04/05/2026

 

By: Samuel Clifford

 

Introduction: 

 

Over the past 300-400 years, slavery has become an extremely controversial topic. Concerns of the morality of slavery and the controversy of possible permission from the Bible to have slaves has caused intense debate. Some very controversial people believe that the American Chattel Slavery Era was not immoral at all, while others argue that any form of slavery, including well-regulated indentured servitude, is immoral. If we take the Bible as the word of God, then its dictation on slavery should be the grounds for whether it is moral or not. Once it is determined what the scriptures truly say concerning slavery, the regulations and characteristics of biblical slavery should be compared to that of chattel slavery to determine whether it was biblically regulated or truly immoral.

 

What is the American Chattel Slavery Era (ACSE)?

 

For the purposes of this research, I have created a new term for the characteristics of slavery found in North America between the early 1600s to 1865. The core elements for this term is as follows:

 

1. The time frame is between 1600s to 1865. This means that slavery under Native Americans prior to European colonization is not under the umbrella of this term. Furthermore, illegal slavery after 1865 also does not follow the umbrella of this term.

 

2. The geographic setting is primarily North America with emphasis on the British colonies and later the United States. However, the origin and transportation of slaves falls under the umbrella as well.

 

3. Enslaved people were treated as chattel—movable property with no legal personhood.

 

4. Slavery was racialized and hereditary, passed from mother to child.

 

This term is necessary because it encompasses more than the term antebellum slavery which refers to slavery in the United States between 1815-1865 and also the transatlantic slave trade which refers to the system of forced migration and enslavement that transported over 12 million Africans to the Americas between the 16th and 19th centuries. This term better encompasses the entirety of the system of slavery in North America from its colonial beginnings to its legal abolition in 1865.

 

Slavery in the Old Testament

 

The objective of this section is to determine the characteristics of slavery in Israel and the scriptural regulations of slavery in Israel. Therefore, mentions of slavery in the Old Testament that are not in Israel and conducted by the Israelites will not be discussed. This includes the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt as well as the slavery under the Assyrians or other nations. The regulations of slavery will be discussed first. The regulations of slavery will be divided into three parts, based on the distinct legal frameworks of the Old Testament such as the Sinai Law, Deuteronomic Law, and Priestly Law.

 

Sinai Law

 

Sinai Law refers to the body of laws given to Moses while he was on Mount Sinai. This body of law is primarily found in Exodus 20-23 and is often called the covenant code. There are a few verses within this code that discuss the characteristics and regulations of slavery that will be analyzed.

 

Exodus 21:7-11:

 

“Now if a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. And if he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. But if he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.” (Exodus 21:7-11 NASB)

 

When evaluating this verse and all of the future verses of the Old Testament that mention slavery, it is important to analyze the Hebrew word translated as slave in English. 

 

Before getting into the specifics of this verse, it is imperative to analyze the Hebrew word for slavery in this verse and what it means. The Hebrew word for “slave” in this verse and many others in the Old Testament is ā·māh which is better translated as maidservant or a female servant. Therefore, these verses don't provide much insight into actual slavery in the Old Testament, or at least slavery that can be compared to the slavery of the ACSE. Nevertheless, an analysis of these verses will still be given.

 

Paul Copan, in his book Is God a Moral Monster? provides valuable insight into the context of this verse. In his writings he emphasizes the existence of casuistic law and apodictic law in Hebraic law. Casuistic law contains a conditional statement. For example, “if someone kills a man they are to be sentenced to prison for five years” is casuistic law. Apodictic law is simply a divine commandment such as “thou shalt not murder.” Copan argues on page 114 of his book that Exodus 21:7-11 is not an apodictic law, but a casuistic law in which the parameters of keeping women protected in unfortunate circumstances. He states, “…the law here instructs Israelites about what should be done under certain inferior conditions…” (114). In other words, in this inferior circumstance a father has sold his daughter, and the law found in this verse is reactionary to that circumstance in order to keep the daughter safe. 

 

The scenario this verse describes is a father selling his daughter, likely for poverty reasons. The daughter is sold in a marriage contractual agreement. If the person who bought the daughter doesn’t find her favorable after she has served him, he may redeem her, as he cannot sell her to a foreigner, or he may give her to one of his sons. However, if he does so, he must treat her as a daughter. Finally, if he marries another woman, he cannot reduce her food, clothing, or marital rights. Overall, this verse doesn’t provide much for our analysis of the characteristics of moral slavery in the Bible and will be dismissed in comparison when analyzing the ACSE.

 

Exodus 21:20-21: 

 

“And if someone strikes his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for the slave is his property.” (Exodus 21:20-21 NASB)

 

This passage has caused an extreme amount of confusion and is even hated by some who don’t understand it. After evaluating other verses on debt servants that Paul Copan provided in his writing on this, it seems that in the Old Testament debt servants had full personhood (Genesis 1:26-27; Job 31:13-15; Deuteronomy 15:1-18). Firstly, the first verse (v. 20) states that if a master struck his servant and the servant died, then the master would be put to death (“punished” better translates to “avenged” from the Hebrew word naqam). Exodus 21:23-24 reinforces this idea with the statement “life for life.” 

