Board index ‹ Slavery in the Bible

[Book Mitten]

Regarding slavery, I am aware that slavery was different during the times in question. This doesn't make it ok in my opinion. There's an OT passage saying that they could beat slaves with sticks. In addition, slaves may be paying off debts due to difficult conditions, or limited options. The fact that Christians campaigned against slavery later is a merit of their own efforts and not God's as far as I'm concerned. There were many who used Christianity to rationalize/justify their actions as slave drivers as well, such as in the USA and the Belgian Congo Free state.

[jimwalton]

Sure, let's talk about slavery. I agree with you (and so does the Bible) that slavery is not OK. And I also agree that there are many who used Christianity to rationalize/justify their actions and oppressions. They're monsters. Here is the more complete answer from the Bible.

The foundation of slavery as a moral practice rests on the concept of the fundamental inequality of human beings, and that it is both right and good to treat some people as less than human. From the outset, I can say with confidence that the Bible teaches no such thing. The Bible teaches that all humans are made in the image of God and endowed with the dignity that status confers. It teaches that all humans are endowed with this inalienable sanctity of incalculable worth and dignity. As such, owning another human being and treating them like property is contrary to the value God has made inherent in every individual of the human race.

Dr. Craig Blomberg rightly assures us that "the most important matter is [in what the Bible] actually says, and there is not a single text anywhere in the Bible that commands slavery."

Words change in their meaning through the eras. Slavery in the ancient world didn't mean what slavery means to us. With this accusation we need to distinguish between what we as moderns mean by "slavery" and what the ancients meant by slavery. Dr. Paul Wright, the president of Jerusalem University College, says, "When we think of slavery, the first thing that comes to mind is either slavery in the pre-Civil War U.S. or slavery as we hear it in places of the modern Middle East (via ISIS or such groups).

"The textual evidence that we have for slavery in the ancient world (—by this I mean the ancient Near East, the context in which ancient Israel arose, not ancient Rome) shows by and large a different kind of 'institution' (that's not even the right word to use). For this reason, the Hebrew word, 'eved, is better translated 'servant.' The overall textual evidence from the ancient Near East shows that slaves had certain rights—they could own property, for instance, or determine inheritance. Or they could become free, as the Bible allows, given certain circumstances. They were typically not bought and sold, opposite as the case in the medieval and modern worlds. 'Forced Labor,' or the corvée, is a more complicated issue, essentially a tax on person by the government for a certain period of time (e.g., 1 Kings 9:15). Note that the servants that Israel is allowed to take from among the foreigners are able to receive inheritance from their 'owner' (Lev. 25:46).

So let me comment on your selected text of Exodus 21.21, where it seems to say that an owner is allow to beat his slave, and as long as he doesn’t kill him, there is no punishment.

The worldview, as has been mentioned, is that there is no chattel slavery, and their worldview was such that all people are to be treated as human beings—none is to be treated as property. The context is one of casuistic law: giving hypothetical examples to guide a judge in his verdicts. With that in mind, the whole understanding of the text changes.

The whole segment (Ex. 21.12-36) consistently teaches that killing a person results in capital punishment for the perpetrator. The segment also consistently teaches that lex talionis (an eye for an eye—make the punishment fit the crime) is a guiding principle in every situation.

Lex talionis in the ancient Near East was not necessarily physical harm for physical harm. Various ancient law codes allowed for other forms of retribution and restitution, especially when we think of the law casuistically (hypothetical situations to offer legal wisdom). In some cases the restitution could be monetary, sometimes it would be physical, or sometimes in terms of property. The point was not that the perpetrator be physically hurt like the victim, but that he feel the proper amount of “pain” (whether financial, familial, or in property) commensurate with the offense. In Judges 15.11 Samson burned the Philistines’ grain stacks because they had deprived him of his wife. In that sense Samson is saying, “I gave it right back to them, injury for injury.” The basis for such laws was to insure legal and practical restitution, and thereby avoid the culturally disruptive necessity of seeking private revenge.

