Does the Bible Promote or Condone Slavery?

I hear this one a lot from atheists and other critics of the Bible. "The Bible is immoral and promotes slavery!" They then cite passages from Exodus and Leviticus. Indeed, types of slavery were legal according to the OT law. But libertarians understand that just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's moral. And outlawing it, doesn't make it go away. (Today, slavery is illegal, but we have more people in illegal slavery than ever before.) I believe the same is true of God's law in the OT. Since the law was not given to all mankind, just Israel, we understand that just because something was legal, that doesn't mean it was morally right. Divorce was legal according to the OT law, but Jesus clarified that does not mean it was morally right.


I recently had a conversation with an atheist on facebook and decided I'd post some of it here for you to read.


Atheist: Your bible not only condones slavery, but demands it. It details how to do, when to do it, and who to do it to. How is that moral? How is your god moral if slavery was a perfectly acceptable way of life?

Me: I would love to answer your other questions David. I know very good answers for all of those. And they are good questions. But I have to ask first if you would be willing to accept the answer. Are you genuinely asking a question, or will you just find another excuse not to believe?

Atheist: I'm always open to anything. Are you asking me if I'm going to convert to Christianity based on the answers you give? Probably not. Maybe you'll give me something to think about, but I doubt it. Just like you're trying to convert me, I'm also trying to convert you. No one goes into a debate hoping to lose. I will always be open-minded, but can I same about you?

Me: Thanks for taking the time to read and for your honest answer.

"Now, Christianity [in the ancient world] never made an attack upon the evil of slavery, but it reached down to the slave in his degradation and lifted him up, assuring him of his liberty in Christ and preached a gospel that--the very nature of it--condemns slavery and it eventually broke the shackles of slavery from the bodies of men and cut the fetters from their minds and souls... the church did not instigate revolution... but it preached a gospel that was more revolutionary than a revolution has ever been..."

- Dr. J. Vernon McGee 

If it were not for the influence of the Bible, slavery would still be legal in most of the world. The first proponents of human rights were Bible-believing Christians motivated by their faith to abolish slavery because they believed the fundamental truth that all men are created equal in the image of God; people like William Wilberforce and Bartolome de las Casas. Today, most of the people I know who are fighting human-trafficking are Christians who are motivated by their faith in God and the authority of the Bible to do so.

This is one article that details slavery in the OT better than I can. http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/.../201102_108_slavery...

Why, in your worldview, is slavery wrong? I believe it is wrong because we are all made equal in God’s image so he determines our rights, not other men. Why, according to your view, can’t men determine the rights of others?

Atheist: First things first: You keep going back to WHY do I think things are wrong if I don't have some moral authority to tell me that it's wrong? I've told you already. Because we've evolved to know so. Do I know the EXACT reason or way we've evolved in this way? No. But using god or bible is no answer either. The bible is an immoral book in my opinion and I'm glad we don't get our morals from it. The OT is full of horrible things. God did horrible things. We've evolved to know those things are horrible that's why you don't follow 99% of the laws from the OT.

That article is missing one important thing. It's only covering the laws god gave concerning enslaving fellow Israelites. The bible makes a distinction between enslaving fellow Israelites and foreigners. Leviticus 25:39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God."

That's the passage that article is covering. But the article is misleading. Like this passage: "Note: In the Old Testament, outsiders did not impose servanthood — as in the antebellum South.6 Masters could hire servants “from year to year” and were not to “rule over … [them] ruthlessly” (Leviticus 25:46,53). Rather than being excluded from Israelite society, servants were thoroughly embedded within Israelite homes." But it fails to state the entire verse of Leviticus 25:46 which if you go back to verse 44 it says: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

So you see there that the god is clearly saying that when you "buy" foreigners you can keep them for life and even pass them on to your children as PROPERTY. That is not indentured servitude. That is slavery. The bible is saying that you just couldn't make your own people slaves. But as for foreigners, anything goes.

