Did Abel Eat the Meat of the Sacrifice? (Expanded)

 Did Abel Eat the Meat of the Sacrifice? (Expanded)

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, April 25, 2025 (Donate)

Was Abel eating meat soon after the curse when he wasn’t supposed to be (Genesis 1:29) since he kept the flocks and sacrificed an animal in Genesis 4:2-4? This is a popular question by those attacking the biblical account trying to assert contradictions in the places like Genesis. Let’s take a closer look at the account:

Then she [Eve] bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering. (Genesis 4:2-4, NKJV)

A Lamb; Picture by Bodie Hodge

Because Abel mimicked what God did in Genesis 3:21 by sacrificing animals to cover sin, his sacrifice was acceptable. Cain’s offering wasn’t the proper sacrifice—he needed a blood sacrifice. Of course, Cain then kills Abel but his blood wasn’t the proper sacrifice either—that was murder.  

Nevertheless, Abel sacrificed of flocks—an animal—some think he was eating of the sacrifice. But was he?  The scriptural text doesn’t say that he ate! That would be an unrighteous thing for Abel to do in light of God’s command to be vegetation initially. We read in Matthew:

"that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar." (Matthew 23:35, NKJV)

Matthew indicates that Abel was righteous and therefore was not being disobedient to God’s command in Genesis 1:29 to be vegetarian[1].  Therefore, to answer “why was Abel tending the flocks?” then we need to consider that flocks can yield many other useful things such as wool, milk, leather, keeping the grass cut back, etc. 

A fattened lamb, for example, would likely be the one that would be producing the most wool, had the most life ahead of it and so on; hence the most valuable.  So, when Abel sacrificed the fattened ones, he was offering his best and it was a blood sacrifice. This sacrifice, was acceptable to the Lord as it followed what God did with Adam and Eve as a blood sacrifice to cover their sins (recall Hebrews 9:22 and Genesis 3:21). 

The passage doesn't indicate that Abel ate of the sacrifice so there is no reason to assume he did—and that reveals the strawman fallacy in the logic against those attacking the Bible’s truth. When God sacrificed animals to cover Adam and Eve's sin, there is no indication that they ate either, and since Abel mimicked what God did, then there is no reason to believe that he would have eaten from the sacrifice.

The first possibility of eating the sacrifice would have been with Noah and his family after the Flood when they sacrificed and God told them they were no longer restricted to vegetarian meals (Genesis 8:20-9:3). So there is no contradiction when we take a closer look at this allegation.  

This article is an expanded version that was originally here: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/did-abel-eat-the-meat-of-the-sacrifice/; Republished by permission.

 

---

[1] It wasn’t until Genesis 9:3 that mankind was permitted to eat meat. 

Was There An Ice Age That Followed The Flood?

 

Was There An Ice Age That Followed The Flood?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

 Biblical Authority Ministries, April 24, 2025 (Donate)

Introduction

Creationists and evolution essentially agree there was an ice age. Creationists argue there was one major Ice Age that followed the Flood of Noah. In the secular world, they believe in a multitude of ice ages going back for what seems like an eternity. As a point of clarification, when creationists typically discuss the post-Flood Ice Age, it is denoted in caps, whereas the supposed secular ice ages are not capped to distinguish which is being discussed.

Creationists hold to an Ice Age that was triggered by the Flood. The Flood occurred about 2348 BC, which is about 4,300 years ago.[1] The secularists’ most recent ice age was supposedly about 10,000 years ago (by their dating system).

Kungshamn, Sweden; One can see where Ice Age layers scraped off the landscape; Picture by Bodie Hodge

How Does an Ice Age Occur?

An ice age does not occur by simply making the earth cold. If the earth got cold, you would have a cold earth, not an ice age.

Instead, an ice age occurs when you have warm oceans to get extra evaporation and thus, extra-accumulated snowfall in winter, and cool summers so that the accumulated snow and ice does not get a chance to melt off. Then the following winter, additional accumulation piles on and it builds up into an ice age. Warm oceans and cool summers are the primary reason for an ice age, even though other factors are involved.

