Board index ‹ Slavery in the Bible

[Goo Goo]

> Most slavery talked about in the Bible was debt slavery

If debt slavery is most of what was described in the Bible, what other types of slavery are in there?

[jimwalton]

There was also slavery as punishment for crime (labor camps, chain gangs, that sort of image), enslavement of prisoners of war (often used as corvee labor by the government (sort of like the CCC in America in the 1930s), child abandonment (a child was brought into a home to work to support the economy of the family and eventually be treated as one of the family), and the birth of a "slave" to a "slave" (in which case the newcomer's labor would be owned as well. But the ancient world knew nothing of the slave pens of Greece or Rome where people were owned, sexually abused, used as things in the arena, or physically abused. Nor did the ancient world know anything like slavery during the Colonial Era, where "entire" civilizations were kidnapped and owned, with the master being able to treat them however he wished. Such a concept would be totally foreign to anything you read in the OT.

[Magnet]

The text literally says slaves are property.

"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Exodus 21:20-21

[jimwalton]

Thanks for bringing that up, so others can see it, too. The Hebrew word that is used there is כַסְפּוֹ, meaning "money"—"since the slave is their money." So is this person, then, property? Is he or she a commodity to be exchanged and owned rather than a person to value? The Old Testament affirms the full personhood of debt-servants (Gn. 1.26-27; Job 31.13-15; Deut. 15.1-18), and this passage is no exception (if you read the whole passage). The suggestion here is not that the workers were chattel or property. The man or woman came into a house to work off a debt, so this person was their "money." Their collateral. The employer stood to lose money if he mistreated his employee because this "employee" could greatly impact his moneybag, his bank account, so to speak. The object of the law was not to show how slaves were owned, but to control physical abuse by the "master." If evil intent could be proved (Ex. 21.14), or if the slave died (20), the master was liable to punishment, because this was a human being we're talking about here, not a piece of property. If the master's intent was debatable, an injured "slave" won his freedom (26-27) and the master lost his loaned money (here).

[Science is our Hope]

Also the slavery of Leviticus 25:39-46

[jimwalton]

Ancient Israel considered permanent slavery the most inhumane condition possible. The most prominent slavery in Israel was debt-slavery, which was a way of working to pay one's bills. Israelite laws dealing with slavery reflect an understanding of the reasons for poverty and try to deal with its victims both graciously and non-violently. Also, Israelite law mandated safeguards to prevent debt from accumulating to a point where lifelong servitude was the only solution.

The textual evidence for slavery in the ancient world shows that slaves were not regarded as property, but they had rights, sometimes even as full citizens. They could own property, receive inheritance (as in Lev. 25.46), or become free. They were typically not bought or sold as they were in Rome, Greece, and in the Medieval world and in the colonial era of the West. The closest the ancient world ever got to that was corvee labor—forced government conscription for a certain period of time.

There is a large question among scholars as to what extent Israel participates in the world of the ancient Near East. The only extra-biblical data we have on slaves in Israel is the Elephantine Papyri from the Egyptian colony of 410 BC (I know it's later than Exodus, but it's the ONLY RECORD we have). What's interesting is that we have a truckload of references from the parallel cultures about the practice of slavery (servitude), but absolutely nothing from Israel for centuries (just this solitary one from 410). We have reason to wonder if Israel had slaves, even though this case law is on their books (the case law is a "what if...then" kind of scenario, not a command to own slaves or an endorsement of slave ownership).

But, you're still wondering, did the Israelites OWN slaves? It's unknown; there's no evidence of it. There WERE slaves, but they were debt-servants, temporary slaves, or prisoners of war that became part of the family, but there's no evidence of chattel slavery in ancient Israel, either in the Bible or in extra-biblical sources.

What about Leviticus 25.44-46? Only Israelites were allowed to own land in Israel. The only way for a foreigner to survive was to be incorporated into an Israelite home. Their word for this was "slave," but the family didn't own the person. Runaway slaves were given protection within Israel's borders (Dt. 23.15-16). Kidnapping slaves was prohibited (Ex. 21.16; Dt. 24.7). Serving within Israelite households was a safe place for any foreigner. It was not to be an oppressive setting, but offered economic and social stability. The law of Lev. 25.44-46 merely indicates that the jubilee release of slaves didn't apply to non-Israelites; but it also does not imply that the slave is a piece of property at the mercy of his master. There is no evidence of chattel slavery in ancient Israel.