And since the Israelites are "special" people, they couldn't be slaves even though they could own slaves. Leviticus 25:47 “‘If a foreigner residing among you becomes rich and any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to the foreigner or to a member of the foreigner’s clan, 48 they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves. One of their relatives may redeem them: 49 An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in their clan may redeem them. Or if they prosper, they may redeem themselves. 50 They and their buyer are to count the time from the year they sold themselves up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for their release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired worker for that number of years. 51 If many years remain, they must pay for their redemption a larger share of the price paid for them. 52 If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, they are to compute that and pay for their redemption accordingly. 53 They are to be treated as workers hired from year to year; you must see to it that those to whom they owe service do not rule over them ruthlessly. 54 “‘Even if someone is not redeemed in any of these ways, they and their children are to be released in the Year of Jubilee, 55 for the Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

So you see, your god did most certainly condone slavery, he just didn't like Israelites being slaves. If you want more proof, god also goes on to differentiate between men and women Israelite slaves saying that Israelite women WON'T be let go after 7 years. In Exodus 21:7 is says "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." What a way to treat your daughter!

But the be all to end all is Exodus 21:2--6 where: “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life." FOR LIFE!! Sorry, but that is not indentured servitude. That is slavery. Slavery in the purest form. How horrible is that? If I give my slave a wife and they have children, when it's time for the man to go free, as long as I keep the woman and children hostage, and if the man doesn't want to leave his wife and children, then I can make them all my slaves (property) for life! That's your god's commandments. Those are his orders. There's no way to justify that. There's no way to twist that.

So, in conclusion, how can you claim to get your morality from such an immoral god and book?

Me:  "First things first: You keep going back to WHY do I think things are wrong if I don't have some moral authority to tell me that it's wrong? I've told you already. Because we've evolved to know so. Do I know the EXACT reason or way we've evolved in this way? No."
So it's mere opinion then. You also dodged my more specific questions.

The Leviticus passage

a. You shall not compel him to serve as a slave: In the Mosaic law, if one chronically could not pay his debts, he would have to work off the debt as a servant of his creditor. But these laws command fair, just and compassionate treatment of any Jewish man so unfortunate.

b. Shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee: Not only must such a servant be released when his debt was paid, but he also must be released at the year of Jubilee.

c. And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have; from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves: Foreign slaves among the Jews did not have the same rights as Hebrew slaves sold into servitude because of debt; they could be held as slaves for life, though they had to be treated humanely (Exodus 20:8-11; 21:20-21).

Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine, murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly.

The Bible acknowledged the slave’s status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46),
The Bible restricted the master’s power over the slave. Ex. 21:20).
The slave was a member of the master’s household (Lev. 22:11)
The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14)
The slave was required and to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).
The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17).
The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14)
The reality of slavery cannot be denied. Slaves were "slave labor played a minor economic role in the ancient Near East, for privately owned slaves functioned more as domestic servants than as an agricultural or industrial labor force."

Barnes’ notes says,
Verses 44-46

Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted. It was a patriarchal custom Genesis 17:12. Such slaves might be captives taken in war (Numbers 31:6 following; Deuteronomy 20:14), or those consigned to slavery for their crimes, or those purchased of foreign slave-dealers. The price of a slave is supposed to have varied from thirty to fifty shekels. See Leviticus 27:3-4, note; Exodus 21:32, note; Zechariah 11:12-13, note; Matthew 26:15, note. It was the object of Moses, not at once to do away with slavery, but to discourage and to mitigate it. The Law would not suffer it to be forgotten that the slave was a man, and protected him in every way that was possible at the time against the injustice or cruelty of his master. See the notes at Leviticus 25:46

