Does the Bible Promote Slavery? — Part 2
Previously, I wrote an article titled Does the Bible Promote Slavery? In that post, I demonstrated that the Bible does not promote slavery, despite the skeptics’ contentions.
I made several points to support this claim. Perhaps the most significant was the idea that slavery in ancient Israel was a far cry from the antebellum slavery we think of today. In all reality, it was more like indentured servitude — something akin to an employer/employee relationship. You see, when a person couldn’t afford to pay off their debts, they would sell/contract themselves to work for a wealthier individual provided that the wealthy individual pay off their debts.
In essence, slavery was ancient Israel’s welfare program — a vast improvement on handing out “free” money or sending people to debtors prison. This institution at least allowed the person to work and keep his dignity in tact.
I made eight points in my article, but two in particular came under attack. As I expected, several raised “what abouts?” with respect to a couple Old Testament texts.
The two points that skeptics challenged were 1) Masters couldn’t harm their slaves, and 2) Slavery was only for seven years. I’ll address each of these objections in turn.
MASTERS COULDN’T HARM THEIR SLAVES?
The skeptic argued that I was being dishonest by stating that God forbade harming slaves. He pointed me to Exodus 21:20-21 which reads:
When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
So, does this text support harming slaves as the skeptic suggested? I don’t believe so for several reasons.
CASE LAWS VS. GOD’S IDEALS
Notice that this text is a case law which is to be distinguished from God’s ideals.
God’s ideals, which reflect his desires, are his universal standards that are true in all places at all times. For example, all people possess intrinsic value because they are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). God’s ideal is that we treat people with dignity and respect and love them as we love ourselves (Lev. 19:18).
Case laws, on the other hand, are not universal in scope, but only refer to specific situations. In most instances, these case laws assume that moral concessions have been made against God’s ideals. You can typically spot a case law because they usually start with the words “if” or “when” like our text above.
Because this text is a case law, which by definition assumes someone has sinned by not meeting God’s ideals (Gen. 1:26-27; Lev. 19:18), it’s absurd to suggest that this text “supports” harming slaves. This law is simply trying to make the best out of a less than ideal situation.
FULL PERSONHOOD OF SLAVES
In addition, this text presupposes the full personhood of the slave. We read in Genesis 9:6 that killing another human being resulted in the death penalty because “God made man in his own image.”
Many think the death penalty is cruel and outdated, but notice the underlying reason for it is that people are valuable in God’s sight. When we look at our text, Exodus 21:20, we read that if a man kills his slave, “he shall be avenged.” The Hebrew word for avenged — naqam — always involved the death penalty in the Old Testament.1 Thus, this law treats slaves like the full humans that they are by demanding “life for a life.”
NO MURDEROUS INTENT
It also appears that the man’s intent was not murder in this case because he uses a rod — a tool for discipline — instead of a more traditional murder weapon like a sword or a spear. More than likely the slave was guilty of some serious wrong doing (probably theft).
The law didn’t condemn discipline for serious infractions (corporal punishment was universally practiced in the ancient world),2but it did forbid disciplining the person so severely that they died or had permanent injury.
SURVIVES A DAY OR TWO?
There’s also dispute on what it means that “the slave survives a day or two.” Some think that the slave dies after a couple of days. If this is true, the aggressor does not receive the same naqam (death penalty) because it’s obvious he did not intend to kill the man (as opposed to if he died right away). In this case, his penalty is that he loses out on the years of work he already paid for when he paid off the man’s debts. This is why the text says, “for the slave is his money.”
Others argue that verse 21 contrasts verse 20 in that the slave doesn’t die at all. Instead, he requires medical treatment for a few days which costs money, and per the case law two verses earlier, the owner had to pay for the medical treatment (Ex. 21:18-19). Furthermore, the owner would have missed out on the slave’s work for a few days. These reasons are why the text states, “for the slave is his money.”
In either case, the owner pays what is equivalent to a steep fine. It seems obvious that the law’s intent was to discourage any kind of harm to the slave by hitting owners where it counts — their wallets.
CONSIDER THE CONTEXT
Finally, we need to consider the full context by reading just a couple verses later:
“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth” (Ex. 21:26-27).
There’s no dispute this text affirms that if an owner permanently injures his slave, the slave gets his freedom, even though the owner already paid off the slaves’ debts. This would be equivalent to suing for damages today.
In the end, it’s disingenuous to suggest that the Old Testament supports mistreating slaves. Even this objectionable text suggests otherwise by prescribing the death penalty or serious fines for harming slaves.