 

So what does verse 21 mean? It seems from the context that if a servant died a day or two after punishment that the master was given the benefit of the doubt that there was no murderous intent and that perhaps the servant had died of something else. It is clear that Exodus 21:26-27 which will be analyzed later that servants weren’t allowed to be mistreated. Smiting was allowed as a discipline but smiting that resulted in death was punishable like any other homicide. The only exception was, if the slave did not die for some days (ver. 21). In that case the master was considered not to have intended the slave's death, and to be sufficiently punished by the loss of money. The word for “property” is the Hebrew word keseph and it can be translated as “fee,” “fine,” or “money.” In summary, if a master punished his slave to death, then the master would be put to death as well. If the slave survived a day or two then died, it is believed the master had no murderous intent, and the master's loss of capital was punishment enough.

 

Exodus 21:26-27:

 

“And if someone strikes the eye of his male or female slave and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free on account of the eye. And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let the slave go free on account of the tooth.” (Exodus 21:26-27 NASB)

 

Verses 18-27 are statute regulations concerning several civil deviations that were not considered severe enough to merit the death penalty. In verses 26-27 the regulations concern those of the treatment of slaves. This verse stands in contrast to other ancient middle eastern laws such as Hammurabi’s laws (e.g., §§196–199) which prescribe “lex talionis” (law of retaliation) for injuries among free men: “If a man destroys the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye.” However, if the injured party is a slave, the penalty is monetary compensation to the owner, not justice for the slave. This passage in Exodus actually calls for the emancipation of slaves if they were injured in any permanent way.  This suggests a higher valuation of personal dignity and bodily integrity, even for those in servitude.

 

Priestly Law

 

Priestly Law refers to the laws given to the Israelites that are primarily found in the book of Leviticus. These laws focus on ritual purity, priestly duties, sacrifices, and moral conduct. Several passages within Leviticus outline rules regarding slavery, which will be examined.

 

Leviticus 19:20-21:

 

“Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free. He shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord to the doorway of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering.” (‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭19‬:‭20‬-‭21‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬)

 

In this verse a man commits adultery with a servant girl who had not been redeemed and was betrothed to another. The passage is clear that the girl is not punished but instead the man who laid with her is likely taking advantage of her due to her position as a servant. The offense of the man especially was very serious and he had to pay expensive reparations through a sacrificial ram.

 

Leviticus 25:42-49:

 

“For they [Israel] are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. You may also acquire them from the sons of the foreign residents who reside among you, and from their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may also pass them on as an inheritance to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another. ‘Now if the means of a stranger or of a foreign resident with you becomes sufficient, and a countryman of yours becomes poor in relation to him and sells himself to a stranger who is residing with you, or to the descendants of a stranger’s family, then he shall have redemption right after he has been sold. One of his brothers may redeem him, or his uncle, or his uncle’s son may redeem him, or one of his blood relatives from his family may redeem him; or if he prospers, he may redeem himself.” (Leviticus 25:42-49 NASB)

 

This text is one of the most controversial and debated passages among scholars. Nevertheless, it is important to take the Bible for what it says as it is inspired by God. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate this verse and determine what it means, and also determine the purpose of it, and its surrounding context. There will be a deeper analysis of this verse, mostly because this verse concerns slaves who were foreigners in Israel, not servants who were Israelites. This provides a better comparison to antebellum slavery for the purposes of this study. 

 

Leviticus 19:33-34 is a commandment from God for the Israelites to love the stranger in their land provided to them by God:

 

“When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.  The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God.” (Leviticus 19:33-34 NASB)

 

Other verses reinforce the commandment by God for Israelites to love the stranger in their land (Deuteronomy 10:19). Therefore, why would foreigners be treated differently in Leviticus 25. The most likely answer is that the foreigners in Leviticus 25 are hostile or prisoners of war, and that this law was reactive and not the best case scenario. With Israelites being in an area prone to conflict, there needed to be a solution that wouldn’t hinder Israel’s conquest of Canaan, which was a divine command from God (Deuteronomy 7:1-2). The solution to this problem was the enslavement of the people of hostile nations, so that they wouldn’t rise again and renew war against Israel. Nevertheless, this verse should also be interpreted and compared to Ruth. 

 

“Furthermore, I have acquired (qanah) Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, to be my wife in order to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance, so that the name of the deceased will not be eliminated from his brothers or from the court of his birth place; you are witnesses today.” (Ruth 4:10 NASB)

 

The Hebrew word for "acquired" in this verse, qanah, is also used in Leviticus 25:44 when it states, “you may acquire (qanah) male and female slaves from the pagan nations.” Ruth was a moabite and from a pagan nation, yet Boaz, her husband, did not treat her as a slave, but as a partner. Now sure, the characteristics of the slaves being acquired in Leviticus 25:44 are likely not the exact same as that of Ruth 4:10. However, this similar scenario alongside Leviticus 19:33-34 makes it evident that the slaves in Leviticus 25 were not supposed to be treated terribly by Israelites. In other words, while Leviticus 25 permits acquisition of foreign slaves, it does not endorse cruelty or dehumanization.

 

Andrew Bonar in his Exposition of Leviticus gives another major reason that the people of the pagan nations could lawfully become slaves of the Israelites. He states, “It is not that Moses, or the Lord speaking by Moses, sanctions slavery. He gives no right to one man over another’s person, except where there is sin and crime to be punished, as in the case of criminals.” He states that the has the right to punish the heathen nations, and also hostile nations, by bringing them under the bondage of Israel. 

