One of the claims made against the Bible is that it supports slavery. One of the ironies is the fact that the Bible was actually used to argue against slavery. The critics will claim it was also used to support slavery; however, this is more a case of those who supported slavery twisting the Bible to justify themselves.
The Basis of the Claim
The real question is: Does the Bible actually support slavery? Answering this question requires looking at what the Bible actually says. Unlike most claims against the Bible, this one is not totally without merit. The problem is that most modern translations do indeed appear to back up slavery.
This is because they use the word slave in several verses where older translations, such as the King James Bible, use the word servant. Consider Exodus 21:20–21 in the NIV:
20 - Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result.
21 - But they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
There is no doubt that translations such as the NIV appear to endorse slavery. Those who use this approach to attack the Bible rely on such translations under the presupposition that they accurately represent the original text.
Modern vs. Older Translations
Notably, all older English translations, such as the King James Bible, the Geneva Bible, and even Webster’s translation, use the word servant. This is the case even though these translations were made at a time when slavery was generally accepted. Meanwhile, most English translations made after the abolition of slavery use the word slave.
The Pattern in Servant vs. Slave
The pattern is striking: English translations made when slavery was acceptable use the more generic term servant, while most translations made after slavery was abolished use the specific term slave. This raises the question of whether some modern translations are actively seeking to make the Bible look bad.
The KJV as the Gold Standard
To properly answer this question, this analysis sticks with one translation: the King James Bible. It is the one translation that has endured the test of time and is widely regarded as the gold standard of English Bible translations. It is the most reliable source for determining what the Bible actually says on a topic.
Exodus 21:20–21 — A Verse-by-Verse Comparison
KJV:
20 - And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished.
21 - Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.
Three keyword differences reveal how much the translation choice shapes interpretation:
Smite (KJV) vs. Beats (NIV)
Smite is a general term for striking someone—it can include both deliberate and accidental actions. Beats directly refers to a deliberate act of violent harm. The KJV’s more neutral term leaves open more interpretive possibilities.
Servant (KJV) vs. Slave (NIV)
Servant is a broader, more general term. While it can include slaves, it also encompasses indentured servants and paid employees. Slave is highly specific and the more grievous of the two and a term that definitively implies ownership and makes the Bible appear to endorse chattel slavery.
Money (KJV) vs. Property (NIV)
Money is the more general term and can refer to wages paid in hiring an indentured or hired servant—it does not imply actual ownership of a person. Property is very specific and grievously indicates actual ownership of another human being.
Three Types of Biblical Servants
The Bible recognizes three distinct categories of servants:
1. Hired Servants
These are simply employees, ranging from day laborers to household staff. According to the KJV, these employees fall under the protections of Exodus 21:20–21. The NIV’s use of “slave” would exclude them, which is an interpretive narrowing not supported by the original text.
2. Indentured Servants
These were people who had accumulated debt and sold themselves into servitude—typically for seven years to repay it. Like hired servants, the KJV includes them under the protections of Exodus 21:20–21, while the NIV’s translation would exclude them.
3. Bondservants
These were people bound to the service of another for life. They were usually prisoners of war and could be purchased from other nations. Both the KJV and NIV agree that bondservants fall under Exodus 21:20–21. While bondservants could be bought and sold, this arrangement is better understood as the transfer of a contract or obligation rather than the outright ownership of a person.
Are Servants Property?
The ultimate question is whether biblical servants were truly slaves—i.e., the legal property of their masters. Three key passages demonstrate they were not.
Punishment for Harm — Exodus 21:20–21
According to Exodus 21:20–21, a master would be punished for killing any servant, including bondservants. If servants were truly property, why would a master face punishment for destroying what legally belonged to him? This provision alone suggests that servants possessed a legal standing well beyond that of property.
Compensation for Harm — Exodus 21:26–27
26 - And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish, he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake.
27 - And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.
Any indentured servant or bondservant who suffered permanent bodily injury at the hands of a master was to be immediately set free. If servants were truly property, why would they receive compensation, in the form of freedom, for the loss of a body part that technically belonged to their master? This is not the logic of property law; it is the logic of human rights.
The Freedom to Flee — Deuteronomy 23:15–16
15 - Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee.
16 - He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liked him best; thou shalt not oppress him.
This passage makes it unambiguous: any servant, including bondservants. who fled their master were not to be returned. They had the legal freedom to escape without fear of being forcibly repatriated. By contrast, runaway animals and other forms of property were required to be returned to their owners. The different standards applied to servants signal their fundamentally different legal status.
Conclusion
It is clear that the Bible does not teach or endorse slavery. While some modern translations do appear to support it, that reflects translation choices rather than what the original text teaches. The servants described in the Old Testament were not slaves, because they were not property. This is demonstrated through three lines of evidence:
- Masters could be punished for killing their servants (Exodus 21:20–21).
- Servants received freedom as compensation for bodily harm (Exodus 21:26–27).
- Servants could flee their masters without being legally returned (Deuteronomy 23:15–16).
The claim that the Bible teaches and endorses slavery is, ultimately, based on corrupted or misleading modern translations, not on what the Bible actually says. It stands as a reminder of the importance of using a reliable and historically tested translation, such as the King James Bible.
