Board index ‹ Slavery in the Bible

[Newbie]

Why did God allow slavery in the OT? It seems that he not only permits it, but sometimes commands it. He allows his people to beat their slaves, rape women in warfare and then take them as slaves, and to keep slaves for life. It all seems to immoral to me.

[jimwalton]

Ancient Israel was an agrarian society. Almost all slavery in Israel was debt slavery. It was mostly their societal economic strategy to pay off a debt. In many ways it was not much different than our system of employment (working for someone else to pay off our indebtedness and pay our bills). In other ways it was not much different than the system of apprenticeship in colonial America. Indentured servants often learned a trade. The longest period for which a person could be indentured was seven years. There was no such thing in Israel as permanent, involuntary servitude for a Hebrew slave to a Hebrew master (Lev. 25.25-55). Slavery was not a desirable aspect of social behavior in ancient Israel.

During the conquest there was a very brief period of war slavery in Israel, where the conquered populations were brought into Israelite homes to serve them and be integrated into the community. The Israelites only attacked a limited number of cities, even during the conquest; most cities were left as they were and the Israelites blended into life in the highlands of Canaan. After Moses and the beginning of the conquest, Israel never again initiated an attack and conquest under the command of the Lord, and thus all slavery in Israel after settling the land was debt-slavery.

The laws of slavery in Israel pertain to legal status, not personhood. Any of the laws given in the Pentateuch regarding slavery don’t speak to the personhood of the individual, but only to their legal status.

The laws of the OT are not so much about changing the shape of society as they are about living holy lives in that society. He does not dictate the kind of government (monarchy or democracy), he does not dictate a system of marriage (arranged or chosen), he does not dictate the way a society is stratified (class structure or legal status), and he does not dictate a certain sort of economy (market or barter).

God is accommodating, not endorsing, and his allowing is not to be mistakenly construed at endorsing immoral behavior. For my evidence I'll refer to Mt. 19.8: "Moses (and hence God) permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." The ideal will of God (moral perfection) can make provision for human sinfulness without endorsing the sin. The sin is denounced, and neither authorized nor sanction, but still tolerated. Jesus is using an established legal category of actions allowed out of consideration for wickedness or weakness. The point is not to make divorce acceptable, but within the framework of human failure to limit sinfulness as much as possible and control its consequences. Only moral perversion creates the kinds of divorce scenarios that prompted the question, but ideal is quite different, and the text says so. So also, only moral perversion creates the kinds of slavery scenarios that prompted the laws, but the ideal is quite different.

God never commanded slavery, commanded Israelites (or anyone) to beat their slaves, rape their war captives, or abuse their slaves. Exodus 21 is Casuistic Law. It's making a list of possible things that could possibly happen and guiding judges on how to render verdicts. It's not saying what should happen, what the Lord endorses to happen, or even what does happen, but only providing case illustrations to establish principles of justice

Unlike their contemporaries, servants (slaves) in Israel were given radical, unprecedented legal/human rights, even if not equaling that of free person. We have in the Bible the first appeals in world literature to treat slaves as human beings for their own sake and not just in the interests of their masters. By comparison, the idea of a slave as exclusively the object of rights and as a person outside regular society was apparently alien to the law of the rest of the ancient Near East, where slaves were forcibly branded or tattooed for identification. The Hebrew law was mild toward slaves and recognized them as human beings subject to defense from intolerable acts.

The leader of the movement to abolish slavery in England in the 1700s was William Wilberforce, a dedicated Christian who understood the Scriptures. In the United States in the 1800s it was Abraham Lincoln, who rose to abolish slavery on the basis of Biblical principles. Even today Christians around the world are working to end all human trafficking on the grounds of biblical teaching.

I can say with confidence that your perspective deserves far more research.

[Sure Breeze]

But the Bible says in Ex. 21.20-21 that God says it's OK to beat slaves. If God doesn't approve, allow, endorse, or permit this activity, why is it in the Bible? Is the Bible filled with human laws? Because I thought it was laws from God. Ex. 21.21 says that if a master beats his slave, as long as he doesn't die there's no punishment. That's saying it's OK to beat the guy. Give me the context for this where this is OK.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for responding. I'm glad you asked. You don't seem to have read carefully what I said, or the text (Ex. 21.20-21).

Exodus 21-23 are casuistic (case) law. The key word is "IF". "If someone does something, then here should be the consequence." IF someone kills their neighbor, then here is what should happen. It doesn't mean God is commanding someone to kill their neighbor! When it says, "If someone beats their slave," that doesn't mean God approves, allows, endorses or permits. But people beat their slaves!! And so the law says IF somebody does that, here's what the judge should render as verdict and punishment. But that doesn't mean God allows physical abuse of a slave. Killing, stealing, beating are NOT OK. But people do it. So the law says, "IF somebody does it, here's what's to happen." It's in the Bible because people do it, and because there was such a case doesn't mean God is making a law.

But I sense that your question is more in the line of "Why is there no punishment when he beats the guy? That makes it sound like beating him is OK."

The master could not kill or abuse his slave at will. Look at Ex. 21.26-27. Whatever injury was actually inflicted could be inflicted back on the master. No bodily abuse was permitted. "Eye" and "tooth" are individual examples selected to denote all the body parts, from the most important to one that easy to lose. If any punishment was more than just a punishment and resulted in injury, the slave was to go free. Period.

It would help for you to understand the context a little. Almost all (if not all) slaves in Israel were debt-slaves—working off money owed (much like why we work today). After 7 years, even if the debt wasn't paid off, the slave went free. It was of NO BENEFIT for the master to beat his slave and make him unable to work. For him it would be lost income and lost debt-repayment. Now, if the slave was a lazy bum and not pulling his weight, the owner had a right to take action against him and motivate him to do his fair share, but his right didn't involve the unjustified outbreak of violent beatings.

The laws of the OT pertained to legal status, not personhood. None of the laws in the OT regarding slavery speak to the personhood of the individual, but only to their legal status. In ancient Israel, slaves were to be regarded as full human beings with full rights, and were to be treated humanely at all times.