 

Deuteronomic Law

 

Deuteronomic Law is a collection of laws presented in the book of Deuteronomy as part of Moses’ final address to Israel. These laws often repeat or expand on earlier commandments with a focus on justice, community responsibility, and covenant loyalty. Specific verses in this section address slavery and will be analyzed to understand their ethical and legal significance.

 

Deuteronomy 15:12-18:

 

“If your fellow countryman, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you for six years, but in the seventh year you shall set him free. And when you set him free, you shall not send him away empty-handed. You shall give generously to him from your flock, your threshing floor, and from your wine vat; you shall give to him as the Lord your God has blessed you. And you are to remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I am commanding this of you today. But it shall come about, if he says to you, ‘I will not leave you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he is doing well with you, then you shall take an awl and pierce it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your servant permanently. You shall also do the same to your female slave.It shall not seem difficult for you when you set him free, because he has given you six years with double the service of a hired worker; so the Lord your God will bless you in whatever you do.” (Deuteronomy 15:12-18 NASB)

 

For Hebrew slaves that were in extreme cases of poverty, Israelite benefactors would buy them for servitude so that they would be released from economic bondage and would be under the care of the benefactor who was required to provide all the needs for the poor individual. This verse further states that the benefactor could not release the servant with nothing, but that the servant must be given livestock, a threshing floor, and wine. These supplies were to be given so that the servant could begin again and not have to return to servitude if the servant did not want to remain a servant. The verse actually provides two reasons that a servant doesn’t have to be released by law. Firstly, if there is a bond of affection that the servant has for his patron. Secondly, if the servant finds his conditions greatly improved under his current arraignment with the patron. Yet, if the servant did wish to be free, then after six years of servitude the benefactor was to let the servant go and provide the servant with supplies to start a new life. 

 

Deuteronomy 20:10-11

 

“When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. And if it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and serve you. (Deuteronomy 20:10-11 NASB)

 

Deuteronomy 20:1-20 concerns the laws of war for Israel, and that context is vital to understanding this verse. Verses 15-16 clearly makes the distinction between the cities within Canaan and the cities in this verse. The cities in verses 10-11 are far from Israel or Canaan according to verse 15. This begs the question, why would Israel be at war with a nation outside their promised land? This verse is not permissive of Israel making war with nations outside of Canaan especially those who are peaceful, but instead, given the context, it is about nations outside of Canaan who pose a threat. Israel was to be peaceful with nations who were not a threat (Psalm 34:14). These verses, therefore, are directions or laws for the Israelites to follow when at war with cities outside Canaan. Israel when at war with these outside nations were to first be diplomatic and offer peace. If the city did not accept peace then the Israelites could siege them (Deuteronomy 20:12). However, if the city did accept peace then they were reduced to forced labor or tributaries. This labor and or tributes may have been for a season or in perpetuity (cf. Genesis 49:15; Judges 1:30, 33, 35; 1 Kings 5:13; 1 Kings 9:21; Isaiah 31:8). 

 

Further Comments

 

There is an important comment that is necessary to make concerning verses in the Old Testament on slavery. The first question that needs to be answered is if these passages apply to any nation but Israel. The recipients of these laws were the nation of Israel, the physical descendants of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob from the time of the Exodus to the time of the Messiah. As shown these laws were largely given not as apodictic law but as casuistic law. The circumstances surrounding these laws are not repeatable. Israel will not be under these laws again even from a dispensational premillennialist perspective. They will be under the law of Christ during the millennium. Therefore, with these laws being given to a specific group of people, the Israelites, under specific circumstances, the conquest and occupation of Canaan, in a different time, the time of the Exodus to the Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, it is difficult to find any reason for these verses to be prescribed to anyone but Israel during this time, especially the nations of the world during the time of the American Chattel Slavery Era. 

 

Nevertheless, this doesn’t make the entirety of this section pointless. This simply means that nations including those of the ACSE cannot correctly apply these laws to their nations. The comparison between the laws of slavery in the Old Testament to the ACSE can therefore only be made in terms of contrast and illustration, not prescription. These laws reveal how Israel’s covenantal framework sought to regulate and limit servitude within a specific historical and theological context. The comparison can provide insight into whether the characteristics of these laws are consistent or inconsistent with the characteristics of the ACSE. Yet, moral regulations of slavery that apply to more than just Israel but are found in the law of Christ and therefore apply to all nations and individuals can be found in the New Testament.

 

The Curse of Ham

 

Genesis 9 informs the reader of what is called the Curse of Ham. What is the “Curse of Ham,” however? What does it mean? Who does it apply to? These are questions I hope to answer below. 

 

“So he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers.’ He also said, ‘Blessed be the Lord, The God of Shem; And let Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, And let him dwell in the tents of Shem; And let Canaan be his servant.’”

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭9‬:‭25‬-‭27‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

Why Was This Curse Given?

 

After the flood, Genesis 9 describes Noah as farming and he planted a vineyard. Noah sinned and became intoxicated and when he was intoxicated he took off all of his clothes and passed out in his tent. It is possible that Noah was sexually assaulted by his son Ham as the phrase “became uncovered” and “nakedness” can be associated with sexual acts (Leviticus 18:6-20). Yet, there is no explicit indication that Ham disrobed his father or committed some homosexual act. Ham’s gazing on Noah’s nakedness represents an early step in the abandonment of the moral code after the Flood. Ham dishonored Noah,  perhaps by a sexual act or by his outspoken delight in his father’s condition (cf. Genesis 19:26; Exodus 33:20; Judges 13:22; 1 Samuel 6:19). Shem and Japheth, in contrast, responded with honor. They placed a garment across their shoulders, walked in backward, and covered their father’s nakedness. They kept their faces turned away so they would not see him exposed” (Genesis 9:23). 