How Did the Flood Trigger the Ice Age?

Warm Oceans

The Flood would generate immense amounts of heat as evidenced from its onset with the springs of the great deep bursting forth. Continental movements would generate heat; volcanic activity occurring while mountain building was occurring generates heat; and so forth.

The point is that it heats the ocean water significantly. Naturally, the ocean would have more evaporation, subsequently causing immense fog, excessive clouds, and storms with more rain, ice, and snowfall than what we get currently.

Cool Summers

What about cooler summers? The Flood explains this as well. But first, a little volcano knowledge is required.

For 200 years, we have known how volcanoes affect our climate. When a volcano erupts, it sends ash particles and dioxides (such as sulfur dioxide) into the atmosphere. If the eruption is powerful enough, it sends these things to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere).

When these sub-microscopic items get to that height it is difficult for them to wash out. It takes a long time. So they linger and cause all sorts of problem for the climate, simply because they reflect sunlight back to space causing the temperature of the globe to cool.

As an example, Mount St. Helens, a relatively small volcano, caused a drop of 0.1 degree in the global temperature.[2] Remember that Mount St. Helens was a small volcano acting alone, so we didn’t expect much of a change; but notice that the global temperature went down for a short time.

Larger volcanoes of the past have had much more damaging effects. Some have dropped the global temperature by 1 degree (e.g., El Chichon), which is quite significant![3] Mt. Tambora blasted in 1815 and caused summer to cease in the Northern Hemisphere in 1816. It is called “the year without a summer,” and it was estimated to drop the global temperature by 3 degrees![4]

As you can see, volcanoes that send particles and dioxides into the upper atmosphere can cause severe weather problems — specifically causing summers to be cooler. Most volcanoes we have in modern times are acting alone.

But consider the mountain-building period of the Flood of Noah’s day (e.g., Genesis 8:4,[5] Psalm 104:8–9,[6] etc.) involving immense volcanic activity acting in conjunction for more than half of the year and surely some volcanic activity that was post-Flood too — which would extend the effects. The point is that immense amounts of fine ash and dioxides were put in the upper atmosphere to linger for hundreds and hundreds of years.

The result was a lot of reflected sunlight and cooler summers back to back for extended amounts of time. Initially, you get accumulation at the poles, and then it extends downward from the North Pole and upward from the South Pole. Then you get more that pile on top of each other and compacts lower layers into ice layers (some layers even combine with each other when the ice gets deep enough and this is called molecular diffusion). Some of these ice layers glaciate. Some glaciers move horizontally or downhill as a result of the weight of the ice above them.

Warm oceans and cool summers are the key to the Ice Age.

When Did the Ice Age Peak and Retreat?

Creationists tend to say the Flood triggered the Ice Age. But that doesn’t mean the Ice Age was in full effect immediately. It took time to accumulate up to a maximum (called maximum glaciation) estimated to reduce the ocean levels by as much as 350 feet. Then, it took time to wane.

Surely, there were some minor fluctuations during the Ice Age where increases and decreases in ice occurred. During the Ice Age, there were times when it retreated even though the general trend was a growing ice extent. Conversely, there were times when ice sheets were growing when the general trend was reducing.

Even in later times, these fluctuations are felt. For example, there is the Little Ice Age where growth of glaciers was occurring in medieval times. This brings us to two important questions: When did the Ice Age peak? And when did it end (finish its retreat)?

Frankly, the Bible doesn’t tell us. Thus, we are presented with various scientific models to try to answer the question. Naturally, not all models agree with each other.

When did the Ice Age end? Some might argue that it never really ended, since we still have glaciers and ice sheets today (even the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are still growing — others are waning!).

This answer doesn’t really help us much, so let’s refine the question. When did the retreat of the Ice Age finally get to a point of approximate equilibrium? In other words, when did the ice and snow melt off to a point that it remains relatively stable (not growing and not reducing much). This depends on the when the peak of the Ice Age was, and so it brings us back to the first question.

