Old Testament Law and Slavery

 

The Mosaic law has many requirements regarding workers. These workers are more like a servants instead of a slaves. This becomes clear in the details of the law as we look past the word “slave.” The people of this time and region did not have the ability to sail to far away lands and obtain slaves. Slaves were the result of conquest and war. There was also a form of servitude often called “debt slavery.” Here a person had borrowed money and could not pay it back. So he sold himself as a servant for money that paid off the debt. He would then be required to work as repayment. As we read the Mosaic law as well as the law code of Hammurabi, this form of being a debt servant becomes obvious. But it confuses modern readers because we are unfamiliar with it.

Debt Servitude, Not Slavery

1: Servants are paid money up front for work. This is because the person owed a debt that could not be paid and becoming a servant was a way to pay it off. I should also stress that this was not a cash economy. All wealth and means of survival was not a matter of money. People lived off the land, had animals, gardens, and lived in simple houses. You literally could not buy most of the things you needed. But money still mattered and it was important.

Exodus 21:1 (The servants are purchased.)

Deuteronomy 15: 12-15 (This repeat of Exodus 21 makes it clear that the servant was paid the money.)

Leviticus 25: 35 – 39 (Things are incredibly clear here.)

(If someone wants to argue about this, the facts are simple. We simply have no reference to any other type of servitude. We have many references to paying the servant up front. Why should we ignore what he have evidence for? And why should we instead believe in something that we have no evidence for? For even more evidence, see 7.)

Time limits on Servitude

2. The servant is to be freed after 6 years unless he chooses to remain a servant.

Exodus 21: 2-6

Deuteronomy 15: 16-17

(Hammurabi’s code # 117-- In this time period and location, runaway money lending had become a problem. People with money to loan thought they could get rich off interest and made loans that people could not pay. So laws like this were set up to prevent another economic crash. One had happened.)

You Can’t Kill Servants

3. Unlike slaves, Hebrew servants could not be killed by their masters. This was punished with the death penalty. For contrast, the law of Hammurabi is so different.

Exodus 21: 20

(This is distinctive from Hammurabi’s code. #210 says that if a man kills a woman, his daughter must be executed. But if he kills the slave girl of another man, he pays a fine. If a doctor kills a slave while operating, he must replace with another. If a building housing a slave crashes and the slave dies, then the builder must replace with another slave. #219 #231. If the shoddy builder kills a free man, then the builder must be executed. #229. If a doctor operates on a free man and the patient dies, then the doctor must have his hands cut off. #218. If a prisoner is beaten to death in the prison, similar things emerge. A free man being killed means the prison guard must be killed. A slave being killed means the guard must pay a fine. #116 It must be emphasized that laws of this time and place spoke in specific examples of what is called “case law.” These examples were intended to be used as a basis for understanding more general principles.)

Forced Slavery Banned

4. Forcing someone into servitude is punished with death.

Exodus 21: 16

Deuteronomy 24:7 

Exodus 22:21 

Exodus 23: 9

(Some argue that this refers to stealing another person’s slave instead of forcing someone into slavery. This is ridiculous for many reasons. Most importantly, the text of Exodus 21:16 does not refer to stealing or kidnapping a slave or servant. It refers to stealing or kidnapping a man. The Hebrew word is most often translated as “man.” Another problem with this is that the entire system of Hebrew servitude involved paying money to the servant up front. Imagine a situation where a servant was captured and forced to work without being paid up front? Would that not count as illegal kidnapping? Again, why are we finding forced slavery in the Mosaic law when nothing is discussed therein except debt servitude? For comparison, Hammurabi’s code has a very similar law. #15. But there the terminology makes it very clear that this is about a slave being stolen, not a man. In fact, all theft is punished with death in Hammurabi’s code. #22

 

Alternatively, other critics argue that this law only bans Israelites from enslaving fellow Israelites. The argument is that the Mosaic law allows enslavement of foreigners by Israelites. They support this interpretation with Deuteronomy 24:7. The argument is that Deuteronomy is clarifying and limiting Exodus 21:16. The problem with this interpretation is clear when one reads Exodus 21 all the way through. The chapter opens up by stating the rule regarding the 6 year limits on service specifically for Israelites. Then the chapter moves to saying that “He who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.”

The text of Exodus doesn’t specify that this is only a ban on murdering Israelites. The 6 year limit law in the chapter specifies that it only applies to Israelites. Then the chapter drops that clarifying language and just says that you are banned from murdering simply a “person.” Genesis 6:9 makes it clear that all murder is prohibited for all humanity by God. Are we to believe that Israelites could murder foreigners? Clearly that isn’t the case. Or are we to believe that this law just reminded the Israelites not to murder each other?

In Exodus 22:21 it says, “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.” Then in Exodus 23: 9 it says, “Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.” It seems obvious that these verses are there to clarify that laws like Exodus 21:12 and 21:16 apply to foreigners also. These verses remind the Israelites that they to treat the foreigner the way they want to be treated. Thus, what counts as mistreatment or oppression of fellow Israelites would count as the same for foreigners. 

 

Finally, the book of Exodus is both a story of that event as well as a record of much of the Mosaic law. Logically, we have to ask,  "What counted as oppression of the Israelites by the Egyptians?" Those would be things that the Israelites cannot do to foreigners. Exodus 1 tells us that the Egyptians forced them to do very difficult work and that Pharoah killed their children to control their numbers. So those things would be banned. You cannot kill foreigner’s children.  And just exactly how did the Egyptians get the Israelites to do the super difficult work without using force? Exodus 3 is clear that the Israelites did not want to do all that work. Exodus 5 tells us that the Egyptians massively increased the workload of the Israelites, presumbably increasing their work hours per day.

