SoCal Theologica: Theological Musings from the West Coast

Introduction

I was sitting at the Freedom Day event, held last year at a nearby university, when I heard a professor, the bulk of whose presentation I found very compelling, make the statement that the Bible supported slavery. I understood what he meant. However, in the context we were in, namely a conference that made people aware of the modern sex slave trade, the comment was irresponsible. While this very commendable gentleman attempted to balance his comment, it was too late. This type of comment would cripple a discussion concerning the biblical response to the trade. As a Christian scholar, it clearly seems to me that Christians must provide a biblical definition and response to the modern slave trade. I would like to do this in two installments. First, I will define slavery in the bible and comment on the differences between it and the modern trade. Due to the fact that the clearest comments on slavery are found in the Old Testament, I will concentrate on that portion of the Christian Scriptures. Second, I will provide what I think is a biblically driven, theologically framed, and historically informed response to the modern trade.

Installment #1: Consulting the Torah for Definition

In order to understand the biblical response to the modern slave trade, one must answer several questions. First, when we talk “slave trade,” are we talking about the same institution in ancient times as we are today? Second, what are the distinctions (if any) between the two institutions? Third, how does the biblical material deal with the ancient institution? Israel did not simply accept uncritically the common notion of slavery inherent in the ancient Near East. Israel was unquestionably unique in the ancient world concerning slavery. Concerning this notion, at least four points are worth noting.[1]

First, Israel found its own origins rooted in slavery. Wright notes that most epics of national origin were elaborate ethnic myths meant to inspire worship of the nation’s ancestral past. By contrast, Israel’s past was rooted in slavery that became increasingly difficult and inhumane as it continued. In their legislation, this experience clearly colored their disposition toward slavery. For example, they could not own Israelites as slaves; such was incompatible to being equally redeemed brothers (Lev 25:42-43, 46, 53, 55). They also had to treat aliens with the exodus in mind (Exod 23:9 cf. 22:21; Deut 15:15). In other words, due to their own origin, they were to empathetically identify themselves with the slave in their midst.

Second, as mentioned above, the Torah provided a few notable pieces of cultic legislation concerning slaves in Israel. For instance, slaves were to be included in the religious life of Israel. They must be allowed to enjoy the festivals and holy days (Deut 16:11-14). They were to take part in Passover (Exod 12;44), as well as be granted the seventh day as a weekly rest (Exod 20:10).

Third, Israel’s so called “civil” law protected slaves (unheard of in the ancient Near East). Two laws in Exodus in particular protect a slave from his own master.

“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. [21] But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.[2]

The subversive nature of Israel’s literature, with respect to slaves, appears here in this passage. The slave that recovers is not to be avenged due to the fact he/she belongs to the one who struck the slave. However, if the slave dies he is avenged as a freeman would be. Avenging a slave in the manner one would a free individual would have been unusual, to say the least, in the ancient near east. Another law that nibbled away at the status quo concept of slavery in the ANE appears on a few verse down from the above passage.

“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. [27] If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.[3]

While the mention of the eye could mean the stonewalling of the slave’s ability to carry out their duty, the mention of the tooth is altogether different. The major risk here is not the slave’s duty but his/her dignity. Slaves in Israel could, by implication, appeal to the judiciary of Israel against their own masters. Wright comments that this would have been a unique right in the literature of the ancient Near East. In the writings, Job 31:14 seems to corroborate this idea made legislated in the Torah.[4] Job states that in all of the legal proceedings brought against him by his own slaves, he had never denied them justice.

Another remarkable bit of case law concerning slaves is Deuteronomy 15:13-14. After six years of servitude, the slave was to be set free. However, he was not to be cut loose empty handed. The owner was to give to him “liberally” out his own abundance.

And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. [14] You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him.[5]

No passage demonstrates the stark distinctions between the modern slave trade and Israel’s concept of slavery better than this percipope. After instructing the owner of the slave as to how he should liberally supply his released slave from his abundance, the writer then addresses another possibility. The slave may want to stay with the master.

But if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he is well-off with you, [17] then you shall take an awl, and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your slave forever. And to your female slave you shall do the same.[6]

No one in their right mind would ever suggest that this might happen now in the modern slave trade. However, in Israel, the slave may have found refuge from an otherwise destitute life in the kindness of his master. Most notable for sharply distinguishing the modern and ancient institutions is that the choice goes to the slave NOT the master.

A final ancient Near Eastern anomaly is the fact that, according to Israel’s legislation, if one found a runaway slave he was not obligated to return him to his master but he was obligated to protect him.

“You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. [16] He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.[7]

The slave received protection by choosing for himself the town in which he wished to hide or live. The Israelite was then to comply with their request. Wright notes that contemporary ancient Near Eastern law not only imposed severe penalties on runaway slaves but also on those who harbored them. Israel’s law, diametrically opposed to such behavior, encourages the liberation of the salve.[8]

Fourth, the slave is created equally to the freeman. The idea of a slave being created equal to a freeman would have been unusual in the ancient mind. Concerning this point, Wright cites an old Akkadian proverb.

“a man is the shadow of a god; a slave is the shadow of a man”

While slavery was not the first choice for any ancient individual, it could be a better alternative than being destitute. By stark contrast, the current slave trade is not characterized by the humane disposition of Israel’s perspective. The Hebrew Scriptures preserve the preciousness of the human being and recognize their inherent dignity as image bearers of God. The current slave trade has no such perspective on slaves. The modern slave (who may be well below the age of 13 years old and forcibly conscripted into any number of heinous acts) has no rights, is stripped of all dignity, and is bludgeoned consistently with the notion that he/she has absolutely no inherent worth. Furthermore, the notion of God, a just and merciful God, is never an admitted aspect in the modern slave trade. Due to Israel’s origins, these ideas were at the core of both their existence and legislation.

The slave owner in Israel rooted his identity in the reality of liberation from slavery. He (ideally) could not perceive a slave in an impersonal or distant manner. They were to be treated with a certain measure of empathy. The modern trade knows no empathy. It is driven by economic brutality and often fueled by raw perversion. There is no sympathetic disposition. There is no sense of personal identity between owner/pimp and slave. The slave amounts to chattel and meat. Sadly they are a tradable commodity and nothing more, certainly not human, certainly not as precious image bearers of the one true living God.

As the covenant people of God represented a subversive holiness in the ancient Near East, so must we. The next installment will concern this subversive holiness and our profound need for it.

[1] This analysis relies heavily on the observations of Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. See that work for a more elaborate discussion along these lines.

[2] Exodus 21:20-21 The plain meaning of this verb is that the guilty party is liable to death themselves via the legal community. Thus, in this case the master was to be charged on behalf of the slave, who had no family. The other option is that the owner is to be avenged for killing his own slave, which makes no more sense than the proverbial man who begs the court for mercy due to the fact that he is an orphan after killing his parents.

[3] Exodus 21:26-27

[4] The origin of Job as an Israelite is disputable. I am simply making the point that the above cultural anomaly appears in Israel’s literature.

[5] Deut. 15:13-14

[6] Deut. 15:16-17

[7] Deut. 23:15-16

[8] It should be noted that scholars dispute the idea of the slave’s identity in this text. Some assert that this only has the foreigner running to Israel in mind. Others state that the slave can be either. Context would suggest the latter, which would include Israelite slaves running from vicious masters. This idea is clearly the background for Paul’s discussion concerning Onesimus and his owner in the book of Philemon.