Some weather experts (Dr. Jake Hebert,[7] Dr. Larry Vardiman,[8] and retired meteorologist Mike Oard[9]) working with weather data have independently suggested a build up and peak of about 500 years after the Flood, with about 200 or so years for the ice to melt off and retreat to a more stable equilibrium (still having minor ebbs and flows).

A competing model by geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling and writer/editor Mike Matthews, based on radiometric dating, have suggested a peak about 250 years after the Flood and about 100 years after that to equalize.[10] Either way, it is a matter of hundreds of years after the Flood. Keep in mind that models are not absolute and are subject to change.

One thing we would like to see an expert research in more detail is based on observations we see today. Some ice sheets are growing while others are retreating. Is it possible that the ice was growing and retreating in different areas, causing some areas to be affected by the Ice Age at one time and other areas affected by it later? After all, what we see in the rock record is an overall ice extent, but did this peak occur all at once in the past? Perhaps future research would be helpful.

 

---

[1] According to Ussher’s date.

[2] Jack Williams, “The Epic Volcano Eruption That Led to the ‘Year Without a Summer,’ ” The Washington Post, April 24, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/04/24/the-epic-volcano-eruption-that-led-to-the-year-without-a-summer/.

[3] Ibid. Keep in mind that the those arguing for a global warming and climate change see only tenths of a degree change, which is quite common in fluctuations that usually match the suns output — but consider a tenth of degree versus an entire degree with this volcano!

[4] Ibid.

[5] Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat.

[6] The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which You established for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass over, so that they will not return to cover the earth (NASB).

[7] Jake Hebert, “Ice Cores, Seafloor Sediments, and the Age of the Earth,” Part 2, Acts & Facts 43 (7), 2014, http://www.icr.org/article/8181.

[8] See Larry Vardiman, “An Analytical Young-Earth Flow Model of the Ice Sheet Formation During the ‘Ice-Age,’ ” in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Robert Walsh, ed. (Pittsburg, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1994), p. 561–568; Larry Vardiman, “Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth,” Acts & Facts 21 (4), 1992, http://www.icr.org/article/ice-cores-age-earth/.

[9] Mike Oard, An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990), p. 23–38.

[10] Andrew Snelling and Mike Matthews, “When was the Ice Age in Biblical History?” Answers magazine, vol. 8 no. 2, April–June, 2013, p. 46–52.

Why Were Eve’s Eyes Not Opened When She Ate?

 Why Were Eve’s Eyes Not Opened When She Ate?

It was not until Adam ate then their eyes were opened and they felt the need to cover themselves with clothes.

 Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, April 23, 2025  (Donate) 

 Let’s evaluate this question by first going back to the source Scriptures. 

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. (Geneses 3:6-7, NKJV)

Eve eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; Produced by AI, April 23, 2025

The Possibilities 

There are a host of possibilities here. The obvious ones are: 

• When they ate, it was so close to the same time that it was negligible for comment.

• The effects were not immediate, but took a short amount of time (perhaps a matter of second or minutes) for them to realize this new feeling of shame and their eyes opened to their nakedness. 

Other answers have some potential as well. Consider: 

• The original command was given to Adam so there was no bearing on Eve when she ate. In other words, just because she ate, it was meaningless. However, I would lean against this one since Eve pointed out to the serpent in Genesis 3:2 that God’s command encompassed her as well.

• Adam was responsible for his wife. In fact, the woman was created for the man (1 Corinthians 11:9), and so the created order (which Satan through the serpent refused to acknowledge when he approached Eve first) began with Adam. So, Adam would have had to fall for their eyes to be collectively opened. So simply put, Adam was the one responsible, even for his wife’s actions preceded his. This is indeed a possibility. 

• Another intriguing possibility is that both Adam and Eve had dominion, so both Adam and Eve had to fall for the change to occur. This perspective is based on Genesis 1:26-28, where Adam and Eve (that first man and woman) were given dominion together. In other words, for the entire dominion of man to fall, both had to sin. 

Think of it in the converse. Had Adam eaten first would the same thing have happened? In this perspective the answer would be yes (i.e., had Adam ate first nothing would have appeared to happen, but when Eve would have eaten, then both had sinned and the entire dominion would fall.) 

