Slavery in the Bible is a very common talking point for atheists, simply because of the emotional impact it has. They argue that since the Bible has some passages that, when read yet not studied, appear supportive of slavery, it therefore cannot be true.
The first problem with this argument is that it is actually circular. Because morality is an inherently religious concept, the religion that is true is the one that dictates what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, to criticise any religion based on its morality, or the perception thereof, assumes that religion is false from the outset. In other words, this argument would boil down to "Christianity is not true because Christianity is not true".
This is not only why you won't see me using moral arguments against Islam, which does contain some very objectionable morality, but it is also why you won't see me using it against Christianity. In a moment, we'll address why the Bible doesn't support slavery, but regardless, I would like to point out that there are some things in the Bible contrary to us. That's the thing about contact between the Holy God and rebellious sinners. We don't get along with Him. So, while slavery is not included, there are indeed some things I would be able to use against Christianity if I was the emotional sort. I cannot hammer this point hard enough: It is utterly fallacious to criticise a religion on the basis of its morality.
But that being said, it turns out, the Bible is not supportive of slavery. That doesn't mean there aren't verses that appear supportive of slavery. Indeed, go to any atheist website, you will see a long list of out of context verses. But what these sites won't tell you is that there is a huge difference between regulation and approval.
To establish this fact, look no further than the Bible's attitude on divorce. In Malachi 2:16, God tells us, in no uncertain terms, that He hates divorce, because it "covers one’s garment with violence". Nevertheless, God did write laws regulating divorce. This raises the question, if God hates divorce, why did He permit it? We see this very question being asked in Matthew 19, and Jesus' answer is simple: "Because of the hardness of your hearts". Israel was a particularly stubborn nation, and so God "compromised" with them. Effectively, with regard to divorce, God said "you're going to do it anyway, but you're going to do it on my terms". But Jesus continues to say "but from the beginning it was not so."
See, in the beginning, the world was "very good". There was no death, there was no suffering, there was no sin. Because there was no sin, there wasn't really a need for any laws, so God only gave a few: "Fill the earth and subdue it, and you may eat from any tree except that one". God didn't need to regulate divorce because it just wasn't going to happen. Adam and Eve's marriage was perfect, exactly as it should have been. Note also: No slaves.
This same principle, then, can be applied to slavery. The Lord hates slavery, yet because of the hardness of man's hearts, He regulated it. But from the beginning, it was not so. Slavery is an evil, much like divorce, but because we live in a fallen world, both of them are an inevitability. Virtually all human cultures have operated with slave systems.
In the New Testament, God is fairly vocal on His views regarding slavery. For example, let us turn to 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul discusses living out your calling. Christians come from a wide range of different backgrounds. Some of us were married when we got saved, others of us were single. Some of us were rich, others of us were poor. Some of us were old, some of us were young. Each of us must ask one question: What next? And in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul addresses that. In verse 27, we read "Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife." This is because the Bible promotes the virtues of both singleness and marriage. To be single is a good thing, you are not sinning if you're not married. To be married is a good thing, you are not sinning if you get married. Thus, Paul says, it doesn't matter what you do here.
But he has a different word for slaves. In verses 21-24, we read "Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called."
Note the contrast. He says not to be concerned if you become a Christian while a slave, but unlike to those who are married, Paul says to make use of an opportunity to be freed! He then follows it up with "do not become slaves of men". There is a contrast here. Married? Don't seek to be loosed. Enslaved? Seek to be loosed.
The trouble with slavery is that hard hearted humans are always going to do it. In fact, what most people don't realise is that even where certain kinds of slavery are outlawed, we still have other forms. If you have a job, you are a slave. It doesn't matter if you're a fry cook or a live-in butler, you are working for someone else, and so you are a slave.
And that's another important thing to consider. See, there is one critical difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament: Primary audience. The Old Testament, which is most frequently cherry picked by atheists to claim the Bible approves of slavery, was primarily written to Israel, governing that nation, and that nation only. Of course, there were some moral principles mixed in, but a lot of Old Testament laws were not intended to be enacted or enforced anywhere else on earth. By contrast, the New Testament is addressed to all people at all times. When the Old Testament speaks of slavery, it is saying to the Jews "look, you're obviously going to have slavery, but if you're going to do it, you're going to do it this way". When the New Testament speaks of slavery, it speaks of it as an inevitable evil that we are very likely to encounter, if we haven't already, and so this is how we respond.
Ultimately, the kind of slavery that comes to our minds when we hear the word "slavery" is wrong. The Bible destroys it at the very foundation, putting kidnappers up there with murderers (1 Timothy 1:8-11), and even in the Old Testament, punishing such people by death (Exodus 21:16). There is slavery in the Bible, but there are only two kinds of people who will tell you the Bible supports slavery: Those who have not studied the issue properly, and those who are dishonest enough to hope you never will.
