When asked on Q&A about his position on gay marriage, Kevin Rudd dismissed the question with the well-worn retort about the Bible and slavery.

This seemed to please the studio audience, but factually, it was wrong.  It is Aristotle, not the Bible, who regards slavery as a “natural condition”.  Both testaments of the Bible are opposed to slavery.  The law of Moses prescribed the death penalty for kidnapping a person and selling them into slavery (Exodus 21:16).  On this basis, the apostle Paul refers to slave traders among the lawless and disobedient (1 Timothy 1:10).

If the Old Testament often seems to talk about slavery with a straight face, it is because, in ancient Israel, a person could be placed in bonded labour (for a limited period) as a result of debt or theft.  The law of Moses contains various provisions protecting Israelites in this situation.  For example, if a man sells his daughter, the man buying her must marry her or give her to his son to marry, otherwise she goes free (Exodus 21:7-11).  This was to protect her against being made into a prostitute. The language of slavery may be offputting to us, but in practice such a woman would be no worse off than a free woman being given for a bride price.

The writers of the New Testament do not rail against slavery, because there would have been no point in it.  They were not in a position to overthrow the established order.  So Christian slaves were encouraged to be obedient, and bear up under suffering, because an eternal life of freedom was stored up for them in heaven.  Some may sneer and call such beliefs repressive, but their arguments fall silent if Jesus really rose from the dead, and Christians really live forever with him.

Of course, this does not solve the whole problem of the Bible and slavery: many passages are still perplexing.  But it perhaps shows that the Bible is rather more subtle and realistic than are those who believe that slavery can be abolished with a soundbite.