With this view, had Eve eaten and Adam not eaten, then the dominion would not have fallen, but only Eve and only would have been punished and died. It would have only affected her own person, not the entire dominion. Of course, there are really no “what if’s” so I wouldn’t get caught up in too much of this. 

Take note though that the repercussion of Eve’s sin affected her and subsequently all women since then. But notice Adam’s punishment—the ground was cursed (i.e., the whole of the dominion). And Paul reveals the extend of this curse in Romans 8:20-22 as being the whole of creation. Which is why we need a “new heavens and a new earth”. 

In fact, this view could be coupled with the previous view. Both Adam and Eve had dominion; but Adam being the final responsible party. Consider Romans 5:12 with regards to these last two viewpoints: 

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— Romans 5:12, NKJV 

Naturally, these last couple of possibilities may be reading too much into the account, but it is worth considering in light of Scripture—after all, Adam received the blame for sin’s entrance so he was the responsible party. 

But keep in mind their eyes being opened may be as simple as they ate at predominantly the same time and the effect may have a negligible delay in the effect (seconds to minutes). But when looking closely at this passage, one can’t help be discuss what exactly it meant by their eyes being opened. Let’s evaluation that in the next section. 

Why did they feel the need to wear clothes? 

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:25, NKJV) 

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. (Genesis 3:7, NKJV) 

When Adam and Eve sinned, the Bible says their eyes were opened. The very next statement is that they realized that they were naked. And then further, decided to make clothes—out of rough, scratchy fig leaves by the way! Hence, they were in a hurry.   

Image from Presentation Library with a fig leave close up imposed to show roughness

This means that their sin affected the way they perceived things (i.e., their eyes were opened). In fact, the shame they now felt was due to sinful nature in that they no longer perceive things in a perfect fashion. Hence, they viewed that their nakedness should be covered. 

Note that nakedness was not a sin, but a fallen perception of nakedness and the associated shame would be included in the sorrows and mental anguish they now feel. Even today, nakedness is bonded with shame as people the world over wear cloths. In fact, this doctrine of clothing that comes out of a literal rendering of Genesis reveals that cultures and religions from all over the world are betraying their own religions and confirming the Bible’s account is true. 

For example, in an atheistic worldview where people evolved from animals and are animals, why wear clothes? Animals don’t put on clothes. But consider other religions like Hinduism, where nothing is ultimately reality. Why wear clothes? Islam, Mormonism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses openly borrows from the Biblical doctrines. Please do not get me wrong, I am not asking people from these other religions to stop wearing clothes because it is a Christian doctrine, in fact, we appreciate that they adhere to this doctrine. 

What we would ask is that these people who have been taught their respective religions consider the meaning of wearing clothes and how that goes back to our mutual grandparents Adam and Eve and this first sin of man. Such things point toward Christ who conquered sin on our behalf and offers the free gift of salvation to all who believe.  

Originally here: https://answersingenesis.org/adam-and-eve/why-were-eves-eyes-not-opened-until-adam-ate/; Republished by permission.

 

Doesn’t The Bible Support Slavery?

Doesn’t The Bible Support Slavery? 

Paul Taylor and Bodie Hodge 

Biblical Authority Ministries, April 22, 2025  (Donate) 

Introduction 

The issue of slavery usually conjures up thoughts of the harsh “race”-based slavery that was common by Europeans toward those of African descent in the latter few centuries. However, slavery has a much longer history and needs to be addressed biblically[1].    

Some “white”[2] Christians have used the Bible to convince themselves that owning slaves is okay and the slaves should obey their “earthly masters.” Regrettably and shamefully, “white” Christians have frequently taken verses of Scripture out of context to justify the most despicable acts. In some cases, it could be argued that these people were not really Christians; they were not really born again but were adhering to a form of Christianity for traditional or national reasons. Nevertheless, we have to concede that there are genuine “white” Christians who have believed the vilest calumnies about the nature of “black” people and have sought support for their disgraceful views from the pages of the Bible. 

In a broken world, sin abounds and leads to terrible things since Genesis 3. But what does the Bible really teach when it comes to slavery? 

