Why Did God Allow Slavery?

Introduction

Atheists often cast a particular aspect of God’s law in the face of believers, saying that if He really was a good God, then why did he allow slavery? There are many answers that have been given, but the problem is, they usually are along the lines of “it was good for that time and culture” or “that system was better than everyone around them.”

The problem is, the Bible says that God’s law is perfect (Psalm 19:7) not that it was relatively better than the alternative. We need to defend God’s commands as best, not simply better. These are my thoughts and maybe they are only a starting point we need to build from, but in any case let us boldly declare the goodness of our God.

First, I admit, the law allows slavery for foreigners, and to be fair, the 6-year slavery for a Hebrew appears to have the same rules while the 6 years last. While some have tried to pass that off as indentured servitude, it honestly plays out more like temporary slavery.

That being said, there are a lot of things that most people don't take into account when criticizing biblical slavery. Taking one part of the law and enacting it without the rest of the law will indeed result in cruelty. The law has to be taken as a whole in order for it to operate as intended.

So, we have to go all the way back and understand the Biblical justice system and the Biblical rules of warfare to get to why the Biblical system, even with the slavery being part of it, is the best of any system we could use.

For a start, our system of prisons usually results in the victim not receiving restitution, society footing a bill, and taking away much more of the perpetrator's life/time than the Biblical system would. Instead of minimizing the damage of a crime, it costs perpetrator, victim and society much more than necessary.

Basic Criminal Justice

The Biblical system is best. In the case of theft or property damage, restitution is to be paid to the victim. (Exodus 22:1-4) The victim does not come out a loser. Society does not have to pay for the incarceration, so society does not come out the loser. The only loser is the perpetrator who has to pay up, and most of the time, his payment is going to cost him much less than the effect of months or years in jail. So again, even the perpetrator doesn't lose as bad as he does in our system.

In those cases in the Biblical system where the perp doesn't have the funds to pay off the restitution owed, the victim is still not a loser as the judge will sell the perpetrator into slavery to pay that debt. Once again society is not a loser either, since they don’t have to feed and house the perpetrator. The perpetrator is perhaps a bit more of a loser than he is in our society (but if someone has to lose, it should be him) since in addition to the loss of his freedom that he would have had in jail, he now has to work off a debt for up to 6 years.

Often the actual time working off his debt would be less than 6 years since a man can redeem himself. (Leviticus 25:49) For instance if he was only 3 months wages (say 3 shekels) short of being able to pay off the debt, he would have been sold at a 6-year price (say 50 shekels), but will retain 5 years and 9 months’ worth of that as his own (47 shekels). And with the redemption price calculated as a percentage of the time remaining until the scheduled release date, (Leviticus 25:50-52) once 3 months have passed the redemption price is down to 47 shekels, and he now has the means to redeem himself if he wishes to.

Beatings?

Now to another part of the justice system. For some crimes that don’t really have a way to provide restitution, God’s system still has a punishment. Again, jail would make society foot the bill, so the punishment is instead designed to be quick, target only the perpetrator and discourage a repeat offense. The solution is a beating. (Deuteronomy 25:1-3) Physical pain applied in a way that should not cause permanent disability. Again, the only loser is the perpetrator and even his loss is as minimal as possible while discouraging further crime from him or those who hear of the judgement.

An example of this might be someone who curses the deaf. (Leviticus 19:14) It is prohibited in the law, but no specific punishment is given for breaking it. I expect the judges would find that worthy of stripes, maybe just a few, but the experience would be one to remind that man that his behavior needs to be in line with the law.

This concept of using a beating or the threat thereof to strongly encourage good behavior is also fair to apply to the man who has been sold and should be working off his debt. If he won’t work, what can be done? The person who paid off his debt in exchange for his future labor is essentially being robbed. The perp is already sold at this point, so there has to be a new form of motivation to prevent that robbery. (Keep in mind, most people accept that a robber who gets beat up by the homeowner while attempting to rob the house got what he deserved.) This type of beating in the law boils down to the same principle. The beating is thus reasonable to maintain a working society where no one except the perpetrator loses. And even within that, the humanity of the perp “attempting robbery” is still upheld given the prohibition against doing any long-term damage. (Exodus 21:26-27)

This principle applies to any type of slave that is purchased, a payment has been made up front for their labor and if they won’t work it is attempted robbery. That really only leaves slaves captured in war to examine the big picture for.