 

What Is The Curse?

 

The curse in Genesis 9 is a declaration of future subjugation placed on a particular descendant line. The wording is consistent across translations: this lineage is destined to become “a servant of servants,” a way of saying the lowest, most dominated group among its relatives. The curse uses the phrase: עֶבֶד עֲבָדִים (‘eved ‘avadim) which translates to “servant of servants.” This is a Hebrew superlative, the same pattern as “holy of holies” (the most holy) or “song of songs” (the greatest song). So “servant of servants” means “the lowest-ranking group among the others.”

 

Who Was The Curse Given To?

 

This question is debated by many theologians and it is something I will attempt to tackle here. In Genesis 9 it states that Ham is the person who dishonored Noah and yet it also says the curse is upon Canaan, one of the sons of Ham, but not Ham specifically. John Nelson Darby comments on this dynamic by noting that, “The earth, under mercy, relieved (as Lamech had announced) by agricultural care, becomes in its fruits a snare to Noah, who becomes intoxicated, and his own son dishonours him; on whose race consequently the curse falls. This is given in view of the people opposed to Israel, the center of God’s earthly government, and of the relationship with that family” (Darby 23–24). Darby believed that after the flood God mercifully restored fruitfulness to the earth, yet Noah’s misuse of that blessing exposed human failure. Ham’s dishonor led to a curse on Canaan, and this curse, in Darby’s view, anticipates the later conflict between Israel and the Canaanite nations. Genesis 9 is therefore written to explain why the Canaanites, Israel’s historical enemies, fall under divine judgment, and how the destinies of Noah’s sons shape the later structure of God’s government on earth.

 

The text itself draws attention to Canaan before the curse is even pronounced. “Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan” (Gen. 9:18, NASB1995). This repeated clause functions as a literary signal that Canaan is central to the narrative. Commentators have long noted that the Hebrew wording in verse 24, “his younger son”, can literally mean “his son, the little one.” Dobson explains that this may refer not to Ham but to Canaan: “Literally, the expression for his younger son is his son, the little one and may indeed be a reference not to Ham, but to Canaan himself” (Dobson 35). He then cites Origen, who “mentions a tradition that Canaan was the first one to see his grandfather’s nakedness and informed his father Ham” (Origen 207). Chrysostom likewise “held that Canaan was an accomplice to the drunkenness of Noah” (Chrysostom 38). Dobson concludes, “What role Canaan played is unsure, but the consequences of that role were devastating. Or it may be that Noah saw in him the evil traits that marked his father Ham. The text has prepared us for this by twice pointing out that Ham was the father of Canaan” (Dobson 35).

 

Arnold Fruchtenbaum also addresses this question in his commentary. He notes that although Ham committed the offense, the curse is directed at his fourth son, Canaan. He argues that Ham is still implicated because his name is absent from the blessing section, and Canaan is highlighted as the son who most embodied Ham’s character. Fruchtenbaum gives three reasons why Canaan is cursed and not Ham:

 

1. Inherited consequences: “The sins of fathers affect their children (Exod. 20:5; 34:6–7)”

 

2. Sowing and reaping: Ham sinned as a son, so the punishment falls on his son.

 

3. Limited judgment: only one son is affected, which Fruchtenbaum describes as divine mercy.

 

He also cites rabbinic traditions that attempt to explain the logic of the curse: one tradition claims that Canaan saw Noah first and told Ham, making him complicit; another claims that Ham castrated Noah to prevent a fourth son, so Noah curses Ham’s own fourth son in response. Fruchtenbaum treats these traditions as explanatory rather than authoritative, but they show how ancient interpreters wrestled with the textual details. He then connects the curse to later history: 

 

1. Canaanites became subject to Israel (descendants of Shem). 

 

2. Phoenicians and related groups eventually fell under Persians, Greeks, and Romans (descendants of Japheth). 

 

3. The destruction of Carthage in 146 B.C. is presented as the final end of Canaanite power.

 

At this point it is important to clarify what the curse does not mean. The curse is not directed at all of Ham’s descendants, nor does the text ever associate the curse with Africans or darker‑skinned peoples. The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 makes this explicit: “Cush = Nubia/Ethiopia (Black Africans); Mizraim = Egypt; Put = Libya; Canaan = Levant (modern Israel, Lebanon, Syria).” The biblical text places these groups in distinct geographic and genealogical categories. Nothing in Genesis 9 or 10 associates Cush, Egypt, or Libya with the curse on Canaan.

 

Ancient visual evidence reinforces this point. Ethiopians, more accurately called Kushites or Nubians in antiquity, were consistently depicted as dark‑skinned Africans in Egyptian, Greek, and Roman art. Egyptian tomb art from the period associated with Moses portrays Nubians with dark brown or black skin, distinct clothing, and recognizable features. The Penn Museum notes that their physical features were “faithfully depicted” in ancient art (“Images and Attitudes”). A well‑known example is the “Four Races of Mankind” from the tomb of Seti I, where “The Nubians are shown as dark‑skinned, wearing white garments with red sashes,” and are explicitly labeled nḥsj (“Nubian”) (“Four Races of Mankind”). This is one of the most stable ethnic iconographies in the ancient Mediterranean world. These depictions confirm that the peoples descended from Cush were understood as Black Africans, and yet Scripture never connects them to the curse on Canaan.