Greek And Hebrew Words For “Slave” 

The Hebrew and Greek words used for “slave” are also the same words used for “servant” and “bondservant,” as shown by the following table. 

	Hebrew, (Old Testament)	Greek, (New Testament)	Meaning
1	ebed		Slave, servant, bondservant
2	abad		Serve, work, labor
3	shiphchah		Maid, maidservant, slave-girl
4	amah		Maid servant, female slave
5		doulos	Servant, slave, bondservant
6		sundoulos	Fellow servant, slave
7		paidiske	Bondwoman, maid, female slave

In essence, there are two kinds of slavery described in the Bible: a servant or bondservant who was paid a wage, and the enslavement of an individual without pay. Which types of “slavery” did the Bible condemn? 

Brief History Of Slavery

It is important to note that neither slavery in New Testament times nor slavery under the Mosaic covenant have anything to do with the sort of slavery where “black” people were bought and sold as property by “white” people in the well-known slave trade of the last few centuries. No “white” Christian should think that they can use any slightly positive comment about slavery in this chapter to justify the historic slave trade, which is still a major stain on the histories of both the U.S. and U.K. 

The U.S. and the U.K. were not the only countries in history to delve into harsh slavery and so be stained. 

1.  The Code of Hammurabi discussed slavery soon after 2242 BC (the date assigned by Archbishop Usser to the Tower of Babel incident) 

2.  Ham’s son Mizraim founded Egypt (still called Mizraim in Hebrew).  Egypt was the first well-documented nation in the Bible to have harsh slavery, which was imposed on Joseph, the son of Israel, in 1728 BC (according to Archbishop Ussher).  Later, the Egyptians were slave masters to the rest of the Israelites, and Moses, by the hand of God, freed them.  

3.  The Israelites were again enslaved by Assyrian and Babylonian captors about 1,000 years later.  

4. “Black” Moors enslaved “whites” during their conquering of Spain and Portugal on the Iberian Peninsula in the 8^th century AD for over 400 years. The Moors even took slaves as far north as Scandinavia.  The Moorish and Middle Eastern slave market was quite extensive.      

5. Norse raiders of Scandinavia enslaved other European peoples and took them back as property beginning in the 8^th century AD. 

6.  Even in modern times, slavery is still alive such as the cases in the Sudan and Darfur.

We find many other examples of harsh slavery from cultures throughout the world. At any rate, these few examples indicate that harsh slavery was/is a reality, and in all cases, is an unacceptable act by biblical standards (as we will see).

The extreme kindness to be shown to slaves/servants commanded in the Bible among the Israelites was often prefaced by a reminder that they too were slaves at the hand of the Egyptians. In other words, they were to treat slaves/servants in a way that they wanted to be treated.

Slavery In The Bible

But was slavery in the Bible the same as harsh slavery? For example, slaves and masters are referred to in Paul’s epistles. In Ephesians 6:5, a better translation is to use the word “bondservant.” The Bible is in no way giving full support the practice of bondservants, who were certainly not being paid the first century equivalent of the minimum wage. Nevertheless, they were being paid something (Colossians 4:1) and were therefore in a state more akin to a lifetime employment contract rather than “racial” slavery. Moreover, Paul gives clear instructions that Christian “masters” are to treat such people with respect and as equals. Their employment position did not affect their standing in the Church.

Other passages in Leviticus show us the importance of treating “aliens” and foreigners well, and how, if they believe, they become part of the people of God (for example, Rahab and Ruth, to name but two). Also, the existence of slavery in Leviticus 25 underlines the importance of redemption, and enables the New Testament writers to point out that we are slaves to sin, but are redeemed by the blood of Jesus. Such slavery is a living allegory, and does not justify the race-based form of slavery practiced from about the 16^th to 19^th centuries.

As we already know, harsh slavery was common in the Middle East as far back as ancient Egypt.  If God had simply ignored it, then there would have been no rules for the treatment of slaves/bondservants, and they could have treated them harshly with no rights.  But the God-given rights and rules for their protection showed that God cared for them as well. 

