Would the Bible Have Supported the Transatlantic Slave-Trade?

It is often claimed that the Bible supports slavery, and by this, it is meant that it would support the African slave-trade of the previous four centuries or so. This is meant to argue that the Bible is evil, or that it has cultural ethics that should be ignored. This is then applied to homosexuality and gender roles, and it is then argued that, just like slavery, the Bible's teaching on these issues represent  its dependence upon its primitive culture. A hermeneutic where all biblical ethics are challenged or an outright rejection of the Bible as man-made is then put forth--all from this idea.

It is clear that the Bible supports two kinds of slavery: the slavery of criminals as punishment (including captives of war--captive of war were considered international criminals who attacked the state), or voluntary slavery, where if an individual or family was destitute and needed to survive, they could place themselves into the institution of slavery.

The first is still practiced by us (ever heard of the chaingang or seen prisoners picking up trash on the side of the road? Do you know where your license plate came from?). The second is a form of indentured servitude that, frankly, is rather benign to the modern world. It might be more like signing a ten or twenty year binding contract with someone than anything we really think of when we think of the word "slavery."

This doesn't mean that slaves were always treated well, but it is clear that the Bible was against the mistreatment of slaves as much as it was against the mistreatment of masters by their slaves. 

Biblical slavery looked very much different than what the modern distortion looked like. Slaves were often employed as teachers, doctors, butlers/maids, personal assistants, etc.

However, it is clear that the Bible would absolutely condemn what became the modern slave-trade. 

In Exodus 21:16, the text states וגנב איש ומכרו ונמצא בידו מות יומת  "And one who kidnaps a man and sells him or is found in one's possession is definitely to be put to death."

Now, some translations have translated the phrase בידו "in his hand" to refer only to the one who kidnaps the man. Even if this is the case, it would mean that any time a man steals another man to sell him into slavery, that man is not to be paid for the slave, but executed, thus condemning the modern slave-trade outright.

However, it is curious that the second verb נמצא is joined with a conjunctive, rather than disjunctive waw. What that might mean is that one would translate the verse as "one who kidnaps a man and sells him and is found in his possession is to be put to death." The verse would make no sense unless the conjunction was including perhaps a different person, meaning that both the kidnapper and the one who buys such a slave is to be put to death, thus condemning any purchasing of a slave that is kidnapped. 

Various translations, like the ESV, acknowldge this. “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."


The punishment is emphatic in the Hebrew. There is no wiggle room. He is absolutely to be put to death for this.

Either way the verse is taken, the Bible condemns the modern slave-trade. In no way does it condone it if, in fact, it demands that people who do this are to be put to death. Anyone who purchased a kidnapped person would be condemned either way with the one who kidnapped him.

Certainly, the Bible was used to support this abomination due to sloppy exegesis and assumption of terms (i.e., if the Bible is ok with slavery in the ancient world, it must be ok with all forms of slavery). But, as always, a closer reading of the text should wipe this common objection to the Bible off the map.