But the most important one of all was this. Pharoah would not let the Israelites GO. They could not leave the land of Egypt. They specifically wanted to go into the desert and worship their God there. Pharoah tries to get specific and let them go with limitations. But Moses insists that they don’t really know what God wants them to do once they get there. Pharoah insists that this lack of control for him makes letting them go impossible. Over and over, this is the primary mistreatment of the Israelites. They were not allowed to go where they wanted. Instead, they were imprisoned and forced to do very difficult work.

The implications of this are blatantly obvious. The Israelites cannot treat foreigners in their land like this. The story of the Exodus was instrumental in inspiring the modern abolition movements. It’s honestly silly to suggest that such a text is somehow condoning of slavery.)

No Time Limit for Foreigners

5. Since only Israelites were allowed to own land in Israel, then foreigners could become permanent servants without the special ceremony.

Leviticus 25: 23 – 28 & 35 – 46

(It’s commonly objected that non Israelites were “slaves” as we think of the word and Israelites were “servants.’ Some translations render Leviticus 25 by using different the term “servant” for Israelites and “slave” for foreigners. In reality it’s the same Hebrew word “ebed” every single time. The economic options for foreigners were very limited in a land where Israelites were required by the Mosaic law to own all of the land.)

Runaway Slaves Protected, not Returned

6. Foreign servants that ran away from abusive foreign masters were to be protected and not sent back.

Deuteronomy 23: 15 -16

(This is distinctive from Hammurabi’s code. Such action was punishable by death. #16 - #20. The language of this passage in Deuteronomy of “dwell in your midst” makes it clear that these are foreign refugees.)

Physical Abuse Ends Servitude

7. Proven physical abuse of a servant meant that the servant went free without any repayment of the initial payment from the master.

Exodus 21: 20 – 21 & 26 – 27

(Some argue that this meant servants could be physically punished by law. This is incorrect. If there is proof of abuse, the servant goes free without repaying any money. If the servant dies, then the master must be executed. But you can’t let the servant go without some form of proof. Remember, these ancient case laws were intended to use specific situations to teach general principles. A man with many scars on his back could reasonably be let go as well. Also, these verses make it abundantly clear that the servant was paid money at the beginning of the arrangement.)

Girls had to be Provided For

8. Daughters sold by fathers as servants were not permanent slaves. Rather, the father was no longer able to provide for his family due to his debt burden. This was done to giver her a way to survive among her more extended tribal family. (see 11.) The assumption was the master or one of his sons would marry her. If not, then she must be provided for as a daughter. If not provided for, then she could go free without any repayment of the money.

Exodus 21: 7 - 11

Servants were not Property

9. Verses that call the servant the “property” of the master are misleading. Literally, the translation is saying that the servant is the master’s “silver.”

Treat Foreigners Well

10. Israelites were commanded not to abuse foreigners and treat them like fellow Israelites.

In a different way, these passages state the Golden Rule found in Matthew 7:12.

Leviticus 15: 33 – 34

Exodus 22:21

Exodus 23:9

Exodus 12: 49

Servitude to Extended Family Members

11. Israelite servants were selling themselves to local tribal family members. This is very different from long distance trade in slaves across oceans. Such technology did not exist. Even seafaring peoples had to content with a wide variety of different nations.

Sex Slavery Not OK

12. Some argue that Leviticus 19: 20 – 22 allows the rape of other men’s slaves as long as a guilt offering is made to God. But Deuteronomy 19 sheds light on this. The difficult challenge is that Deuteronomy 19 raises questions too. So we will look at that passage first.

Vs 22 – 24 tells us that a woman who is pledged to be married must be killed if she is caught sleeping with another man. Also, the man must be killed. Next, vs 25 – 27 tells us that if the sex takes place in the country where no one can hear her scream, then we must assume she screamed for help. In that event, only the man must be killed. The text goes on to say that this case is like that of murder. The Mosaic Law commands the death penalty for numerous things like cursing your parents or practicing witchcraft. Numbers 35: 30 – 31 tells us that murderers must be executed and cannot be let off with only a monetary fine. Thus, this entails that all other death penalties can be reduced to a monetary penalty.

But, what of the case of the woman from Deuteronomy 19 out in the country? Here, the man who had sex with her while she screamed for help must be treated like a murderer. He must be executed. Furthermore, this passage from Deuteronomy shows awareness and affirmation of the statements in Numbers 35.

Finally, Deuteronomy 19 looks at a third example that causes all of the controversy. A man who rapes a woman that is pledged to be married must marry her since no one else will. All evidence that this is indeed a rape is due to the use of the word “rape” in english translations. For contrast, the previous example of a woman out in the country made the point with more words. Some translations render this as he “seizes” her.

With the context of the previous passage we ask, “If it was rape, then why didn’t she scream out? Why isn’t he executed?” It would be odd if a man could only rape a betrothed woman in the country and put to death. But then do it anywhere else and she would be forced to marry him. Thus, it seems clear that this was a way out of a marriage arrangement for a woman. This is talking about consensual sex.

Back to Leviticus 19: 20 – 22. Critics argue that this passage condones raping slaves. But it should be clear at this point that rape was punished by death. Furthermore, these verses make it clear that the woman was betrothed to marry another man. Critics simply assume that this passage is talking about rape of a slave girl because the text doesn’t say she wasn’t raped and they prefer to think of debt servants as forced slaves. In reality, this passage is merely prescribing the ritual requirements that involve the situation of a man sleeping with a betrothed woman who is also a servant.