Back in Exodus 21 we see the same principles at work. Motive and circumstances should be taken into consideration (v. 13). In verse 15 we learn that “attack” is not necessarily only physical attack, but also treating someone with contempt, cursing them, or treating them disrespectfully. In verse 18 we read that if someone loses their temper and strikes another person with a fist, or throws something at them to cause injury, the perpetrator was responsible to pay for the victim’s medical expenses and to compensate him for loss of time. The attacker could potentially be executed for his crime if the victim dies, but if it turns out that the victim lives, the punishment then is not execution but whatever restitution or retribution is appropriate. The judge can decide.

It is in this context that the writer now turns to slaves, and the same rules apply. If an owner beats his slave and the slave dies, the owner is to be executed. In verse 20 the term “he must be punished” (Heb. naqam) implies capital punishment. After all, the victim was not a piece of property but rather a human being.

We are to take “but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two” in the same way of verse 18: If the victim doesn’t die, then the owner is “not to be punished” (v. 21, same term: naqam). In other words, the text is not saying that the perpetrator gets off scot free, but only rather that he will not be executed. Instead, as vv. 26-27 relate, lex talionis becomes the guiding principle: The punishment of the perpetrator is dealt out to fit the extent of his crime, and the slave gets to go free as restitution for the damage done.

Exodus 21.21 says that these laws are made “since the slave is his property.” The Hebrew word translated “property” is actually the word for “money.” In other words, given the worldview of the Israelites and the context of the law, we have to conclude that in the event of injury the laws of just recompense, just restitution, compensation, and lex talionis are brought to bear (vv. 26-27) just as they would be in situation where money, people, labor and property are involved.

Despite what many detractors accuse, the text does not allow or justify the beating of a slave by his master. The Bible doesn’t say it’s OK to beat him, it doesn’t say that there is no punishment as long as he doesn’t die, and it doesn’t claim that the slave is just a piece of property, anyway. Those are all misreadings and misinterpretations of the text.

Even about Leviticus 25.46 ("You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life") Jacob Milgrom says: "The law merely indicates that the jubilee doesn't apply to non-Israelite slaves. 'It does not imply that the slave is a piece of property at the mercy of his master' (Mendelsohn 1962:388)."

"Another indication that slaves were not simply viewed as property to be treated however the master wished can be seen in the fact that slaves sometimes shared rights of inheritance (Genesis 15.2-3), where Abraham’s servant will inherit his property if Abraham dies childless, and Genesis 30.1-13, where the sons of Leah's slaves become equal heirs with the sons of Leah and Rachel in the family of Jacob.”

Bob Walton says, "Slavery and indentured servitude in Scripture involved ownership of a person's labor, not ownership of the person. Any approach to slavery that implies one person can legitimately own another is contrary to Scripture because it denies the humanity of the slave." In that sense slavery is a lot like the NFL: They own the players' labor, not their person. They actually buy players (it's even the language we use), but it's not ownership of a person.

And lastly, there is absolutely no extrabiblical data on any slaves in Israel. The private and public documents of the ancient Near East from 3000 BC to the times of the New Testament are full of references to the practice of slavery in the parallel cultures, but nothing from Israel. Cole agrees and says that "slavery in Israel was rural, domestic, and small scale. There were no 'slave pens' of imperial Rome, or the racial subjugation of colonial America." What seems likely is that slavery hardly existed in ancient Israel.

So let me try to pull this together for you.

• There was no such thing as chattel slavery in the ancient world. That didn't happen until the Greco-Roman era, and then just as tragically in the colonial West. That is not what the Bible means by "slavery."
• Most "slaves" of the ancient world were debt slaves or corvee laborers. Debt slaves were more like what we call employees now (working every day to pay off our debts); corvee slaves were employees of the government, much like FDR's CCC.
• The laws in Exodus and Leviticus about slaves are casuistic law (case law). They speak of hypothetical situations to guide judges; we cannot assume anything about them is an actual historical reality.
• The Bible is definitely not saying that they could beat slaves with sticks.
• There is no extrabiblical data on slaves in Israel. From all our records, it seems altogether likely that slavery hardly existed in ancient Israel, and certainly not chattel slavery.
• In the Bible, slavery is not OK.