But there is another kind of slavery the Bible talks about. Slavery to sin. As human beings, each of us are slaves of our own flesh. We serve it with full devotion, earning for ourselves the wrath of God. But in His love, God seeks to free us from this bondage, and so He sent Jesus to die in our place. Those who confess Him as Lord, and believe in our hearts God raised Him from the dead, will be saved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An attempted response from an atheist
When this article was originally published as a post on the God Squad Apologetics Facebook page, an atheist attempted to respond with the following:
"Morality isn't an inherently religious concept. With or without it, people would still figure out right from wrong. Slavery means forced labour. You can't compare it to the modern work system. That's a cheap move to legitimize your arguments. The Bible was written for a particular audience. The OT is different from ther NT in so many ways. Likewise, a lot of things have changed since the NT was written. Christians can't even follow these laws. It isn't rocket science. That's why we don't have a theocratic Christian government. In a nutshell, the Bible didn't condemn slavery because it was a common thing back then."
The first thing to note is that this is the same atheist who, in response to a previous article, claimed "As an atheist, I believe it's all subjective." I feel it is essential to point out his hypocrisy, therefore. You cannot say "As an atheist, I believe it's all subjective" if you're also going to say that with or without religion, "people would still figure out right from wrong." If morality is subjective, right and wrong do not exist to be distinguished between, any more than "yummy" and "disgusting". Cranberries, tomatoes, mushrooms, and a variety of other foods are still profitable to sell in spite of the fact I find them disgusting, because they are not objectively disgusting. Thus, only if morality is objective can one call things like murder, gang rape, or theft, "wrong".
Regardless of the hypocrisy in this attempted comeback, it actually commits a common straw man. When I say morality is an inherently religious concept, I don't mean it's a concept that only religious people tend to believe in. Rather, I mean only religious people actually have a foundation for that belief. See, the Bible puts forward a personal God of reason. Therefore, not only do His laws make sense, meaning even those who do not believe in Him may nevertheless reap the benefits of following His morals, but He also teaches people to obey them without any kind of special revelation. The opening chapters of Romans especially bear this out, not only telling us that God has given us everything we need to detect His existence, but also that He has "written the law on our hearts". Thus, yes, unbelievers are perfectly capable of living by God's laws without being told to. The only problem here is that by living by His laws, they show that they are indeed moral agents, meaning they can be held accountable when they don't live by His laws.
After his hypocritical statement, the atheist continues to define slavery as forced labor, claiming I made a "cheap move" to legitimise my arguments by comparing modern employees to slaves. Obviously, I dispute the claim that this is a "cheap move". I am not some slimy snake oil salesman lying to my audience, I genuinely made the comparison. Mainly because there are legitimate ways to compare the two.
Chief among these legitimate comparisons are the voluntary basis of the contracts. As I pointed out in the original article, Biblical slavery was not founded by kidnapping. You could not kidnap a man, nor could you sell him. In pre-Christian Israel, "...he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16). Kidnap a man? Off to the gallows with you. Sell that man? It's time to visit Davy Jones' locker. If you buy such a kidnapping victim? Well, he's been found in your hands, therefore you are doomed. So how do you become a slave? Voluntarily, of course!
Ultimately, we don't need to dispute this atheist's definition that slavery is "forced labor". The implications of slavery shift around a bit when you define it this way (and indeed, the very term "slavery" varies from translation to translation based on which definition the translators were going for), but it doesn't hurt our case one little bit. A more accurate definition of slavery, however, is simply the practice or institution of recognising other human beings as the property of others. And we do, in many ways, accept this in our culture. What do we mean, for example, when we say that a rich person "can buy and sell you"? Evidently, we do not mean this literally. Slavery has been illegal in most Western nations for quite some time. What we are actually referring to is your labor output. The rich person is capable of either employing you, or passing off your employment contract to the highest bidder. If your labor output is owned by your employer, then by proxy, so are you.
The atheist continues to say that there is a difference between the Old Testament and New Testament, as if that was any secret. The very titles "Old Testament" and "New Testament" should clue you in to this, but the atheist evidently hasn't studied why this difference is. In his eyes, it's because of the differences in culture. This, however, fails to account for the consistency of the message. The actual reason for the difference in Testaments is... Jesus.
See, the Old Testament builds Jesus up as the coming savior He is. In every sense, from introducing the God we worship, to the formation of Israel as the nation that would bear Him, even down to the typology within the laws of Israel, Jesus is built up in the Old Testament. And it takes years of study to begin to grasp just how deep this goes. The Old Testament sets the stage, then in the New Testament, Jesus just rides right onto it, sitting on the back of the colt of a donkey that the old Testament said He would (Zechariah 9:9).
The New Testament tells us that Christ's resurrection marks the beginning of the New Covenant, which renders the Old Covenant obsolete. The law wasn't abolished because of some cultural war, it was fulfilled in Christ. Therefore, we are bound to a new law, and contrary to the atheist's claims, all Christians absolutely can, and do, live by it.
As for why we don't have a theocratic government, that is simply because God is not currently sitting on an earthly throne. In Romans 13, we are told that God has raised up many secular governments to minister to us in His absence, and we are to submit to their rulings (except, of course, where they would compel us to sin), even to the point of paying them tribute by way of taxes.
Ultimately, this atheist is clearly unaware of the nuances of just about any Biblical issue, but he isn't alone in his ignorance. His response is fairly standard for atheists. Yet it need not be! While this stuff does take diligent study to understand, such diligent study is possible. My advice to this atheist, and indeed to all atheists, is to do that study.