Leviticus 25:54

In these years - More properly, by one of these means. The extreme period of servitude in this case was six years, as when the master was a Hebrew Exodus 21:2.
Looking at the law of the Jubilee from a simply practical point of view, its operation must have tended to remedy those evils which are always growing up in the ordinary conditions of human society. It prevented the permanent accumulation of land in the hands of a few, and periodically raised those whom fault or misfortune had sunk into poverty to a position of competency. It must also have tended to keep alive family feeling, and helped to preserve the family genealogies.
a. But in its more special character, as a law given by Yahweh to His special people, it was a standing lesson to those who would rightly regard it, on the terms upon which the enjoyment of the land of promise had been conferred upon them. All the land belonged to Yahweh as its supreme Lord, every Israelite as His vassal belonged to Him. The voice of the Jubilee horns, twice in every century, proclaimed the equitable and beneficent social order appointed for the people; they sounded that acceptable year of Yahweh which was to bring comfort to all that mourned, in which the slavery of sin was to be abolished, and the true liberty of God‘s children was to be proclaimed Luke 2:25; Isaiah 61:2; Luke 4:19; Acts 3:21; Romans 8:19-23; 1 Peter 1:3-4.

The Exodus passage
First of all, the 2-6 verse indicate someone who *willingly* stays. As in, it is his choice. And the word changes from slave to servant. He becomes a willing servant for life. Not an unwilling slave for life.

Verse 7
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

If a man sell his daughter - This the Jews allowed no man to do but in extreme distress - when he had no goods, either movable or immovable left, even to the clothes on his back; and he had this permission only while she was unmarriageable. It may appear at first view strange that such a law should have been given; but let it be remembered, that this servitude could extend, at the utmost, only to six years; and that it was nearly the same as in some cases of apprenticeship among us, where the parents bind the child for seven years, and have from the master so much per week during that period.

 Geneva Study Bible

And if a man {f} sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
(f) Forced either by poverty, or else with the intent that the master should marry her.

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

The mishpatim (Exodus 21:1) are not the "laws, which were to be in force and serve as rules of action," as Knobel affirms, but the rights, by which the national life was formed into a civil commonwealth and the political order secured. These rights had reference first of all to the relation in which the individuals stood one towards another. The personal rights of dependants are placed at the head (Exodus 21:2-11); and first those of slaves (Exodus 21:2-6), which are still more minutely explained in Deuteronomy 15:12-18, where the observance of them is urged upon the hearts of the people on subjective grounds.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

Ex 21:7-36. Laws for Maidservants.

7-11. if a man sell his daughter—Hebrew girls might be redeemed for a reasonable sum. But in the event of her parents or friends being unable to pay the redemption money, her owner was not at liberty to sell her elsewhere. Should she have been betrothed to him or his son, and either change their minds, a maintenance must be provided for her suitable to her condition as his intended wife, or her freedom instantly granted.

More detail on this site. http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Atheist: a.) "But these laws command fair, just and compassionate treatment of any Jewish man so unfortunate." JEWISH man, not foreigner. Concerning foreigners, they could treat them like crap and it was fine. They could beat them as long as they didn't die: Exodus 21:20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." That clearly says that the slave is property.

b.) Again, that only applies to fellow Israelites.

c.) Exodus 20:8-11 is only saying that the slaves must not work on the Sabbath. That has nothing to do with humane treatment, that's their law.

I've already posted Exodus 21:20-21 above for "a" and that is a horrible verse. That verse is an example of the immorality of the bible.

"Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world." Why wasn't murder permitted? Why wasn't lying permitted? Why wasn't fornication permitted?

"Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed." Did you seriously just compare divorce to SLAVERY?!

"God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly." Why not instruct them to not do it at all?

"The Bible acknowledged the slave’s status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23....." That verse has nothing to do with slavery. Leviticus 25:44-46 makes my point almost more than any other verse.

"The Bible restricted the master’s power over the slave. Ex. 21:20" So because they weren't supposed to kill their slave you're saying that's restricting their power? You forgot the part about being able to beat their slaves close to death and as long as they don't die within a day, then everything was fine. I guess if they die three days later because of internal bleeding or something then everything's still fine, right?

"The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14)" So were the donkeys and oxen, should the slaves still feel special?

"The slave was required and to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11)" Oh wow, thanks. I'm sure the slaves were just so happy to be able to get circumcised and were able to actually eat food from a god they probably didn't worship to begin with. You're saying they should happy that they were able to participate in religious ceremonies with their masters? Do you think slaves in the United States should have been just as grateful?

