by jimwalton » Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:08 am
> Lev. 25.44-45
Catharine Hetzer, a foremost scholar on ancient Israelite slavery, wrote, "Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another (chattel slavery) was not permitted. Rather, slaves were seen as an essential part of an Israelite household. In fact, there are cases in which, from a slave’s point of view, the stability of servitude under a household where the slave was well treated would have been preferable to economic freedom."
It was more like employment than anything else. God did not advocate slavery. As mouthpieces for God, the prophets spoke loudly about the brutalities and abuses of slavery. They looked forward to the dissolution of slavery and advocated it.
The implication from Lev. 25.42-45 is that the foreigners are not God's servants, and therefore can be slaves. God hadn't redeemed them from Egypt, so they were still indentured. But since Israelites didn't own other people as chattel, these foreigners provided more of a long-term, stable workforce—employees for life, as my father was in his company. They didn’t have to be released at Jubilee.
The Israelite worldview would have been more akin to our modern sports world where one team can buy the contract of an individual, and now that player "belongs" to that ball club. They owned his labor.
Israel was a country of a beneficial labor pool. They could take foreigners into their homes as workers (buy them), and over the course of several generations provide for their eventual citizenship. A foreigner was not allowed to own land in Israel. "Serving within Israelite households was a safe haven for any foreigner; it was not to be an oppressive setting, but offered economic and social stability" (Copan).
> Ex. 21.2-6
This is not "how to keep a Hebrew slave forever." That's quite humorous, actually, to look at it that way. It's a gross distortion of the text.
First of all, Exodus 21 is casuistic law, not apodictic. It's hypothetical situations to guide judges to be able to make wise decisions, not commands (prescriptive legislation) of "this is how you must do it."
Secondly, this text doesn't endorse the rights of masters to abuse their slaves, but the rights of the slaves and protection for them. We have in the Bible the first appeals in all of world literature to treat slaves as human beings for their own sake and not just in the interests of their masters.
Third, the text is speaking about debt slavery, not chattel slavery. Slavery was not a desirably aspect of social behavior in ancient Israel. The text is not a way to manipulate a Hebrew slave to stay with you forever. Instead, it provides a reasonable and fair economic solution in the various cases of indenture and paying off of those debts.
> Exodus 21:20-21
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.
> So god is saying you can beat your slave up to the point of death, but don't kill them, and it's totally OK because THEY ARE YOUR PROPERTY.
You can now see that this is totally false.
> This is the kind of thing I mention when I tell people that religion is harmful to individuals. It makes otherwise normal, moral people do things like defend slavery rather than realize, "Hey, maybe this bible thing is full of shit."
Then you should stop slandering the Bible on false premises. The Bible says that people who lead others astray will be subject to worse judgment.