So…Christianity Is Guilty by Association?

Hello and welcome back!

Now, I could ease into today's topic, but we're all adults here, right? So let's just rip the Band-Aid off. One of the most common reasons I hear for rejecting Christianity is because of its association with slavery. Every time I hear that, I find myself asking the same question: Is Christianity really guilty, or are the people who twisted and misused it guilty? Because those are two very different conversations. So, let's talk about the part that somehow never seems to make it into the discussion.

The Fine Print Nobody Talks About

The Part Where Race Enters the Chat

American chattel slavery was race-based. If you were Black, you were considered property. That wasn't the case under the Mosaic Law. Israelites could become servants because of debt or poverty, and foreigners could also become servants. Did you notice that it was possible to choose to become a servant? No kidnapping involved. In fact, kidnapping another person was punishable by death (Exodus 21:16). Servants even had the option to remain with their master if they wanted to (Exodus 21:5-6). American slavery didn't exactly come with a "Would you like to stay?" option. And let's be honest, the wounds left by American slavery are still with us today because they never had the chance to properly heal.

The Freedom Clause…Oh Wait

Here's another detail that rarely gets mentioned. Hebrew servants were to be released in the seventh year (Deuteronomy 15:12-15). Not only were they to be set free, but they weren't supposed to leave empty-handed. Their former master was commanded to provide for them. Then there was the Year of Jubilee, when servants were released regardless of how much time remained and allowed to return to their families (Leviticus 25:40-41). Funny how those passages rarely seem to make the highlight reel. Instead of taking my word for it, I encourage you to read the surrounding chapters for yourself. Don't just read the verses people post online. Read the context. Compare Scripture with Scripture. You might be surprised by what you've never been told.

Return to Owner? Not So Fast

One of the biggest differences between biblical servitude and American chattel slavery is found in Deuteronomy 23:15-16. If a servant escaped from a harsh master, Israel was commanded not to return that servant. Instead, the servant was allowed to live wherever they chose. Compare that with the Fugitive Slave Acts in American history, where escaped slaves were legally hunted down and returned to their enslavers. Those are two very different systems.

Turns Out There Were Boundaries

Here's another passage that often gets overlooked. If a master permanently injured a servant—even something as severe as knocking out an eye or a tooth—that servant was to be set free (Exodus 21:26-27). Now compare that with American chattel slavery. People were whipped, branded, families were torn apart, women were sexually assaulted, and countless people were tortured or killed. Most of the time, the enslaver faced no legal consequences because enslaved people were viewed as property. Those two systems simply are not the same.

Everybody’s Favorite Verse

It seems everyone's favorite passage to quote is Exodus 21:20-21. I've seen it used countless times as proof that God approved of beating servants. But is that really what the passage is saying? The law isn't giving permission to abuse servants; it's addressing whether a servant's death was intentional. Under God's law, intentional murder carried the death penalty—even when the victim was a servant (Leviticus 24:17). The passage distinguishes between deliberate murder and an injury that did not immediately result in death. That is a very different discussion from claiming God approved of abuse. Especially when, just a few verses later, the law required a servant's freedom if they suffered permanent injury (Exodus 21:26-27). It's amazing what happens when we keep reading instead of stopping at the one verse that seems to support our argument.

So...Here’s My Thing

There is something known as the Slave Bible. Its official title was Select Parts of the Holy Bible for the Use of the Negro Slaves in the British West-India Islands. While it wasn't the standard Bible used in the United States, it tells us something incredibly important. Entire sections of Scripture were intentionally removed. The story of Moses leading Israel out of Egypt was omitted. Numerous passages about freedom were left out. Hope was edited away. In the United States, many enslaved people were simply forbidden from learning to read. That way, enslavers only had to read the passages they wanted them to hear.

Here's the question I can't seem to get past. If the Bible truly supported American chattel slavery, why remove parts of it? Why edit it? Why make reading illegal? Why create an entirely different Bible containing only 232 of the 1,189 chapters found in the King James Bible? Why leave out the passages about freedom, Jubilee, and God's deliverance of Israel from Egypt? Those aren't the actions of people whose position is supported by the text. They're the actions of people trying to control what others know about the text.

So no, I can't honestly say the Bible supported American chattel slavery. I can say that people twisted it. They cherry-picked it. They edited it. They weaponized it. But blaming Christianity for what people deliberately distorted doesn't make sense to me. If someone has to hide the evidence, maybe the evidence wasn't actually on their side.

So...that's my thing.

Until next time.

~Lady J