 

When Genesis 9 is read in its own context, the meaning becomes clear. The curse is a prophetic declaration concerning the future of the Canaanite peoples, who would later oppose Israel and fall under divine judgment. It is not a blanket curse on Ham, nor on all of Ham’s descendants, nor on Africans, nor on darker‑skinned peoples.

 

Works Cited (MLA 9th Edition)

 

Chrysostom, John. Homilies on Genesis 18–45. Translated by Robert C. Hill, Catholic University of America Press, 1990.

 

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. Vol. 1, Bible Truth Publishers, 1979, pp. 23–24.

 

Dobson, Edward G., et al. King James Version Bible Commentary. Thomas Nelson, 2000, p. 35.

 

“Four Races of Mankind.” Egypt Museum, www.egypt-museum.com.

 

Origen. Homilies on Genesis and Exodus. Translated by Ronald E. Heine, Catholic University of America Press, 1982, p. 207.

 

“Images and Attitudes.” Penn Museum, https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/images-and-attitudes/.

 

Slavery in the New Testament

 

The objection to this section is identical to the objection of the last section. Unlike the analysis of slavery in the Old Testament, the analysis of slavery in the New Testament may compare better to the ACSE. It may not show the exact characteristics and functions of slavery like that of the Old Testament, but it does provide specific commands for both slave masters and slaves themselves.

 

Within the gospels, there is not much concerning slavery especially concerning commands and law. Much of the discussion in this section comes from the writings of the Apostles. 

 

Ephesians 6:5-8:

 

“Slaves, be obedient to those who are your human masters, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eye‑service, as people‑pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With goodwill render service, as to the Lord, and not to people, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, he will receive this back from the Lord, whether slave or free.” (Ephesians 6:5–8 NASB)

 

In Ephesians 4-6 the writer, Apostle Paul, addresses various kinds of people and how they should walk spiritually. In verse 1 he addressed children, and then in verse 4 he addressed fathers. In verses 5-8, Paul turns his focus to slaves and directs them into how to walk a spiritual life. Paul gives seven qualifications for proper obedience:

 

1. Service was to be respectful.
2. It was to be done with care, by fear and trembling.
3. It was to be sincere.
4. Service should be done as to the the Lord.
5. Service was to be consistent.
6. It needed to come from proper motives.
7. The slave should have an attitude of goodwill toward his or her master.

 

Paul then reminded faithful slaves that they would receive a reward from Jesus Christ in the future, even if their masters on earth did not acknowledge their good service. Paul is trying to give hope to slaves and servants, that their work isn’t for nought but will be rewarded in heaven.

 

Ephesians 6:9:

 

“And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.”

(‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭6‬:‭9‬ ‭NASB)

 

Paul turns from the slaves to the masters themselves. This verse will be one of the most comparable when we discuss the ACSE. This is because it provides a commandment for masters not only for ethnic Israelites, but the entire world. Paul writes to the masters to do “the same things to them” which refers to his writings to the slaves in the previous verses. Masters should seek to please the Lord in their dealings with their slaves and servants just as the slaves try to please Christ as they serve their masters. 

 

They are instructed not to threaten as our heavenly Master doesn’t threaten us. Threatening is a warning that punishment will come immediately (Acts 4:17; 4:29). Threatening goes beyond a warning, and the opposite of threatening is fair treatment with grace. This part of the verse warns the masters that they are to deal graciously with their slaves, and that they are not to have a temper and exercise authority angrily. Paul furthermore tells the masters that there is no partiality in God. Their economic status and position does not matter to God, and they will be held to the same standard as everyone else.

 

Colossians 3:22-24;

 

“Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve.”

(‭‭Colossians‬ ‭3‬:‭22‬-‭24‬ ‭NASB)

 

Paul instructed slaves to obey their masters on earth, not just with external service but also with the sincerity of their heart. They were to do their work for the Lord, rather than for men. Similar to Ephesians 6:5-8, Paul tells them they will be rewarded for their service with an inheritance (1 Corinthians 4:5; Revelation 22:12). It should be noted, a slave receiving an inheritance is unheard of. The title "Lord Christ" occurs only here in the New Testament likely because Paul wanted to emphasize Jesus’ lordship. Jesus will reward the faithful in the future.

 

Colossians 4:1:

 

“Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.”

(‭‭Colossians‬ ‭4‬:‭1‬ ‭NASB)

 

Colossians 4:1 also mirrors Ephesians 6:9, just like Colossians 3:22-24 mirrors Ephesians 5-8. Masters should remember to be fair and just to their slaves, as they have a Master in heaven that is fair and just with them. 

 

1 Timothy 6:1-2:

 

“All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.” (‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭6‬:‭1‬-‭2‬ ‭NASB)

 

Slaves were to regard their masters as worthy of all honor and respect them. This may seem odd but Paul’s reasoning is sound. Paul states that they are to respect their masters so that the name of God and the gospel are not spoken against. Paul didn’t want slaves to be disrespectful or lazy as if they were those things then their master would have a negative attitude to Jesus Christ and the gospel. Furthermore, Paul states if their masters are believers, then they should give even greater consideration because their masters are their brethren.