[Magnet]

I only have a passing knowledge of Hebrew, but I don't really accept your money translation. Most translations use the word property. I searched for other uses of that word in the bible, and came up Isiah 31:7. In that passage, it means silver, in the context of casting down idols of gold and silver from Egypt.

Even if money is the more accurate translation, it doesn't mean slaves are now people. Money isn't -- it's something that can be traded for goods and services. I don't see how it's any different than property you can sell or trade.

Further, your interpretation of the bible verses are a stretch.

The verses with "debt-servants" refer to Hebrew slaves -- not outsider slaves. Foreign slaves could certainly be forced into slavery. Also, a Hebrew father could sell his Hebrew daughter into slavery, without her consent.

The punishment for mistreating and killing a slave is different than mistreating or killing a non-slave. There's no punishment for mistreating a slave, provided they recover. The punishment for mistreating a non-slave (by accident) is to ensure they recover and pay them for their loss of time. And while the punishment for killing a non-slave is death, the punishment for killing a slave is non-specified. It just says "to be punished."

The bible also only sets out remedies if the owner hurts a slaves eye or tooth. It does not set out other remedies for other types of beating.

All of the other rules point to slaves as property. Even the "debt-servants" can't leave until 7 years. And, if they marry a slave, they need to remain a slave for life if they want to stay with their family. Similarly, they must remain a slave for life if they choose to remain with the owner after 7 years.

I'll close by noting that most of these rules are similar to the animal cruelty laws we have today. We punish people who mistreat or kill animals, but not as much if they mistreated or killed a human. And we consider animals as property. In this vein, the bible similarly considered slaves as property/money/silver, and even stated so explicitly.

[jimwalton]

Ancient Israel considered permanent slavery the most inhumane condition possible. The most prominent slavery in Israel was debt-slavery, which was a way of working to pay one's bills. Israelite laws dealing with slavery reflect an understanding of the reasons for poverty and try to deal with its victims both graciously and non-violently. Also, Israelite law mandated safeguards to prevent debt from accumulating to a point where lifelong servitude was the only solution.

The textual evidence for slavery in the ancient world shows that slaves were not regarded as property, but they had rights, sometimes even as full citizens. They could own property, receive inheritance (as in Lev. 25.46), or become free. They were typically not bought or sold as they were in Rome, Greece, and in the Medieval world and in the colonial era of the West. The closest the ancient world ever got to that was corvee labor—forced government conscription for a certain period of time.

There is a large question among scholars as to what extent Israel participates in the world of the ancient Near East. The only extra-biblical data we have on slaves in Israel is the Elephantine Papyri from the Egyptian colony of 410 BC (I know it's later than Exodus, but it's the ONLY RECORD we have). What's interesting is that we have a truckload of references from the parallel cultures about the practice of slavery (servitude), but absolutely nothing from Israel for centuries (just this solitary one from 410). We have reason to wonder if Israel had slaves, even though this case law is on their books (the case law is a "what if...then" kind of scenario, not a command to own slaves or an endorsement of slave ownership).

But, you're still wondering, did the Israelites OWN slaves? It's unknown; there's no evidence of it. There WERE slaves, but they were debt-servants, temporary slaves, or prisoners of war that became part of the family, but there's no evidence of chattel slavery in ancient Israel, either in the Bible or in extra-biblical sources.

What about Leviticus 25.44-46? Only Israelites were allowed to own land in Israel. The only way for a foreigner to survive was to be incorporated into an Israelite home. Their word for this was "slave," but the family didn't own the person. Runaway slaves were given protection within Israel's borders (Dt. 23.15-16). Kidnapping slaves was prohibited (Ex. 21.16; Dt. 24.7). Serving within Israelite households was a safe place for any foreigner. It was not to be an oppressive setting, but offered economic and social stability. The law of Lev. 25.44-46 merely indicates that the jubilee release of slaves didn't apply to non-Israelites; but it also does not imply that the slave is a piece of property at the mercy of his master. There is no evidence of chattel slavery in ancient Israel.

> a Hebrew father could sell his Hebrew daughter into slavery, without her consent.

You're in Exodus 21.7. First of all, this is case law, not a command or permission. It's like saying, "Suppose a man..." Case laws don't necessarily present the best-case scenarios, but just possible real-life situations. As you read the text, you'll notice that the emphasis and goal is to protect women.

