Bible Verses Used to Justify Slavery, War, and Misogyny
The “Good Book” has a dark side that still shapes politics, culture, and prejudice today.
People love to quote the Bible as a source of moral authority. It sits on the pew while they give lofty speeches. Ministers, without a hint of doubt, refer to it as the “Word of God.” Yet the same book that tells us to “love thy neighbor” contains numerous verses used word-for-word to justify slavery, holy war, and treating women as property. These are not obscure footnotes. Sometimes, they’re even highlighted.
You can argue that “things were different back then,” but the concern isn’t just the past. These verses are still regarded as sacred today. They are printed without caveats, preached as if they bear the stamp of divine approval. If you hold the Bible as God’s unquestionable and unchanging word, then you must face the reality that these words need to be reconciled with that so‑called “perfection.”
Slavery: God’s Stamp of Approval
When Americans fought their Civil War, slavery was gospel truth for Southern pastors. They did not need to twist Scripture to defend it—it was argument enough.
Verses like Exodus 21:2–6 explain the ownership of Hebrew slaves. Leviticus 25:44–46 goes further, permitting the purchase of foreigners as property, who could then be inherited and passed down through generations. The New Testament doesn’t erase this—it reinforces it. Ephesians 6:5 commands slaves to obey their earthly masters “with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”
As highlighted by American biblical scholar Mark Noll, pro‑slavery preachers in the South constructed entire sermons from these verses, claiming “God’s Word” justified the institution. Historian John Patrick Daly notes that defenders of slavery “found in the Bible not a reluctant tolerance but a clear divine command.” Even abolitionists had to acknowledge their adversaries had the upper hand in direct quotation.
Today, while churches may not openly advocate for slavery, some still use these verses to oppose labor rights, frame social inequality as “God’s design,” or glorify the pre‑Civil War South as a period of “Christian values.” The problem is not just that these verses exist—it’s that they remain in the canon without theological reckoning.
War: A Historical Sacred and Slaughter Text
The Bible is not only bloody—it makes bloodshed mandatory.
In Joshua, God commands the Israelites to annihilate entire nations—the Canaanites, Amalekites, and Midianites—children included. Deuteronomy 20 expands on this, ordering the slaughter of every man, woman, and child in the “promised land.” For cities farther away, the men were to be killed, but the women and children taken as spoils.
As Philip Jenkins explains in Laying Down the Sword, these conquest tales have been “read and re‑read” as God‑given justifications for violence for centuries. Walter Brueggemann also calls them “texts of terror” that challenge the idea of a peaceful biblical God.
For centuries, God’s will has been framed as a call for nations to be war‑ready. Old Testament conquest stories inspired Christian armies during the Crusades. European colonizers, guided by clergy, likened the “promised land” to the New World and framed Indigenous peoples as Canaanites to be erased.
Even today, political and religious leaders often describe modern wars as “good vs. evil” or “chosen people vs. God’s enemies.” This mindset has fueled conflicts from the Middle East to Africa and continues to echo in America’s culture wars.
Misogyny: Women as Property, Not Partners
If you’ve ever wondered why women are still fighting for equal rights in churches, one reason is the Bible.
In Old Testament law, women are treated as property before people. Exodus 20:17 lists a man’s wife alongside his ox and donkey as things not to covet. Deuteronomy 22:28–29 says that if a man rapes an unmarried virgin, he must pay her father and marry her—her consent not required.
The New Testament doesn’t undo this—it adds more restrictions. “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet,” states 1 Timothy 2:12. 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 orders women to remain silent in churches, calling it “disgraceful” for them to speak.
New Testament scholar Craig Keener has noted that these passages have been “selectively emphasized” to keep women subordinate, while egalitarian verses are ignored. Historian Beth Allison Barr, in The Making of Biblical Womanhood, shows how these teachings have been used to keep women in submission—presented as eternal truth when they are cultural constructs.
For centuries, such verses have been used to deny women education, leadership, and legal rights, to justify forced marriage, and even to excuse marital rape. In many churches today, women are barred from becoming pastors, or told their “God‑given role” is to submit to their husbands.
“That’s Just the Old Testament” Is Not a Get‑Out‑of‑Jail Card
Some Christians try to dodge responsibility by saying, “That’s the Old Testament—we’re under the New Covenant now.” But the New Testament repeatedly quotes the Old Testament as the word of God. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus states that he did not come to abolish the law. Paul uses Old Testament narratives to teach moral lessons, reinforcing their authority.
As Richard Elliott Friedman points out in Who Wrote the Bible?, Old Testament laws and narratives are the theological foundation of the New Testament. You cannot dismiss the former without undermining the latter. If the Old Testament remains God’s inspired scripture, then its violent, sexist, and pro‑slavery laws remain part of the package.
Context Doesn’t Erase Harm
Another common defense is “historical context.” Yes, ancient societies practiced brutal slavery, patriarchy, and war. But if this book is divinely inspired, shouldn’t it transcend the moral limitations of its time? Shouldn’t the “Word of God” break cycles of violence and oppression instead of blessing them?
Biblical ethicist Eric Seibert argues that context is not enough. Without critical engagement, believers risk perpetuating harm. Context can explain why a verse exists; it cannot excuse using it as a timeless moral benchmark.
If the Bible reflects the moral failings of the cultures that produced it, it is a human document, not a flawless divine guide. If it is divine, then God is on record approving some of humanity’s ugliest systems.
The Dangers of Historical Context
Another misunderstanding people often cite is “context” or “historical context.” The idea goes that the actions of ancient cultures—such as slavery and warfare—were simply accepted at the time. But if this book is divine, shouldn’t it be able to transcend the norms and ideology of its time? Is it not contradictory to call something the “Word of God” and yet present a moral vision that accepts the prevailing order instead of challenging it? Calling that acceptance a “blessing” pours fuel on cycles of violence and oppression.
As biblical ethicist Eric Seibert suggests, context is not enough of an explanation. If believers fail to grapple with these passages, they risk allowing context to reinforce harm. Context can explain why a verse exists, but it cannot explain why the verse is still used as a timeless moral standard.
The Bible is deeply rooted in some of the greatest moral shortcomings of the cultures that produced it. If it reflects deep human failings, then it misses the mark as a divine guide. And if it is divine, then God is on record endorsing systems of hatred humans have built throughout history.
This issue still matters because these ideas are far from dead. Across the globe:
In parts of the Middle East and Africa, religious groups use biblical conquest stories to justify the violent and merciless slaughter of people in “claimed” lands.
In the United States, churches cite Paul’s letters to block women from leadership roles and oppose equal pay.
Far-right movements quote “slaves, obey your masters” to defend hierarchy as “God’s order.”
The problem is not merely that these verses exist—it’s that they are still taught as gospel truth, shaping moral perspectives, voting habits, and public policy.
The Real Choice for Believers
For Christians, the choice is simple.
Either accept these verses as part of holy scripture while admitting they represent values you reject today, or defend them indefinitely with mental gymnastics and watch more people turn away from religion because of its hypocrisy.
For those willing to rethink the premise entirely, a third option exists: stop treating the Bible as a perfect moral compass and start reading it as a record of human attempts—sometimes admirable, often deeply flawed—to understand existence and the divine.
The Bible is not the only ancient text with disturbing passages, but unlike most, it remains the centerpiece of weekly worship. Unless religious communities confront its most problematic parts, these verses will keep giving people divine cover to justify oppression, conquest, and silencing others.
For a book that can justify slavery, holy wars, and silencing half the population, maybe it’s time to stop calling it “good” and start calling it what it is—a reflection of human fear, power, and prejudice. What do you think—should these verses still be considered God’s word?