"The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17)." Well, that's finally ONE good thing the bible says about slaves.

"The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12). When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14)" Those last two only applied to fellow Israelites.

"....privately owned slaves functioned more as domestic servants than as an agricultural or industrial labor force." Except that they weren't. You can change the meaning of words all you like but a slave is slave. They beat their slaves. You can say they beat their domestic servants all you want but that doesn't change the reality of they were. They were slaves plain and simple.

If we know slavery is just as wrong as murder, why wasn't it banned along with murder? Why wasn't it one of the ten commandments? You say god allowed it? If so, your god is immoral. You say that it was different kind of slavery? I say it wasn't. Slavery is slavery. The bible obviously thinks it's perfectly fine to beat your slave as long as he doesn't die within a day or two. That is immoral. Your bible says it perfectly acceptable to own another being as property. That is immoral. Your bible says that it's perfectly acceptable to sell your daughter into slavery. That is immoral.

You can play all the mental gymnastics you like to justify slavery in your own mind, but that doesn't change the facts. We know slavery is wrong. Why doesn't your god?

"It may appear at first view strange that such a law should have been given; but let it be remembered, that this servitude could extend, at the utmost, only to six years;" That's not true. It clearly says in Exodus 21:7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do." So your boy Clarke is not being very honest.

"He becomes a willing servant for life. Not an unwilling slave for life." And only after the master keeps his wife and children hostage. 

Me: From here on I'm gonna be quoting scholars and commentators who know more about the ancient world than I.

Exodus 21:20

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

The Jewish authorities appear to be right in referring this law, like those in Exodus 21:26-27, Exodus 21:32, to foreign slaves (see Leviticus 25:44-46). The protection here afforded to the life of a slave may seem to us but a slight one; but it is the very earliest trace of such protection in legislation, and it stands in strong and favorable contrast with the old laws of Greece, Rome, and other nations. If the slave survived the castigation a day or two, the master did not become amenable to the law, because the loss of the slave was accounted, under the circumstances, as a punishment.

Clarke's commentary

If the slave who had been beaten by his master died under his hand, the master was punished with death - see Genesis 9:5, Genesis 9:6. But if he survived the beating a day or two the master was not punished, because it might be presumed that the man died through some other cause. And all penal laws should be construed as favourably as possible to the accused.

Coffman's commentary

This was a protective right granted to slaves that they should not be beaten to death! If that seems like a small blessing to us, let it be remembered that under the system in vogue all over the pagan world of that era, and extending down even until apostolic times, the Roman Law, in force all over the world, provided as a penalty against slaves, even for trivial and unintentional violations, that shame of the whole pagan world "flagellis ad mortera" (beaten to death),Exodus 21:26,27). Also, there was a protective right established here for the slave-owner who was not to be charged with murder in case a slave died under the lash, but he was to be punished.
If the slave, suffering such a punishment, survived even a few days and then died, the master was held free of the penalty of punishment, the loss of his slave being accounted a sufficient penalty.

 These are sections from the link I sent you last time.

"Legal Status : Slaves were considered 'property' in exclusion to their humanity. That is, to fire a bullet into a slave was like firing a bullet into a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human. There were no legal or ethical demands upon owners' as to how they treated their 'property'. Other than with the occasional benevolent master, only economic value was a main deterrent to abusive treatment.

Theoretically, some expressions of New World slavery had some protection from outright murder of a slave, but this was not very widely accepted:

"In the American South, 10 codes prescribed forced sale to another owner or emancipation for maltreated slaves. Nevertheless, cases such as State v. Hoover (North Carolina, 1839) and State v. Jones (Alabama, 1843) were considered sensational because slave owners were punished for savagely 'correcting' their slaves to death." [Britannica]

And the right-to-kill differed by groups [Britannica]:

