')
“The claim that the Bible ended slavery is a myth. Christians used the Bible to sustain slavery, and abolitionists increasingly had to move away from biblical authority to oppose it.” (Hector Avalos, Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship (Sheffield Phoenix, 2011))
“The Bible's teaching on women, from Eve's role in the fall to commands of submission, has degraded women and been used to keep them subordinate.” (Elizabeth Cady Stanton and others, The Woman's Bible (1895, 1898))
Key texts
- Genesis 1:27: Male and female both made in God's image. The root of human equality and the standard by which slavery and misogyny are condemned.
- Exodus 21:16: Kidnapping and selling a person is a capital crime. The Atlantic trade was built on exactly what this verse forbids.
- Deuteronomy 23:15-16: Israel must not return a runaway slave. Contrast Hammurabi's code and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
- 1 Timothy 1:10: 'Enslavers' (NIV 'slave traders') are listed among the lawless. The New Testament condemns slave trading.
- Philemon 15-16: Onesimus to be received 'no longer as a bondservant' but 'as a beloved brother'. The gospel undermines slavery from inside.
- Galatians 3:28: Slave and free, male and female, are 'all one in Christ Jesus'. Equal standing before God, without erasing God-given differences.
- Ephesians 5:25: Husbands love 'as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her'. Biblical headship is sacrificial, never domineering.
Objections and answers
Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.
“Leviticus 25:44-46 says Israelites could buy foreigners and own them as property forever. That's chattel slavery, full stop.”Show a response
You're right that this is a hard text, and I won't soften it: foreign slaves could be held permanently. But notice the differences from the Atlantic trade. Kidnapping a person was a capital crime (Exod 21:16), so the trade's very method was forbidden. Any slave who was maimed went free (Exod 21:26-27), runaways were sheltered rather than returned (Deut 23:15-16), and a purchased foreigner could join Israel's Passover (Exod 12:44). It was not race-based and not built on abduction. It was civil law for one nation in the ancient world, and Jesus taught that some Mosaic laws regulated fallen practices because of hardness of heart (Matt 19:8). Regulating an evil to restrain it is not the same as commanding it.
“Exodus 21:21 literally says the slave is the master's money. How is that not treating people as property?”Show a response
It's a hard phrase and I won't pretend otherwise. But read the whole passage. The verse before says that if a master strikes his slave and the slave dies, the death 'shall be avenged' (Exod 21:20), so a slave's life was protected by law, not left to the owner's whim. The phrase about money explains why the law left a lesser case to the master's own loss. A few verses later, a master who knocks out a servant's tooth must set him free (Exod 21:26-27). These are civil laws for ancient Israel, which the Westminster Confession says expired with that nation (WCF 19.4). They restrained a fallen practice; they did not create it. And the same Bible teaches that the slave bears God's image (Gen 1:27).
“Paul told slaves to obey their masters and sent the runaway Onesimus back. He was fine with slavery.”Show a response
Paul was writing to a tiny, powerless church in an empire where a slave revolt would have been crushed. He did not lead a political campaign, but he did something more radical. He told masters they serve a Master in heaven who shows no partiality (Eph 6:9). He told slaves to take their freedom if they could (1 Cor 7:21). He listed 'enslavers' among the lawless (1 Tim 1:10). And he sent Onesimus back asking Philemon to receive him 'no longer as a bondservant' but 'as a beloved brother' (Philem 16), welcoming him as he would Paul himself and charging any debt to Paul. A master who must treat his slave as a brother and an apostle has lost the ground slavery stands on.
“Christians used the Bible to defend slavery for centuries. Abolition came from Enlightenment ideals, not Scripture.”Show a response
Many professing Christians did defend slavery, and I won't excuse them; the Southern Baptist Convention formally apologised for this in 1995. But the abolition movement was driven largely by people who argued from Scripture. Nine of the twelve founders of the abolition society in 1787 were Quakers. Wilberforce wrote that God had set before him the suppression of the slave trade. John Newton, the converted slave-ship captain, wrote against the trade. Frederick Douglass, who escaped slavery, distinguished the slaveholding religion of his land from 'the Christianity of Christ'. The question is who read the Bible faithfully: the slaveholders, who broke Exodus 21:16, or the abolitionists, who appealed to the image of God in every person (Gen 1:27)?
“Paul says women can't teach or have authority over men (1 Tim 2:12). That's textbook misogyny.”Show a response
Misogyny is contempt for women. Paul's teaching isn't about worth but about roles. The same Bible says male and female equally bear God's image (Gen 1:27) and are 'heirs with you of the grace of life' (1 Pet 3:7). Paul greets women as co-workers, such as Phoebe and Priscilla (Rom 16:1-3). He grounds the eldership of men in creation, not in a claim that women are less intelligent or less spiritual (1 Tim 2:13). Jesus himself, who taught women and chose them as the first resurrection witnesses, appointed twelve men as apostles. The Son is equal to the Father, yet does his will (John 6:38). Different roles do not mean different worth. Evangelicals debate how these texts apply, but no reading of them teaches contempt.
“Complementarianism is just patriarchy with a nicer name. It leads to abuse.”Show a response
Abuse is real, it is evil, and churches have sometimes protected abusers. That must be confessed and stopped. But abuse is a betrayal of biblical headship, not an application of it. Scripture commands husbands to love their wives 'as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her' (Eph 5:25), to love them as their own bodies (Eph 5:28), and not to be harsh with them (Col 3:19). Peter warns that a husband who fails to honour his wife will find his prayers hindered (1 Pet 3:7). Biblical leadership means taking responsibility to serve and protect, even at the cost of your life. The answer to men who misuse power is not to abandon Scripture but to obey it, and to call them to repent.
Written task
A Year 10 student writes in her reflection journal: "I can't believe in a God whose Bible supports slavery and keeps women down." Write a 300-450 word reply she could read. Address both concerns honestly, including at least one hard text, and end by pointing her to Christ.
Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:
- Distinguishes Old Testament servitude from chattel slavery with at least two accurate texts (e.g. Exod 21:16; Deut 23:15-16), and names at least one hard text without explaining it away
- Explains how the New Testament and Christian abolitionists undermined slavery, while admitting that some professing Christians defended it
- Grounds women's equal dignity in Genesis 1:27 and the ministry of Jesus, including women as first resurrection witnesses
- Explains complementarian roles as equal worth with distinct roles, without contempt for egalitarian believers
- Shows that her own moral standard rests on the image of God, and ends graciously with the gospel
Further reading
- Confronting Christianity: 12 Hard Questions for the World's Largest Religion by Rebecca McLaughlin: Accessible and warm. Chapter 8 ('Doesn't Christianity denigrate women?') and chapter 10 ('Doesn't the Bible condone slavery?') model this lesson's tone.
- Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God by Paul Copan: Detailed treatment of women in Israel (ch. 10) and three chapters on slavery in Israel and the New Testament (chs 12-14).
- Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by John Piper and Wayne Grudem (eds): The standard complementarian collection, explaining equal worth and distinct roles from Scripture.