Slavery in the bible

[Pennman]

I have been wrestling with the issue of slavery in the bible for some time. My search led me here to an article written by a Mr. Richard Deem titled "Does God Approve of Slavery According to the Bible". I must tell you that i felt it short sighted enough to register for this forum and create this post. I am not trying to attack this site of the author of the article in any way, just to report what i know to be true and perhaps find some insight from within this forum. I will restrict my critique of the article to the two greatest errors that i found.

The first is the articles implication that slavery in biblical times was much different to what was experienced in the antebellum south. "In fact, the slavery described in the Old Testament was quite different from the kind of slavery we think of today - in which people are captured and sold as slaves. According to Old Testament law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed"
While this may have been the case in some situations, it was certainly not the rule by any means. The people of Israel were the only individual treated this way, and even then it was often crushing debt that made them choose between slavery or punishment. Foreigners were not treated with such kindness and were not indentured or released. This fact is backed not only by historical records, but is spoken to in the bible as well:

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

Women and children were treated differently too:

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6)


My second, and largest qualm is the misrepresentation of the biblical laws surrounding slavery as some sort of protection.
"So, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable - up to death of the offending party"

This sentence was backed by a citation of exodus 21:20. Here is where my problem lies. The author of the piece, who is obviously familiar with scripture, (i hope not intentionally) left out the following 21st passage, which tells a much different story.
I guess it goes somthing like this: the laws in the bible are there to protect the slave, see : "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished." (Exodus 21:20)

But wait, theres more: "If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:21)

That doesnt seem like very good protection.

Im sorry for the lenght of this post, but it seems to me that this sight promotes thoughfulness, not propaganda. I hope someone can clear this up for me.

Thanks all,
Jesse

[Kurieuo]

Let me just deal with your second and largest qualm stated in your post...

Exodus 21:18-19
18 “If men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed, 19 if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.

No punishment for free man hurting another free man here.

Exodus 21:20-21
20 “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

No punishment for the person hurting a slave man here, that is, unless...

Exodus 21:26-27
26 “If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. 27 And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.

So there were boundaries. In fact, v20-21 parallel v18-19. Only with the "free man on free man" situation, the one injured was to be fully healed and compensated for time off work. In the instance of the "free man and slave man" obviously there is no need to compensate this -- since the owner provides for the slave and if anything the owner is the one who looses out of having one less helping hand.

So it seems the law is otherwise quite equal re: consequences in the situation of the free being hurt, versus consequences in the situation of the slave being hurt.

And yet, v26-27 stipulate what is to happen in the instance of permanent injury to the slave, whereas there is silence on what happens if the free doesn't make a full recovery. It could perhaps be reasoned that more protection and care is here being afforded to a slave being injured than a free.

Re: beatings, they were a common form of punishment in those times also for free men.

Deuteronomy 25:1-3
25 “If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked, 2 then it shall be if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall then make him lie down and be beaten in his presence with the number of stripes according to his guilt. 3 He may beat him forty times but no more, so that he does not beat him with many more stripes than these and your brother is not degraded in your eyes.

Proverbs 10:13;16
13 On the lips of the discerning, wisdom is found,
But a rod is for the back of him who lacks understanding.
...
16 The wages of the righteous is life,
The income of the wicked, punishment.

Consider also punishment for rebellious older sons...

Proverbs 13:24
24 He who withholds his rod hates his son,
But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.

Proverbs 22:15
15 Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child;
The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13
13 Do not hold back discipline from the child,
Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.

And what Scripture says of God...

2 Samuel 7:14
14 I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men,

Psalm 89:32
32 Then I will punish their transgression with the rod
And their iniquity with stripes.

Now clearly, there is a close association here with these "beatings" and "punishment of wickedness" whether legally or for making ones path straight. Thus, it would seem an inappropriate reading, that an owner could just mistreat their slave with beatings for any reason akin to what we hear so often happened in say American history with white owners mistreating African slaves.

"Slaves" are indeed being afforded much protection and to be treated humanely according to the stated laws in Exodus. How this played out is another question, whether there might be "loopholes". However, one must perform eisegesis to think that the Law endorses owners to mistreat their slaves as something less than human, or property akin to a pet dog, goldfish or less.