"Legally the slave was usually defined as property, and the question then was whether he was movable property (chattel) or real property. In most societies he was movable property, but in some, real property… A major touchstone of the nature of slave society was whether or not the owner had the right to kill his slave. In most Neolithic and Bronze Age societies slaves had no such right, for salves from ancient Egypt and the Eurasian steppes were buried alive or killed to accompany their deceased owners into the next world. Among the Northwest Coast Tlingit, slave owners killed their slaves in potlatches to demonstrate their contempt for property and wealth; they also killed old or unwanted slaves and threw their bodies into the Pacific Ocean. An owner could kill his slave with impunity in Homeric Greece, ancient India, the Roman Republic, Han China, Islamic countries, Anglo-Saxon England, medieval Russia, and many parts of the American South before 1830…That was not the case in other societies. The Hebrews, the Athenians, and the Romans under the principate restricted the right of slave owners to kill their human chattel."

Now, this restriction on an owner as to what he/she could do with their personal 'property' should make us wonder about how the word 'property' is being used there. And indeed, the definition of 'property'--in the context of slavery--gives Anthropologists pause:

"The definition of slaves as property runs into conceptual as well as empirical problems. 'Property' is a shorthand and abstract term for a bundle of very specific and relatively exclusive rights held by a person (or group) relative to a thing (or person). To say that in any given society, something (say, a person) is 'property' has meaning only to the extent that the rights involved are specified and understood in the context of other rights prevalent in the society. For example, in many precolonial African societies, the kin group had the right to sell equally its slave and nonslave members, it had equal control over the wealth acquired by either of them, it extracted (or failed to extract) as much labor from one as from the other, and the majority of slaves were quasi-relatives or actual relatives, and, if prosperous enough, could acquire slaves of their own. Here, obviously, one must look at other features to find the difference between the slave and the 'free'." [NS:ECA:4:1191, s.v. "Slavery"]

Sale of family peers highlight this 'oddness' of the notion of 'property' when applied to people:

"A person would either enter into slavery or be sold by a parent or relative. Persons sold their wives, grandchildren, brother (with his wife and child), sister, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, nephews and niece" [HI:HANEL:1:665]

And this implied range of freedom/slavery can be seen all over the ANE. Buying and Selling, for example, can be the contractual terminology for child adoption:

"Older children were adopted by reimbursing their parents for the expenses of feeding and raising them. These transactions were recorded as if they were sales." [HI:DLAM:131]

and slaves had very specific legal rights (can real 'chattel property' have such?):

"Slaves had certain legal rights: they could take part in business, borrow money, and buy their freedom." [HI:DLAM:118]

"Guterbock refers to 'slaves in the strict sense,' apparently referring to chattel slaves such as those of classical antiquity. This characterization may have been valid for house slaves whose master could treat them as he wished when they were at fault, but it is less suitable when they were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines. The meaning 'servant' seems more appropriate, or perhaps the designation 'semi-free'. It comprises every person who is subject to orders or dependent on another but nonetheless has a certain independence within his own sphere of active." [HI:HANEL:1632]

"However, the idea of a slave as exclusively the object of rights and as a person outside regular society was apparently alien to the laws of the ANE." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Ancient Near East"]

One other important distinction has to do with how 'comprehensive' or exclusive was the 'property' aspect. In other words, to what extent was a slave only property, and not also, a human, a family member, a contracting agent. In the ANE at least, slavery was generally a mixture of these aspects--they were not ONLY property per se [HI:HANEL:1.40]:

"A better criterion for a legal definition of slavery is its property aspect, since persons were recognized as a category of property that might be owned by private individuals. A slave was therefore a person to whom the law of property applied rather than family or contract law. Even this definition is not wholly exclusive, since family and contract law occasionally intruded upon the rules of ownership. Furthermore, the relationship between master and salve was subject to legal restrictions based on the humanity of the slave and concerns of social justice."