This is often misconstrued for an endorsement of harsh slavery, which it is not.  God listed slave traders among the worst of sinners in 1 Timothy 1:10 (kidnappers/men stealers/slave traders). This is no new teaching as Moses was not fond of forced slavery either: 

Exodus 21:16 "He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.[3] 

In fact, take note of the punishment of Egypt, when the Lord freed the Israelites (Exodus chapters 3–15).  God predicted this punishment well in advance:

Genesis 15:13–14 Then He said to Abram: "Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. "And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions.

Had God not protected slaves/bondservants by such commands, then many people surrounding them who did have harsh slavery would have loved to move in where there were no governing principles as to the treatment of slaves.  It would have given a “green light” to slave owners from neighboring areas to come and settle there.  But with the rules in place, it discouraged such slavery in their realm. 

In fact, the laws and regulations over slavery are a sure sign that slavery isn’t good in the same way the Law came to expose and limit sin (Romans 5:13). One reverend said it this way: 

In giving laws to regulate slavery, God is not saying it is a good thing.  In fact, by giving laws about it at all, He is plainly stating it is a bad thing. We don't make laws to limit or regulate good things. After all, you won't find laws that tell us it is wrong to be too healthy or that if water is too clean we have to add pollution to it.  Therefore, the fact slavery is included in the regulations of the Old Testament at all assumes that it is a bad thing which needs regulation to prevent the damage from being too great.” [4]   

Does The Bible Support Harsh Slavery? 

There are several passages that are commonly used to suggest that the Bible condones harsh slavery. However, when we read these passages in context, we find that they clearly oppose harsh slavery.  

Exodus 21:2-6 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. "But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the door-post and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

This is the first type of bankruptcy law we’ve encountered. With this, a government doesn’t step in, but a person, who has lost themselves to debt, can sell the only thing they have left: their ability to perform labor. This is a loan. In six years the loan is paid off, and they are set free. Bondservants who did this made a wage, had their debt covered, had a home to stay in, on-the-job training, and did it for only six years. This almost sounds better than college, which doesn't cover debt and you have to pay for it!

This is not a forced agreement either. The bondservants enter into service on their own accord. In the same respect, a foreigner can also sell themselves into servitude. Although the rules are slightly different, it would still be by their own accord in light of Exodus 21:16 above.

Exodus 21:18–21 "If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, "if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed. "And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. "Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

This passage follows closely after Moses' decree against slave traders in Exodus 21:16. We include verses 18 and 19 to show the parallel to servants among the Israelites. The rules still apply for their protection if they already have servants or if someone sells themselves into service. 

Some have also complained that this passage shows that God is sexist in his treatment of servants (though sexism is outside the realm of this chapter, we will still address this claim).  

Exodus 21:7-8 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.

There is a stark delineation between male servants and the female servants in Exodus 21:7. A Hebrew male could sell himself into servitude for his labor (to cover his debts, etc.) and be released after six years. A Hebrew female could be sold into servitude, with permission of her father, not for labor purposes but for marriage.  Verse 8 discusses breaking faith with her, which means that they have entered into a marriage covenant (see Malachi 2:14). If God approved of the female leaving in six years, then marriage is no longer a life-long covenant.  So God is honoring the sanctity of marriage here. 

Imagine what would happen if this rule wasn’t in place.  It would mean that men would have the free reign to marry a woman for six years and then “trade” her in for another woman.  This is not approved of in the Bible.  Of course, when a man buys a male servant, they are not married and so the male servants were to be set free.

Leviticus 25:38–46 ‘I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God. ‘And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. ‘As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. ‘And then he shall depart from you––he and his children with him––and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers. ‘For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. ‘You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God. ‘And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have––from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. ‘Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. ‘And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.

God prefaces this passage specifically with a reminder that the Lord saved them from their bondage of slavery in Egypt. Again, if one becomes poor, they can sell themselves into slavery/servitude and be released as was already discussed.