 

Titus 2:9-10:

 

“Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect.” (‭‭Titus‬ ‭2‬:‭9‬-‭10‬ ‭NASB)

 

Slaves that are believers should be submissive to their masters and try to please them. They should refrain from talking back and being argumentative as well as not steal from them. This was because such behavior is in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ, and as promised in other verses, believers following these instructions would receive a reward from Jesus Christ.

 

1 Peter 2:18-20:

 

“Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.” ‭‭(1 Peter‬ ‭2‬:‭18‬-‭20‬ ‭NASB)

 

Servants and slaves were to be submissive of their masters with respect. Not only masters who were gentle and good, but those who are “unreasonable.” The Greek word used for unreasonable is skolios and it means crooked or unfair. They were to have endurance in this circumstance because the endurance and behavior is God’s will. If God wants slaves to behave and endure for that is sufficient evidence for compliance. Those who do this find favor with God and will no doubt receive reward as other New Testament passages state.

 

1 Corinthians 7:21-24:

 

“Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.” (‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭7‬:‭21‬-‭24‬ ‭NASB)

 

1 Corinthians 7:21-24 shows that while God did not outright abolish slavery in the scriptures, He did find slavery as part of a broken world, not as an ideal or lasting order. Slavery is treated as an imperfect reality of the fallen world, never as God’s ultimate design. This is shown by God stating that if a slave or servant is able to become free, he should do that, as that is more ideal. Furthermore, Paul emphasizes that whether one is a slave or free, in Christ they are truly liberated. A person who is a slave becomes the Lord’s “freedman,” and a free person becomes Christ’s “slave.” This reverses worldly categories. Paul states believers were “bought with a price,” which refers to Christ’s sacrifice. This highlights that no human master has ultimate ownership and furthermore undermines the absolute authority of slavery. Paul cautions against submitting one’s identity, conscience, or freedom to human systems or masters in a way that undermines belonging to Christ. 

 

The Book of Philemon

 

While a commentary on the entire book of Philemon is insightful, it wouldn’t provide enough information on the subject to necessitate a full commentary. Instead a brief overview of the book will be given and then a commentary on a few verses that are extremely beneficial for information on this subject.

 

Authorship: Verse 1 of Philemon identifies the writer of the letter as Paul the Apostle. The writer of the letter also identifies himself as Paul in verses 9 and 19. Furthermore, Paul commonly used the terms “love” and “faith” in this introduction of his epistles and he does so in Philemon 5.

 

Date: According to this letter, Paul was a prisoner and therefore this epistle is included in the “prison epistles” as many call them. This means that this was likely written during this first Roman imprisonment between 61-63 A.D.

 

Purpose: From the passage it can be deduced that the letter is a personal appeal from Paul to Philemon regarding Onesimus, a runaway slave who had become a Christian under Paul’s ministry. Paul did not command Philemon, though as an apostle he could have (Philemon 8), but instead appeals on the basis of love (Philemon 9).  The central theological point comes in Philemon 16: “no longer as a slave, but more than a slave—a beloved brother.” This verse elevates Onesimus’s identity beyond social status, affirming that in Christ, believers are united as family. It reflects the broader Pauline teaching found in Galatians 3:28, where distinctions of slave and free are transcended in the unity of the body of Christ.

 

Philemon 10-20

 

“I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I fathered in my imprisonment, who previously was useless to you, but now is useful both to you and to me. I have sent him back to you in person, that is, sending my very heart, whom I wanted to keep with me, so that in your behalf he might be at my service in my imprisonment for the gospel; but I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion, but of your own free will. For perhaps it was for this reason that he was separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. If then you regard me as a partner, accept him as you would me. But if he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything, charge that to my account; I, Paul, have written this with my own hand, I will repay it (not to mention to you that you owe to me even your own self as well). Yes, brother, let me benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ.” (Philemon 10-20 NASB)

 

The very name Onesimus could not have been pleasant in the ears of Philemon, as it carried memories of desertion and loss. Paul, being fully aware of this, introduces Onesimus with great care and almost timidity, as though he is treading on sensitive ground. He does not interpose for the runaway with the stern weight of apostolic authority, but instead pleads for him with tender, fatherly love.

 

Paul places himself side by side with Onesimus, refusing to let him stand alone in shame. He calls him “my child, whom I fathered in my imprisonment” (Philemon 10), a phrase that communicates both intimacy and spiritual rebirth. Onesimus is not merely a servant who failed his master; he is Paul’s spiritual son, born again through the gospel while Paul himself was bound in chains. The figurative parent-child relationship was common in Judaism as well as pagan mystery religions as an illustration of the teacher-pupil relationship or the leader-convert relationship. [Note: Eduard Lohse, "Colossians and Philemon," in Hermeneia, p. 200.]

 

Paul then describes Onesimus as so dear to him that sending him back feels like sending away part of himself. This emphasizes the deep spiritual bond between Paul and Onesimus, showing that Christian fellowship transcends social status. Paul wanted to keep Onesimus with him, since Onesimus was helping him during his imprisonment. However, Paul respects Philemon’s authority and Paul therefore refused to act unilaterally, even though he is an apostle, because he values voluntary goodwill over forced obligation. True Christian virtue, Paul insists, must come from freedom and love, not pressure or command.