A less dramatic illustration of this might be in a modern acquisition of one business by another business. I the employee--a 'bundle' of all my workplace obligations, the contract under which I work, the values I am supposed to uphold, the relationships I have with co-workers at the office, my skills, my organizational knowledge, and my career path in the firm--is 'sold' to other owning group (e.g., competitor, private investor, Wall Street, etc). There is, in this case, a 'property' aspect to my life-at-the-office. This does not mean, of course, that my family status as a dad is changed, or that I cannot vote in my country. My role and/or identity as a worker could thus be 'sold', 'transferred', and even 'inherited' (e.g., if the firm was privately owned, and the owner died with a successor). Our legal system recognizes this in many, many contracts under the heading "Successors and Assigns". But wherever I went, the state would still see me as a human, and prevent--as in the ANE-- my 'owner' from killing me.

He also comments on the Ex. 21 passage.

"The slave's personal dignity is also evident in the prescriptions concerning personal injury (Ex 21.20-27)., since the punishments for mistreatment are meant to restrain the abuse of slaves…Clearly, the personal rights of slaves override their master's property rights over them." [OT:DictOT5, s.v. "Slavery"]

Now, when I back up and look at this passage, factoring in these observations, I note the following:

1.      This passage is unparalleled in its humanitarian considerations.

2.      This passage is absolutely anti-abuse, in the strongest sense of the term.

3.      This passage is completely parallel to the case of the freeman, under discipline by the community.

4.      This passage is completely parallel to the case of a brawl between Hebrews:

5.      It applies primarily to the foreigner.

6.      The "because he is his property" is NOT about 'property', but about how the punitive payment was made (economic 'silver'--lost output, increased medical expense)

7.      It is a remarkable assertion of human rights over property rights.'

He goes into more detail about foreign slaves.

"Other references to 'slavery-like' situations in the Mosaic law: The 'Foreign slave".
 

In addition to the institution of Hebrew servanthood above, the Mosaic law has some material on two other kinds of servant/slave-type situations: captives of war and foreign slaves. There is not much material on these subjects, and, given the intention of the Law to differentiate between Israel and the nations, much of it falls into the exceptional category.

The first case is that of war captives in Deut 20. The scenario painted in this chapter is a theoretical one, that apparently never materialized in ancient Israel. It concerns war by Israel against nations NOT within the promised land. Since Israel was not allowed by God to seek land outside its borders (cf. Deut 2.1-23), such a military campaign could only be made against a foreign power that had attacked Israel in her own territory. By the time these events occurred (e.g. Assyria), Israel's power had been so dissipated through covenant disloyalty that military moves of these sort would have been unthinkable.

But the scenario involved offering peace to a city. If the city accepted peace, its inhabitants would be put to "forced labor" (cf. Gibeon in Josh 9), but this would hardly be called 'slavery' (it is also used of conscription services under the Hebrew kings, cf. 2 Sam 20.24; I Kings 9.15). If the city was attacked and destroyed, the survivors were taken as foreign slaves/servants (but the women apparently had special rights--cf. Deut 21.10ff) under the rubric of the second case (below).

We noted earlier in this essay that these were not 'slaves' in the proper sense of the word, but more 'vassals' or 'serfs'.

The second case is that of foreign slaves within Israel (Lev 25.44f):

Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 "`Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life

God orders the Israelites to make a distinction between the Hebrew servants and the those of foreign nations. They were:

·        Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them [Note: these would NOT include the Canaanites, but would be from remote nations. This would make the incidence level of this extremely small, except in the case of royalty or the ruling class. In those days, rulers would often have slaves with special skills, such as writing, teaching, translation, but the lives of these 'slaves' would not be representative of the common "western" slavery under discussion.]

·        The temporary resident situation would look more like the Hebrew institution (since the alien would be 'selling himself' as in that case). The main difference would be the absence of the "timed-release" freedom clauses, but the slave-for-life-for-love situation may have been what is behind the 'you CAN make them slaves for life' (implying that it was not automatic.).
 

·        The temporary resident already performed more mundane tasks for the people, for example wood and water services (cf. Deut 29.11: the aliens living in your camps who chop your wood and carry your water. ), in exchange for escape from Egypt or from troubles abroad. But these aliens were not confined to some 'lower class' in the Israelite assembly, since it is obvious that they could rise to affluence and actually BUY Hebrew servants as well:

"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, 48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. (Deut 25.47)

As such, it looks more like the Hebrew institution than the 'western' version.
 