 

Verse 44 discusses slaves that they may already have from nations around them. They can be bought and sold. It doesn’t say to seek them out or have forced slavery. Hence it is not giving an endorsement of seeking new slaves or encouraging the slave trade. At this point, the Israelites had just come out of slavery and were about to enter the Holy Land. They shouldn’t have had many servants. Also, this doesn’t restrict other people in cultures around them from selling themselves as bondservants. But as discussed already there are passages for the proper and godly treatment of servants/slaves. 

Sadly some Israelites kings later tried to institute forced slavery, for example Solomon (1 Kings 9:15) and Rehoboam with Adoniram (1 Kings 12:18).  Both fell from favor in God’s sight and were found to follow after evil (1 Kings 11:6; 2 Chronicles 12:14).   

Luke 12:43-48 "Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. "Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has. "But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, "the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. "And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. "But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

 

As for Jesus’ supposed support for beating slaves, this is in the context of a parable. Parables are stories Jesus told to help us understand spiritual truths. For example, in one parable, Jesus likens God to a judge (Luke 18:1–5). The judge is unjust, but eventually gives justice to the widow when she persists. 

The point of that story was not to tell us that God is like an unjust judge—on the contrary, He is completely just. The point of the parable is to tell us to be persistent in prayer. Similarly, Luke 12:47–48 does not justify beating slaves. It is not a parable telling us how masters are to behave. It is a parable telling us that we must be ready for when Jesus Himself returns. One will be rewarded with eternal life through Christ, or with eternal punishment (Matthew 25:46).

Ephesians 6:5–9 Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; not with eyeservice, as men–pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

Again, Paul in Ephesians is not giving an endorsement to slavery/bondservants and masters but gives them both the same commands, showing that God views them as equals in Christ. Again, bondservants were to be paid fair wages: 

Colossians 4:1 Masters, give your bondservants what is just and fair, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

Christians Led The Fight To Abolish Slavery 

The slavery of “black” people by “white” people in the 16^th to 19^th centuries (and probably longer) was harshly unjust like many cultures before. This harsh slavery is not discussed in Moses’ writings because such slavery was forbidden in Hebrew culture. This is not surprising. Paul tells us in Romans 1:30 that people are capable of inventing new ways of doing evil. Peter even reveals that some slave owners were already being disobedient and treating slaves/bondservants harshly (1 Peter 2:18). Of course, the Bible gives no endorsement of such treatment.   

“White” on “black” slavery was opposed by Christians such as William Wilberforce, but not by examining passages on slavery because the slaveries were of different types.[5] “Racial” slavery was opposed because it was seen to be contrary to the value that God places on every human being, and the fact that God “has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). The last letter that the revival evangelist John Wesley ever wrote was to William Wilberforce, encouraging Wilberforce in his endeavors to see slavery abolished. In the letter, Wesley describes slavery as “execrable villainy.” 

Reading this morning a tract wrote by a poor African, I was particularly struck by that circumstance that a man who has a black skin, being wronged or outraged by a white man, can have no redress; it being a "law" in our colonies that the oath of a black against a white goes for nothing. What villainy is this?[6] 

Wesley concentrated on the value of a man, irrespective of the color of his skin. It is this principle of the value God places on human beings—a biblical principle—which was Wesley’s motivation in opposing slavery. 

The famous hymn writer, John Newton, at one time actually captained slave ships. He did so, even after his conversion to Christianity, because he was influenced by the prevailing attitudes of his society; it took time for him to realize his errors. But realize them he did—and he spent the latter part of his life campaigning against slavery. He wrote movingly and disturbingly of the suffering of slaves in the ships’ galleys in his pamphlet, “Thoughts upon the African Slave Trade.” 

If the slaves and their rooms can be constantly aired, and they are not detained too long on board, perhaps there are not many who die; but the contrary is often their lot. They are kept down, by the weather, to breathe a hot and corrupted air, sometimes for a week: this added to the galling of their irons, and the despondency which seizes their spirits when thus confined, soon becomes fatal….I believe, upon an average between the more healthy, and the more sickly voyages, and including all contingencies, one fourth of the whole purchase may be allotted to the article of mortality: that is, if the English ships purchase sixty thousand slaves annually, upon the whole extent of the coast, the annual loss of lives cannot be much less than fifteen thousand. [7] 

Like Wesley, it was the biblical value of human life which was the deciding factor in Newton’s opposition to slavery in his latter years. 