Taking Captives

The law ultimately is not just about a working society; it is about a working world. The rule for war in the law to kill all the enemy males (Deuteronomy 20:13) sounds harsh to us, but upon examination, it is actually a lifesaving rule since it discourages wars in the first place and when one does have to happen it prevents recurring wars.

Consider if World War 1 against Germany had been fought according to that rule. There would have been no Germany to fight a World War 2 in Europe. The casualties in Europe alone for World War 2 were about 45 million. The population of German men at the end of World War 1 was about 30 million. While it certainly would have cost a good many more soldiers to annihilate Germany in 1918, this law being followed in World War 1 would have saved a total of 5-10 million lives over the next 30 years!

There is also the factor that if wars were fought to annihilation, there wouldn’t be as many nations willing to fight them. So, even more lives are saved by the wars that are prevented in the first place. This context of this rule of war being lifesaving drives the next aspect.  

When it comes down to it, the women and children don’t have to all be killed to erase the enemy nation. Since they don’t have to be killed to prevent lives being lost in the next war, leaving them alive is the option with the most life being saved.

So what do you do with them? Leaving them behind to be the victims of the other neighboring, less godly nations isn’t reasonable. Even if they could defend themselves from those nations, their society would collapse in one generation with no procreation happening. The best remaining option is to take these women into your nation where they can be protected from outside enemies, provided for and given the best lives they can have, given the disaster that the men of their previous nation got them into by fighting a war in the first place.

In the aftermath of a winning war, there are soldiers who worked (and risked their lives) to win that war. It isn’t justice for them to have no payment for that work. It also isn’t fair for society to have to pay them since the war was caused by the enemy nation. The solution is that the spoils of that enemy nation be used as the payment to the soldiers for their work and risk.

Divided up into the nation as slaves in the various households and families, these women can be integrated into society and be useful contributors. They end up with at a minimum a life where their needs are met in exchange for their labor, about the best that can be hoped for coming out of a destroyed nation. (Generally when a nation is destroyed or hits rock bottom due to disasters, starvation is common and those who have the opportunity to work for their sustenance are counted blessed.)

There is also the physically intangible, but incalculable advantage of them being exposed to faith in God and being given the chance to accept and serve Him and thus receive eternal life as well.

As an example, imagine the difference between a young woman of Midian, orphaned in the war described in Numbers 31, being left behind in her land to struggle, starve or be captured and abused by the Amalekites (with no protection of God’s law) versus her being taken in to an Israelite family where she would work to be sure, but would be treated with basic human dignity and might even eventually marry a son or servant of the household. It could even be that her descendants would be men like David and Christ as it turned out for Rahab and Ruth and other women who married into Israel. (Matthew 1)

The fact that starting as a slave she could be beaten for not working, is again simply a matter of justice. The family who ended up with her had a soldier go out to war and work to get her, or they purchased her from someone who had to work to get her. Either way, if she doesn’t work it is taking away what someone else worked for, which is robbery.

Cruelty & Rape?

The objection might be raised, what about beatings for no reason, and undeserved abuse?  Well, these women are widows, orphans and foreigners and God’s law commands against oppression of these people groups in strong terms. God Himself promises to take a hand in such cases. As I read it, the judges of the land would also be handing out punishment for infractions of that law against oppression.

Another common myth that gets spread around in atheist and anti-Bible circles is that these captive women were taken to be raped later. The fact is, there is no permission given in the Bible for any sex act outside of marriage (Hebrews 13:4) and even within marriage there is no permission given for non-consensual sex acts. (Ephesians 25:29) Men are commanded to love their wives and give them honor as the weaker vessel. (1 Peter 3:7) So the law does allow for a man to take a captured foreign woman as his wife but raping her, whether inside or outside that context, is not permitted.

Overall, the slavery allowed by the law is only used in a couple of carefully regulated contexts and is the best solution for those particular situations. The type of slavery our culture usually thinks of, fraught with kidnapping and repeated undeserved abuse is actually punishable by death in the law. (Exodus 21:16, 20) So yes, God’s law has slavery in it, leveraging that to create an overall better society and better world, giving everyone affected the best chance at life and justice they can be expected to get in this sin-stained world.