·        It is not to be expected that foreign servants would have the same rights and privileges as Hebrew servants, given the 'showcase' nature of the law. There were many distinctions along these lines, to highlight the value of covenant membership. Some of these include:

§         Dietary laws: Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God. (Deut 14.21)

§         Cancellation of Debts: 1 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. (Deut 15.1-3)

§         Interest charges: Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. 20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, (Deut 23.19ff)

This shows that the standard for intra-Hebrew cultural practice was to be higher than international practice (but note that foreigners could easily become members of the assembly of Israel and participate in the covenant blessings, so this is not an exclusion scenario at all.) And indeed, such standard cultural priorities are meant as inducements to assimilate to the host community--they are like a 'Benefits of Membership' brochure.

Indeed, it must still be remembered that the nation of Israel was supposed to welcome runaway foreign slaves with open arms (Deut 23.15).

·        The case of the female war-captives is remarkable for its 'instant exaltation' of the woman--past slave, past concubine, all the way to full wife(!):

"The position of a female captive of war was remarkable. According to Deuteronomy 20:14, she could be spared and taken as a servant, while Deuteronomy 21:10-11 allowed her captor to take her to wife. While the relationship of the Hebrew bondwoman was described by a peculiar term (note: concubine), the marriage to the captive woman meant that the man 'would be her husband and she his wife.' No mention was made of any act of manumission; the termination of the marriage was possible only by way of divorce and not by sale." [OT:HLBT, 127]

·        Finally, it should be noted that the passage says that they "can" make them slaves for life--not that they "were automatically" slaves for life. Somehow, freedom was the default and lifetime slavery only an 'option'.
 

It should also be recognized that the Law did make some allowance for less-than-ideal praxis in the day (e.g. polygamy, divorce), but nevertheless regulated these practices and placed definite limits and protections around these areas. This foreign semi-slavery seems to have fallen into this category as well.

 
 
But even with this class of people being 'below' regular Hebrew slaves, there was still a God-directed humanitarian vision required of Israel--in strong contradiction to other lands…

Let's see some of the data which reveals this perspective.

(1) "Although slaves were viewed as the property of heads of households, the latter were not free to brutalize or abuse even non-Israelite members of the household. On the contrary, explicit prohibitions of the oppression/exploitation of slaves appear repeatedly in the Mosaic legislation.  In two most remarkable texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh charges all Israelites to love ('aheb) aliens (gerim) who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Like Exodus 22:20 (Eng. 21), in both texts Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her slaves. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the Israelites were to look to Yahweh himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities." [HI:MFBW:60]

(2) The classic alienation of insider-outside social stratification (a major component of Western and even Roman slavery) was minimized in Israel by the inclusion of the domestics in the very heart-life of the nation: covenant and religious life. This would have created social bonds that softened much of any residual stigma associated with the servile status. This was accomplished through religious integration into the religious life of the household:

"However, domestic slavery was in all likelihood usually fairly tolerable. Slaves formed part of the family and males, if circumcised, could take part in the family Passover and other religious functions. Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household (note: allowing easier access to family bonds)" [OT:I:101]'

The rest of what I posted was more from the website. You can go to the link and read more back and forth. http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html It's clear he didn't actually read through the site as it answered all of his objections.

The conversation on slavery ended here. One thing I didn't get to expand upon is that the OT laws are often misread as God's attempt to right every wrong in society. And reading them this way, it's easy to think that the laws are pretty messed up by today's standard. Of course, that wasn't the purpose of the law at all. Often when people say God should right every wrong and stop all evil, they usually mean everyone worse than themselves. If God were to really do that, you'd better duck 'cause he's coming for you too. No, we don't have to guess what the purpose of the OT law was, Paul flat out tells us in Galatians.

 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”

The law God gave Israel was not meant to fix their sin, but mainly to reveal their sin and their need for a Savior.