The text in actuality supports the opposite being true -- slaves were to be treated humanely, looked after and as such in Exodus 21 they were afforded protections appropriated the same as the free.

[Pennman]

That is a very astute representation, but i do see quite a disparity between exodus 18-19 and 20-21.

In 18-19 if a man injures another man, but does not kill him, there is no penalty.
In 20-21 if a man injures a slave, but the slave does not die immediately, there is no penalty.

Perhaps i am misreading this, but it seems that its ok to kill a slave, so long as he doesnt die right away.

It seems to me that just the fact that there are different laws for free men than there are for slaves is itself reason enough to believe that there is justification for slavery in the bible. Even in the confederate south there were rules for the treatment of slaves. There are also rules for how to treat livestock.

The existence of governing rules doesnt make the practice less deplorable, and the fact is, as hard as i try, i cant find any condemnation of slavery in the bible. Even jesus spoke about slaves in his parables, not as an oppressed people, but as a people who need oversight and a stern hand to keep them in line.

The fact remains that in the eyes of God (it seems) slavery is an acceptable practice.

[1harley1]

pennman- You object to the portrayal of Hebrew "slavery".

Hebrew "slavery" was nothing like the "chattel" slavery we think of today. A definition of chattel slavery is- a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation. ...

The Hebrew term in Exodus for slave, 'eved (pl. 'avadim), means "to work"; thus, the "slave" is only a worker or servant. The eved differs from the hired worker (sakhir) in that they receive no wages for work and are a member of his master's household.

Hebrew "slavery" defined above is supported by (he may serve for no more than six years. Set him free in the seventh year. It is further supported by verse 5 ( But the slave may declare, `I love my master, my wife, and my children. I don't want to go free). If slavery then was like it is now, why would a slave want to commit a lifetime to service as outlined? It is because it was his vocation.

Why would these verses reflect this? Biblical times were brutal living conditions. There was no welfare or disability payment. Can't work? You die unless someone volunteers to save you. Those without options willingly "sold" themselves and/or family into servitude to absolve debts, make restitution for theft, and generally to provide food and housing in exchange for labor. In the latter case it was like becoming a butler. This confirms the definition above of eved, worker.

A father unable to care for his children often willingly transferred responsibility (unfortunate term "sold") them for their preservation and income to support the remaining family. It was a voluntary transaction. Why?

Devout Hebrews were required to abide by Exodus 21:16- "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is FOUND IN HIS POSSESSION, shall surely be put to death." Also see Deut 24:7. If you practiced chattel slavery you would be kidnapping. There is no distinction here between Hebrew and non-Hebrew.

The transaction/arrangement called for a measurement of debt/restitution/purpose compared to the duration of service. This is confirmed by verse 2 of the above cited Exodus 21:2 passage (he may serve for no more than six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and HE WILL OWE YOU NOTHING for his freedom. This is supported by the Sabbath Year of debt forgiveness outlined in Deu 15:1- "At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release (of debt). In cases where the service retired the debt earlier than 7 years, the servitude was terminated at satisfaction. If the debt/restitution exceeded the value of service, verse two refers to this release.

What is this about marriage and wife/children?

As noted above, the provision of service deemed the worker a member of the household of the "master" or head of the home. Head of households negotiated marriage arrangements. If a male worker was under obligation for 4 years of service, was wed to a fellow female worker with a 6 year obligation, the marriage would not overcome the durations. The male would be released in the 5th year and the (now) spouse must continue till satisfaction. This is the purpose of verse 4 of Exodus 21. (If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave and they had sons or daughters, then only the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master). The "belong" here is stated within the service agreement . Remember no kidnapping.

Well, what about Lev25:44? (ESV)- "-- slaves WHOM YOU MAY HAVE: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you."

WHOM YOU MAY HAVE, refers to the kidnap rule and undesirable neighbors who were barred from Hebrew society.

A few verses to assist in setting the tone-

Deu 23:15- If slaves (from the outside community) should escape from their masters and take refuge with you, you must not hand them over to their masters. Let them live among you in any town they choose, and do not oppress them.