 

Paul then provides a perspective that would differ from the cultural norm even in today’s society. Paul interprets Onesimus’s absence (his running away) in light of divine providence. What looked like a failure or wrongdoing may have been used by God to bring about a greater good: Onesimus’s conversion and eternal fellowship. The word “Forever” here points to eternal brotherhood in Christ, not just temporary reconciliation. The phrase in the passage, “No longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother” shows a radical redefinition as Onesimus’s identity is transformed. He is not merely returning as property but as family in Christ. Paul emphasizes that Christian relationships transcend social categories like slave/master. Paul acknowledges his own deep affection for Onesimus. Yet he insists that Philemon’s bond is even greater: Onesimus is both his servant “in the flesh” and his brother “in the Lord.”

 

Continuing his appeal, Paul appeals to their partnership in the gospel. He asks Philemon to treat Onesimus with the same respect and love he would show Paul himself. This is a powerful rhetorical move as Paul equates Onesimus’s worth with his own. Paul acknowledges possible material or relational debts. Some interpret it as Onesimus may have stolen from Philemon when he ran away. He offers to personally repay them, removing any obstacle to reconciliation.

 

“(Not to mention to you that you owe to me even your own self as well)” Paul reminds Philemon of his spiritual debt—likely that Paul led him to Christ. This is a gentle but strategic reminder, Philemon himself has received grace, so he should extend it. Paul closes with a heartfelt plea. He asks Philemon to grant him joy and encouragement by receiving Onesimus lovingly. The phrase, “Refresh my heart” echoes the earlier theme of mutual encouragement in Christ.

 

Overall, in Philemon Paul gives some key insights into slavery. Paul does not directly call for abolition of slavery in this letter, but he redefines the relationship between master and slave in Christ. This language Paul used to describe Onesimus elevates Onesimus from property to personhood, with dignity and spiritual worth. Paul believed masters should act voluntarily and with grace, motivated by love, not coercion. Slavery and its disruptions are reframed as opportunities for God’s transforming work. Paul acknowledges possible wrongs or debts (v.18) but offers to pay them himself. This models how masters should treat slaves: not with vengeance or punishment, but with forgiveness and reconciliation.

 

The Characteristics of the American Chattel Slavery Era Compared to Scripture

 

When beginning this research study, it was difficult to find a term for what I wanted to cover when it came to the characteristics of slavery in America. Antebellum Slavery did not encompass enough of how slaves arrived in the United States and the slave trade. The Transatlantic Slave Trade did not provide enough information on slaves once they were in the Americas. Therefore, I created and will use the term American Chattel Slavery Era to encompass a broader view of the characteristics of American slavery and the circumstances of its origin, development, and immediate effects. The newly defined term describes slavery in North America from the early 1600s until its abolition in 1865. It excludes Native American slavery before European colonization and illegal slavery after 1865. The focus is on the British colonies and later the United States, while also including the origins and transportation of enslaved people. 

 

This section required a lot of research and readings into the eyewitnesses of slavery. Ultimately, three main groups' writings were chosen to determine the characteristics of slavery in the ACSE. Those three groups being the slaves, slave owners, and abolitionists. It should be noted that in doing this research I was less concerned about their views and more concerned about what they saw or did. Furthermore, I wish not to argue about whether the abolitionist movement and end of slavery in America was justified. I would like to write about that more in the future but for the simplicity of this study I will simply be analyzing quotes from this period of time and holding it to the standard the Bible set before. Before I continue, I want to ensure that this document is not to make all white people seem racist or immoral. No, slavery existed long before the ACSE and slaves have been kept by likely every race that has walked this earth.

 

The American Chattel Slavery Era (ACSE) was marked first by a systematic denial of identity, personhood, and autonomy. Frederick Douglass describes how enslavers erased even the most basic markers of humanity, recalling, “I could not tell why I ought to be deprived of the same privilege (of knowing age). I was not allowed to make any inquiries of my master concerning it.” (Douglass, ch. 1). Olaudah Equiano likewise recounts being kidnapped as a child and thrust into the Atlantic slave trade, losing all control over his life and identity (Equiano 212). These testimonies reveal a system built on the intentional stripping of individuality. This stands in sharp contrast to the New Testament, where slaves are addressed as full moral agents capable of sincerity, goodwill, and obedience “from the heart” (Ephesians 6:5–8), and where their identity in Christ is affirmed rather than erased.

 

Violence and coercion formed the backbone of the ACSE. Douglass writes plainly, “Master, however, was not a humane slaveholder… He would at times seem to take great pleasure in whipping a slave.” (ch. 1). William W. Brown describes the brutality of Major Freeland’s household: “Cut and slash—knock down and drag out… he would take up a chair, and throw it at a servant.” (Brown 17). Brown also recounts the torture of a man named Aaron: “Mr. Colburn… tied Aaron up in the wood-house, and gave him over fifty lashes on the bare back with a cowhide… The poor fellow’s back was literally cut to pieces.” (Brown 17–18). Equiano’s Middle Passage testimony adds another layer of horror: “I was soon put down under the decks… with the loathsomeness of the stench… one of them held me fast by the hands… while the other flogged me severely.” (Equiano 212). He also witnessed a white sailor beaten to death: “Flogged so unmercifully… that he died… and they tossed him over the side as they would have done a brute.” (212). Abolitionist compilations confirm this pattern: “The ordinary mode of punishing slaves is both cruel and barbarous… whipping, kicking, beating, starving, branding, cat-hauling, loading with irons…” (Moulton 24). Poe recounts the murder of a fifteen-year-old girl: “Whipped… to death… burned her severely… He was tried… and acquitted.” (Poe 40). Thomas Thistlewood’s diary records punishments so degrading they defy comprehension: “Pickled him well… made Hector shit in his mouth… made him wear it 4 or 5 hours.” (Thistlewood, 23 July 1756). Even prominent Americans participated in such cruelty; Wesley Norris testified that Robert E. Lee ordered “twenty to thirty lashes each… [and] our backs washed with brine.” (Norris, 1866). This pervasive violence is irreconcilable with Paul’s command that masters must “give up threatening” and treat slaves with justice and fairness, knowing they share the same Master in heaven (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1). The ACSE did not merely fail to meet the biblical standard for slave owners, it inverted it.