The use of the term “one blood” in Acts 17:26 is so significant. If “races” were really of different “bloods”, then we could not all be saved by the shedding of the blood of one Savior. It is because the entire human race can be seen to be descended from one man—Adam—that we know we can trust in one Savior, Jesus Christ (the “Last Adam”). 

Many other Christians could be named in the fight to abolish slavery, which seemed to culminate with Abraham Lincoln in the mid 1800s (slavery was one of the reasons for the Civil War in the United States).  

Is The Bible Racist? 

Some “white” Christians have assumed that the so-called “curse of Ham” (Genesis 9:25) was to cause Ham’s descendants to be black and to be cursed. While it is likely that African peoples are descended from Ham (Cush, Phut, and Mizraim), it is not likely that they are descended from Canaan—the curse was actually declared on Canaan, not Ham. 

However, there is no evidence from Genesis that the curse was anything to do with skin color. Others have suggested that the “mark of Cain” in Genesis 4 was that he was turned dark-skinned. Again, there is no evidence of this in Scripture, and in any case, Cain’s descendants more or less wiped out in the Flood. 

Incidentally, the use of such passages to attempt to justify some sort of evil associated with dark skin is based on an assumption that the other characters in the accounts were light-skinned, like “White” Anglo-Saxons today. That assumption can also not be found in Scripture, and is very unlikely to be true. Very light skin and very dark skin are actually the extremes of skin color, caused by the minimum and maximum of melanin production, and are more likely, therefore, to be the genetically selected results of populations moving away from each other, after the Tower of Babel incident recorded in Genesis 11. 

The issue of racism is just one of many reasons why the ministry opposes evolution. Darwinian evolution can easily be used to suggest that some “races” are more evolved than others. In fact, the common belief is that “blacks” are less evolved.  Biblical Christianity cannot be used that way—unless it is twisted, by people who have deliberately misunderstood what the Bible actually teaches.  On top of this, rejection of the Bible, a book that is not racist, because one may think evolution is superior is a sad alternative.  Recall Darwin’s prediction of non-white “races”: 

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.  At the same time the anthropomorphous apes. . . will no doubt be exterminated.  The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [aborigine] and the gorilla.” [8] 

Conclusion 

Though this short chapter couldn’t delve into every verse regarding slavery, the basic principles are the same. In light of what we’ve learned here are a few pointers to remember: 

1. Slaves under Mosaic Law were different from the harshly treated slaves of other societies; they were more like servants or bondservants. 
2. The Bible doesn’t give an endorsement of slave traders but the opposite (1 Timothy 1:10). A slave/bondservant was acquired when a person voluntarily entered into it when he needed to pay off his debts.
3. The Bible recognizes that slavery is a reality in this sin-cursed world and doesn’t ignore it, but instead gives regulations for good treatment by both masters and servants and reveal they are equal under Christ.
4. Israelites could sell themselves as a slave/bondservant to have their debts covered, make a wage, have housing, and be set free after six years. Foreigners could sell themselves as a slave/bondservant as well. 
5. Biblical Christians led the fight to abolish harsh slavery in modern times.  

---

[1]. It should be noted that the ministry and the authors opposes both racism and slavery.

[2]. We are using the term “White” to refer to peoples of European origin and “Black” to refer to peoples primarily of African origin. We are actually not too thrilled about these terms either since all people are really the same color just different shades, but for the sake of understanding, we will use them in this chapter.  

[3] All passages from the NKJV and NIV

[4] Personal correspondence with Reverend Mathew Anderson, Ottumwa, IA, 2-3-2007

[5] Paul Taylor, William Wilberforce: A leader for biblical equality, Answers magazine, December 2006, Found online: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/william-wilberforce

[6] John Wesley’s letter to William Wilberforce, February 24^, 1791. Wesley died six days later. 

[7] Newton, J, Thoughts upon the African Slave Trade, 1787

[8] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (New York, A.L. Burt, 1874, 2nd ed.), p. 178.