Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Exodus

[Pree]

Is there any justification for why God allowed the Israelites to beat their slaves?

In Exodus 21:20-21, God says, “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.”

I know that Biblical slavery wasn’t identical to the chattel slavery in the West. But Biblical slavery still allowed you to beat your slaves. And I can’t think of any context where that would be morally acceptable. So how do Christians justify this?

[jimwalton]

You misunderstand the Torah. First of all, it's not legislation. The Torah is a covenant agreement between the suzerain (God) and His people (the Israelites). Rather than serve as legislation, its point was to establish a reputation for YHWH as a patron of order. It describes how the Israelite people should maintain their culture's conception of order in a vassal relationship with their deity. Therefore, to see Ex. 21.20-21 as justification for God allowing Israel to beat their slaves is a sweeping misunderstanding of the Torah.

Second, the Torah is instruction in wisdom instead of legislation. God is not telling His people how to act or what to do, but instead how to be wise and just. Exodus 21.20-21 is neither law about nor permission for nor justification of beating. To see it as such is an outlandish distortion of the intent of the text.

Third, if anything, the Torah is more casuistic (hypothetical situations to give wisdom to the judge) rather than apodictic (rules about what a judge is required to do). As such, we cannot view Ex. 21.20-21 as a real situation, let alone a justifiable one. In the Israelite law codes, case law assumes the equality of all citizens and thus punishment for crime is not hindered or magnified based on class or wealth.

Fourth, the verse is neither giving permission to the man to beat a slave nor justifying it. The whole section is about forfeiture and restitution. What it is saying is that the master is accountable for his actions. If his slave is incapacitated, the master has injured his own pocketbook (Ex. 21.21, his own "money"); if his slave is injured, the master is held to appropriate punishment (Ex. 21.23-25) and the slave is to go free (Ex. 21.26-27); if the slave dies, the master is to be executed (Ex. 21.20). The text neither allows masters to beat their slaves nor justifies such behavior.

Fifth, because the Torah is wisdom-oriented, casuistic, and is covenantal rather than legislative, your accusation is misguided. The uncertainties in the terms in the verses and the situations surrounding the hypothetical beating make it difficult to construct what has happened with any confidence, which jeopardizes any attempt to derive the principles you have from the scenario.

Sixth, ancient judges were not expected to consult previous cases or books of legislation in preparation for making their decisions, as lawyers and judges do today. There is no example of such in the entire ancient world. Instead, the Torah was given to instruct people in wisdom so they could use their heads and common sense to make wise decisions that contributed to order in the community/nation and to maintain the functional order that God had built into creation.

To sum all this up, a judge was supposed to use his common sense to evaluate the situation according to principles of justice, order, the good of the community, and the covenant relationship with God to rule wisely in what has been appropriate or unfair in the master's treatment of the slave. Generally speaking, in ancient Israel slaves were primarily debt slaves and not chattel. In general, Israel was warned against chattel slavery because they themselves had been slaves. Slaves were regarded as persons and not as property. Beating of people was generally not an approved or justifiable action. A master beating his slave was generally not viewed positively. Injury would be retributed upon the perpetrator by some appropriate means. As we look at the whole Torah for what it is teaching, there is no reason to regard Exodus 21.20-21 as allowing, approving, or justifying the beating of slaves.

[Pree]

Thanks, this was very informative. A few questions though. You say “slaves were not regarded as property”, despite Exo 21:21 saying “the slave is his property”.

Also you said “A master beating his slave was generally not viewed positively.” Where are you getting this from?

[jimwalton]

> You say “slaves were not regarded as property”, despite Exo 21:21 saying “the slave is his property”.

The Hebrew term is not particularly "property." It is כַסְפּוֹ, the word for "money." The master (employer, since most Israel slavery was debt slavery) stood to lose money if he mistreated his employee. Any such harsh treatment would deprive himself of income (his money). Chattel slavery was virtually (if not totally) nonexistent in ancient Israel. Here are the reasons:

First, The Israelites had been slaves themselves, and were warned against the whole institution, let alone chattel slavery. God wanted them to celebrate redemption from slavery, not to enslave others (Ex. 6.6; Lev. 26.13; Dt. 15.15, and others).

Second, the Old Testament affirms the full personhood of these debt-servants (Job 31.13-15; Dt. 15.1-18). Debt servants were still persons to value, not commodities to be owned and exchanged. Slaves in Israel were regarded as human beings with dignity.

> Also you said “A master beating his slave was generally not viewed positively.” Where are you getting this from?

The Torah views people as being in the image of God (Gn. 1.26-27), with inherent dignity and value. Physical aggression and violence were not acceptable behaviors. The OT provides cities of safe refuge for people who have been falsely accused (Num. 35). It speaks often of the lex talionis (eye for eye) to recognize that punishment should never exceed what an individual deserved. It speaks against violence against other people, in belittling, insult, hate, and physical violence, in thought, words, and deeds (Ex. 20.13). They were to love neighbor as self (Lev. 19.18). Their whole worldview as to be people of peace (Lev. 26.6; Num. 6.26). They were to be a nation of priests (Ex. 19.6).

It is in this cultural context that you assume (I presume because you simply read the words and didn't do any research) that God allowed and even justified the beating of slaves. It's just false. But if a man did beat his slave, there were some pretty serious consequences for the beater, as I mentioned.