 

Sexual exploitation was another defining feature of the ACSE. Equiano testifies that it was “almost a constant practice… to commit violent depredations on the chastity of the female slaves… even… females not ten years old… these abominations some of them practised to such a scandalous excess…” (Equiano 216). He also exposes the hypocrisy of the system: “As if it were no crime in the whites to rob an innocent African girl of her virtue; but most heinous in a black man only to gratify a passion of nature…” (216). Sexual violence was not incidental, it was structurally protected. This stands in direct opposition to the New Testament’s framing of believers as brothers and sisters in Christ (Philemon 16; 1 Timothy 6:2), where masters are commanded to act with goodwill, sincerity, and fairness.

 

Control through literacy restrictions further reveals the oppressive nature of the ACSE. Douglass recounts how Mr. Auld forbade his wife from teaching him to read, declaring, “It was unlawful, as well as unsafe, to teach a slave to read.” (ch. 6). Literacy was seen as a threat because it empowered enslaved people to think, resist, and hope. Equiano’s contrasting experience with Daniel Queen, “He taught me… to read in the Bible… In short, he was like a father to me… my heart burned within me, while I thought the time long till I obtained my freedom.” (Equiano 214), shows how literacy awakened spiritual and personal agency. It cannot possibly be moral for a person to withhold another person's right to literacy. How can a person understand and read the scriptures without proper teaching? Are we to believe God sent His word down in writings just for people to withhold it from others?

 

Family separation was another central cruelty. Harriet Jacobs describes how her grandmother’s family was torn apart: “Her children were divided among her master’s children… Benjamin… was sold… seven hundred and twenty dollars were paid for him.” (Jacobs 1). Even free Black families were vulnerable: “They were captured… carried back, and sold to different purchasers.” (1). Grimké recounts a man punished for attempting to reunite with his wife: “Confined in the stocks six weeks… received fifty lashes weekly… was not permitted to return to his wife.” (Grimké 33). The ACSE treated family bonds as disposable economic units.

 

Arbitrary power and legal vulnerability defined the daily reality of enslaved people. In American Slavery As It Is, one account describes an overseer told to “take his hammer and knock out the tooth.” (Caulkins 9). Another describes enslaved people “driven into a ditch… stand in the water among the ice… from twenty-four to thirty hours, without anything to eat.” (Caulkins 11). Equiano notes that even free Black people lived in constant danger: “Free men… trepanned and kept in bondage… their liberty… is but nominal… no free negro’s evidence will be admitted in their courts of justice.” (Equiano 216–217). This absolute, unaccountable power is the opposite of Paul’s insistence that masters and slaves share the same divine Master who judges impartially (Ephesians 6:9).

 

Conditions varied, but the system remained dehumanizing. Douglass observes, “A city slave is almost a freeman, compared with a slave on the plantation.” (ch. 6). Equiano notes similarities between African customs and those he encountered in the Americas, which only heightened the shock of Atlantic slavery: “I was wonderfully surprised to see the laws and rules of my own country written almost exactly here…” (Equiano 214). Even in the “best” circumstances, enslaved people remained property.

 

Finally, the ACSE was driven by economic logic that commodified human beings. Equiano writes, “Slaves are sometimes… reduced so low, that they are turned out as unfit for service, and left to perish in the woods, or to expire on a dunghill.” (216). He also notes that enslavers criticized his master for feeding enslaved people too well: “Many of them used to find fault with my master for feeding his slaves so well… he always would do it, because the slaves thereby looked better and did more work.” (216). Human value was measured solely by productivity. This stands in direct opposition to Paul’s teaching that slaves and masters alike belong to Christ, who shows no partiality (Colossians 3:24–25; Ephesians 6:9).

 

My article written here is loaded with quotations for a purpose. I did not want to use vague statements that some use or make large assumptions about every slave owner and plantation. Instead, I wanted to just use the words of the people living at the time. The American Chattel Slavery Era was filled with cruel and often barbaric treatment of slaves. As stated, some conditions varied, and I would not recommend making the assumption that every slave owner was inherently immoral in his actions. However, from the variety of testimony above, I would say that the majority of them were immoral. The actions shown in quotations above both by slaves and slave owners do not fit with the biblical guidelines of slavery. 

 

Sources:

 

Brown, William Wells. Narrative of William W. Brown, an American Slave.

Caulkins, Mr. American Slavery As It Is.

Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. Edited by David W. Blight.

Equiano, Olaudah. The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano. The Longman Anthology of British Literature, Volume 2A, 3rd ed.

Grimké, Angelina. American Slavery As It Is.

Jacobs, Harriet. Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl.

Moulton, Mr. American Slavery As It Is.

Poe, —. American Slavery As It Is.

The Longman Anthology of British Literature, Volume 2A: The Romantics and Their Contemporaries, 3rd ed.