Ex. 21.7-11 section is about marriage. In days of arranged marriages, daughters would be given in return for a dowry. Marriage was as much an economic arrangement as a social one in those days. You'll notice here that the sale of a daughter into slavery is a marriage arrangement as a way of paying off a debt. As a way to protect those in poverty, and to protect the rights of the woman given to a man with this understanding, the debt would be liquidated, the daughter would have a husband, and he must treat her properly. You see in Ex. 21.8 that if the man is not pleased with her, he can't just dump her or abuse her, but must let her be redeemed by someone else in proper, legal form. If he passes her on to his son (v. 9), she becomes a daughter, not a slave. Verse 10 speaks of provision of food, clothing, and marital rights. If he falters on any of these points, she is free to go (11). There is nothing about this that is brutal.

> The punishment for mistreating and killing a slave is different than mistreating or killing a non-slave.

I'm not sure your reading the text right. This is from Ex. 21 also.

v. 12: You kill anyone, you are to be executed.
v. 13: For accidental killing there are protections for the perpetrator, not just execution.
v. 14: Intentional murder, you are to be executed.
v. 15: Intentional murder, executed.
v. 16: Kidnappers are to be executed, and no one is to buy a person from a kidnapper. There is protection for a slave, even in that situation.
v. 17: Cursing parents was tantamount to cursing God, a capital crime.
v. 18-19: If someone injures another so they are incapacitated from work, he must pay workers compensation.
v. 20: If you kill a slave, execution.
v. 21: If someone injures a slave so they are incapacitated from work, he suffers the loss of income (equal to paying workman's comp)
v. 22: If someone injures a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, there is a fine.
v. 23-25: If serious injury, eye for eye, life for life. Possible execution.
v. 25: Same deal if it's a slave: eye for eye. Workers comp in the form of freedom.

Where's the inequity of which you speak?

> And while the punishment for killing a non-slave is death, the punishment for killing a slave is non-specified. It just says "to be punished."

The Hebrew word is *naqam* and means capital punishment. The OT is making an important point about treating the slave as a human being, not as a piece of property.

> The bible also only sets out remedies if the owner hurts a slaves eye or tooth. It does not set out other remedies for other types of beating.

It's case law. The judge is supposed to extrapolate from the examples given to the principles behind them. And the principles behind them are that the slaves have rights as full human beings and are not to be treated as property.

> Even the "debt-servants" can't leave until 7 years.

It's not that they CAN'T leave until 7 years, but that's the LONGEST they can be kept.

[Skeptical]

> Wow, not at all. When God accommodates human behavior, He is not, then, declaring that behavior to be good, He is merely permitting less than the ideal because of our weaknesses.

This is inconsistent with the narrative of Jesus and the NT. Our sins were absolved through the sacrifice of Jesus. There is no further "accommodation". Also, why would a god need to accomodate human behavior? Is this god powerless to move against human wishes? The logical problems here seem to be grow by the second.

And with respect, I don't feel your response is much of an answer. Can I imagine a god who does as you say? Certainly. But possible does not equate to probable. I see no evidence for your position and it is certainly not supported by scripture. Your response is simply ex post facto reasoning for something that you cant justify.

[jimwalton]

> This is inconsistent with the narrative of Jesus and the NT.

Not at all. I'm not sure "absolved" is a biblical word (doctrinal accurate). Our sins are atoned, but the NT is clear that the sin nature still lives in us (Rom. 7.7-25; 8.12-14; Gal. 5.16-18, and many others), wreaking havoc and causing us to sin.

> Why would a god need to accomodate human behavior?

Jesus is firm in denouncing sin and its harmful effects, using Gen. 2.24 as his foundation. In Deuteronomy 24.1, we find that divorce is tolerated, but not authorized or sanctioned (Mal. 2.16). We can surmise that divorce was accommodated out of concern for the wellbeing of the women. Dt. 24.1 makes provision so the women are treated properly and protected. He is not making divorce acceptable, but limiting its harm.

If you read it carefully, Jesus didn't say in any that God had lowered his ideal. But he is a compassionate God, understanding the reality and effects of sin. He's a God of mercy, and doesn't just squeal with glee at any opportunity to slam us.

> Is this god powerless to move against human wishes?

Not at all, but why are you so eager to begrudge his grace?