Deut 24:18- (God instructs) But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this thing.

Leviticus 25:39-46 (ESV) 39 "If your brother (Hebrew) becomes poor (cannot support himself and family) beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: 40 he shall be with you as a hired worker --- (for pay and live in his own home).

[Philip]

Again, for anyone whom has big questions about slavery in the Bible, in ancient Israel, this book covers it EXHAUSTIVELY - along with many other perplexing Scriptural questions (about wiping out pagan inhabitants of the Promised Land, etc):

"Is God a Moral Monster," By Paul Copan: http://www.amazon.com/God-Moral-Monster ... al+Monster

I HIGHLY recommend it!

[RickD]

Philip,

I just wanted to tell you that judging from your avatar picture, you have a really cute boyfriend.

[Kurieuo]

That is a very astute representation, but i do see quite a disparity between exodus 18-19 and 20-21.

In 18-19 if a man injures another man, but does not kill him, there is no penalty.
In 20-21 if a man injures a slave, but the slave does not die immediately, there is no penalty.

Perhaps i am misreading this, but it seems that its ok to kill a slave, so long as he doesnt die right away.

It seems to me that just the fact that there are different laws for free men than there are for slaves is itself reason enough to believe that there is justification for slavery in the bible. Even in the confederate south there were rules for the treatment of slaves. There are also rules for how to treat livestock.

The existence of governing rules doesnt make the practice less deplorable, and the fact is, as hard as i try, i cant find any condemnation of slavery in the bible. Even jesus spoke about slaves in his parables, not as an oppressed people, but as a people who need oversight and a stern hand to keep them in line.

The fact remains that in the eyes of God (it seems) slavery is an acceptable practice.

You're changing the words though. If we read the passage again:

20"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21"If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

Obviously it is important to correlate the death to the one who hurt them.

Re: slavery, you're judging from your own day and time. How is it you can rise above and judge another society 1000s of years ago dimly through probably a comfortable position in your own society of today?

Slavery is still around today. Not just with human trafficking, but in our civilized societies. It's called employment or "working for the man." We're slaves within the workings of our societies -- the governments, laws and enforcers of our societies. It's a curse that's been around since the beginning because according to Judaism and Christianity we desired to usurp God and so God withdrew His providence.

Or if you want more close examples of slavery, they're called "helpers" in some parts of the world (e.g., Philippines), "maids" and "butlers" in Western societies, or just hired hands. Oh, but they can stop working. Yeah, perhaps, if they want to stop being able to buy their own food and support themselves.

Consider also, Deuteronomy 23:15-16:

15 “You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him."

So if a slave/s were oppressed, well they could run away and were to be protected and looked after. Far different from African slaves who were hunted down, beat and killed in the Western world. What you see as "slavery" is being coloured by your time and culture.

In Israel, it was a form of social economics that allowed people to be looked after. In our wonderfully civilised societies, if someone is unable to pay their debts than they are forced onto the street, can become homeless, outcast and forced to fend for themselves... with Israel, a person could become a debt-slave to repay and be freed after 7 years.

The desire here is to ensure everyone in society are looked after and create social accountability. Consider Deuteronomy 15:7-8 which reads:

7 “If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, 8 but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be.

So the slavery endorse back in Israel appears to be very much different from what many of us would associate with slavery today. It seems rather humane and the goal is to ensure the poor are looked after by those who have some, even committing the rich to the poor.

Some links I'd recommend is one Rational Christianity: Slavery laws in the Old Testament. Also, there is a very detailed article at Christian Think Tank: Good question... Does God condone slavery in the Bible?

[Philip]

Philip,

I just wanted to tell you that judging from your avatar picture, you have a really cute boyfriend.

OK, Rick, just remember that I cut heads off for an (eternal) living. I just wanted to soften up my image a bit, seem more approachable - not to appear as just being some weird guy who carries around a sword under his cloak (even though I do). I can't look grim all the time. You're not jealous of the hair are you? I mean, I can see that you are follically challenged. I hear Bozo can hook you up with some very realistic-looking rugs - and in neon colors.