SLAVERY WAS ONLY FOR SEVEN YEARS
In my first article, I referenced Deuteronomy 15:12 in support of the idea that slavery wasn’t like antebellum slavery where it was “once a slave always a slave.” The text reads:
“If any of your people — Hebrew men or women — sell themselves to you and serve you six years, in the seventh you must let them go free.”
The objection I received, which is a valid one, is that this was only true of Israelites. Their treatment of foreigners, therefore, was cruel and unjust. While an overwhelming majority of slaves in ancient Israel would have been Jewish, foreign slaves existed who didn’t have the same seven year mandate. The text in support of this claim is Leviticus 25:44-46:
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you inherit as a possession forever.
How should we think about this text? Does it suggest Israel could treat foreigners like property? Again, I don’t believe so for several reasons.
NO KIDNAPPING ALLOWED
First, we must take into account Exodus 21:16 which states:
“He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.”
God did not allow kidnapping anyone and forcing them into slavery. Meaning, these foreign slaves described in Leviticus 25 must be acquired by different means. They either voluntarily came to Israel looking for a better life (Jewish life was a vast improvement on other parts of the Ancient Near East), or they were prisoners of war.
It should be obvious that Israel couldn’t simply allow POWs to run rampant around Israel. After all, these were men who had just recently tried to kill the Israelites! No one in their right mind would let them roam freely.
Since jailing wasn’t really an option, the only other option available was slavery. This institution subdued the foreigner who desired Israel’s destruction. In most cases, POWs did forced labor for the Israeli government constructing buildings and roads.
CARE FOR THE FOREIGNERS
We also need to consider what the law said about treating foreigners. Consider these two texts:
When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall do him no wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself. — Leviticus 19:33-34
Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. — Deuteronomy 10:19
These texts should give us pause before we jump to the conclusion that the Israelites had the freedom to treat foreigners poorly. These texts seem to suggest the exact opposite. We even see some of these laws played out in Ruth (a Moabite) as she was able to glean from Boaz’s field (an Israelite). So why didn’t foreign slaves get the same opportunity of freedom as the Israelites? This brings us to my next point.
ONLY ISRAELITES COULD OWN LAND
God had set apart the land specifically for the Israelites. Leviticus 25:23 reads:
The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me.
Why wouldn’t God allow them to sell their property to foreigners? It’s because he had the world’s salvation in mind. You see, Israel needed to establish a context, free of pagan influence, where they could live as God’s people under God’s rule. This context was necessary for Israel’s Messiah to come one day, perfectly fulfill the law that nobody else could keep and die as a once-for-all sacrifice for sins (something their sacrificial system pointed to).
If the Israelites had simply sold off their land to foreigners every time time they got into a financial bind, the nation would have ceased to exist and no promised Messiah would have been possible.
This point about the land is significant because if one couldn’t own land to support himself, his only other option for survival was slavery. Meaning, offering freedom to a foreign slave every seventh year would have been pointless. They would have simply sold themselves right back into slavery in order to have food, clothing, and shelter.
CONSIDER THE CONTEXT
Finally, further reading indicates that foreigners still found ways to gain their freedom and become independently wealthy. The very next verse which the skeptics leave off is Leviticus 25:47. It reads:
If a stranger or sojourner with you becomes rich, and your brother beside him becomes poor and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner with you or to a member of the stranger’s clan.
In other words, it doesn’t seem like the treatment of the foreigner is all that bad. They found ways to purchase their own freedom and make a living for themselves while living amongst the Israelites.
And if you’re tempted to think that this is unfair treatment of foreigners, keep in mind that every nation shows privilege towards its own citizens. If you’re an American citizen, you get benefits that non-American citizens don’t get. The same was true in ancient Israel. There’s nothing unjust about Leviticus 25:44-46.
SLAVERY WAS NECESSARY
Some still protest and ask why God didn’t simply outlaw slavery altogether. He didn’t because it would have led to financial collapse. Slavery, though not ideal, was the way most people in that world provided for themselves and their families.
It would have been equivalent to taking a less than ideal job today. Yes, you’d rather have a different job that paid more money or didn’t require as much manual labor, but it’s better than being unemployed and your family on the street. Think about the millions of people who would be worse off in our country if we got rid of hard labor and low paying jobs. The death toll would be catastrophic.
In the same way, ancient slavery was a way to provide for the lower-class in ancient Israel and in a way was necessary for their survival.
