Many may be surprised to learn that in the Old Testament, God expressly forbids the slave trade, commanding that anyone who steals a man is to be put to death, whether he has sold the victim yet or not (Exodus 21:16).
Naturally, this raises the question of why God had laws on slavery. It must be understood that there were different types of slavery in the ancient days. One was the all-too-familiar slave trade of kidnapping a person from their home country and selling them for profit (this being the type God forbade). Another was those in debt who sold themselves into slavery.
This second type of slavery was the most common, and was based on finances, not on race (oftentimes Jews had Jewish slaves). If a person ran into debt, instead of ending up homeless and desolate, he could sell himself as a slave. Basically, a well-to-do man would “buy” the one in debt, and from then on the one bought was the “slave.” The buyer or “master” would then pay off all the slave’s debts, and in return the slave would work for him for a specified amount of time until this loan was paid back (in Jewish culture this was no more than six years, for God ordered that slaves were to be freed the seventh year). In the meantime, the slave was guaranteed food, clothing, and housing.
Laws which protected slaves were virtually unheard of in that day, yet God demanded the Jews to treat their slaves, and issued several laws of protection for the slave, in the event that a Master did not treat him as he should. For example, if the master beat the slave and did permanent damage (even the loss of a tooth), he was to set the slave free—his debts were paid, and he was freed from the work contract (Exodus 21:20). If the master beat a slave to death, the Master was to be killed (21: 26-27). Many times slaves were treated so well that they wished to remain with their masters even after their debt was paid (21:5).
In the midst of all these slave protection laws, one verse jumps out as being cruel to the slave, and is often taken out of context and used by anti-Christian atheists to demean the God of the Old Testament. Exodus 21:21 states that if a Master beat his slave but the slave didn’t die, or survived the beating for a few days, the Master was not to be killed. In context, this verse in no way implies God condones the beating of slaves as long as they don’t die. All it is saying is that if the slave did not die, or survived for a few days, the Master did not beat him with the intent of killing him, thus the Master was not to be executed for first-degree murder. Cases for which God did not prescribe a specific punishment were to be taken to the courts, and the particular circumstances of why the owner beat the slave (in some cases, this could even be self-defense) would be taken into consideration before a sentence was handed down.
So while the term slave today evokes images of Africans being kidnapped from their homeland and sold to greedy Americans who treated them cruelly, this is not an accurate picture of the slavery discussed in the Bible. And though the Bible speaks of slaves as property, conjuring the idea of people be treated as sub-human and mere objects, this too is an inaccurate reflection of God’s view of human life. Jesus Christ paid for all mankind with his blood – He underwent an excruciating, torturous death in order to “buy” us. While those who accept His purchase of them could be considered His property, it is understood that does not make us worthless; to the contrary, we are His most prized possessions—worth so much, that He was willing to die for us.
As someone new here at this blog I’m finding it frustrating the authors of many posts do not respond to legitimate questions being asked by those reading their posts. Is it possibly maybe because they don’t have a good answer? I’m honestly searching for truth and am troubled by the lack of follow-up on questions being asked.
I’m new here as well Geoff and I am forced to agree with you. My expectation for a site dedicated to Christian apologetics would be one where the apologists promptly replied to questions and criticisms. That doesn’t at all appear to be the case here.
Geoff and Max — Sorry I didn’t see this until now. When I first write posts, I check on them for a few days, but if no one seems to be commenting, I don’t keep doing it. (I don’t get a notice when someone comments.) We all write at least one article a month, so it’s hard to keep checking on all of them. I do apoloygize for the delay in responding. I have responded to the two posters on their questions if you are interested in reading them.
Also, the Christian Apologetics Alliance has a facebook page where all the blog posts are automatically posted whenever they are posted here….and I do get notifications on facebook when someone leaves a comment (we all do). So you may get better feedback and answers if you go there. Sorry again.
Here is the facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/ChristianApologeticsAlliance
No worries JC. I was just passing by anyhow. I may look around for a discussion that catches my eye. 🙂
Daniel has a good point. You conveniently focused on the “lesser” of the two kinds of slavery: voluntary jew-to-jew slavery. The other kind, which Daniel alludes to, relates to when Moses said this gem: “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.”
It’s hard to know where to start with this. It is so obviously abhorrent. I bet if you read this to a 100 people on the street, all of them would say it’s abhorrent. In fact, I would bet that if you weren’t shackled by your faith in the bible, you would also think it’s abhorrent. I’m sure you are going to say “You have to put it in context.” Fine, read the paragraph before and after. Read ten pages before and after. It doesn’t make it any better. “…kill every male among the little ones…”, really? “kill every woman who has known man by lying with him”, really? “But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.” REALLY? And the bible explicitly allows the soldiers to take their female captives back home and force marriage upon them, which essentially turns them into sex slaves, albeit a “formalized” version. It must be exhausting to have to defend these statements by such an exalted figure in your religion.
With regards to Exodus 21:21, which, just so we are all on the same page, is: “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.” You say “this verse in no way implies God condones the beating of slaves as long as they don’t die.” If a government makes a law saying that there is to be no punishment for X, that is the same thing as the government saying X is allowed – agreed? It doesn’t mean the government thinks X is a good thing, or is promoting X, but to allow something is the definition of “condone” – agreed? So, as long as we are speaking the same language, god does condone beating slaves as long as they don’t die in a few days. By the way, there is no mention of conditions like “If out of self defense”, it just says the owner can do it and will not be punished.
With regards to Exodus 21:21, it’s not that the slave owner is not to be punished, it is that he is not to be executed for first degree murder. The “punishment” for the preceeding verses was execution of the slave owner. So in this context, punishment is synonomous with execution. No other culture even protected the rights of slaves.
As for the Numbers 31 passage, the context is not slavery. It’s not even sex slave. In that culture, a woman WANTED to marry. She wanted a husband. Of course she (and he) would hope to fall in love, but they didn’t marry for love. They married for family. For children. A woman wanted to have sex with her husband, because she wanted to produce as many children as she could. To call a wife in that culture nothing but a sex slave discounts the fact that women wanted a husband and wanted to have children. Obviously no woman wants a man who abuses her or mistreats her, but most (in that culture even today) want a husband and children even if love never develops. Very few men or women had the luxery to marry for love back then.
So, the men and women who were executed in Numbers 31 were done so for hiring Balaam to curse the Israelites so they would all die in battle (the Israelites were being attacked by a nation they were NOT attacking — they had requested safe passage through their land on their way to Canaan and even promised not to drink from the wells as they moved through. The nation refused and sent an army against them). After the failed curse attempt, 5 towns of people got together and seduced a group of Israelites into worshipping thier God knowing that God would pull his protection of them and then they would die in battle. God had Moses order the exectution of the guilty Israelites and the men and women who partook in the secution. God/Moses is now left with orphaned boys and girls. All other cultures would have killed both, sold them as slaves, or abandoned them in the dessert to die by wild animals or the elements. NO culture would ever keep the boys — they will become adults and rise against their “guardians” and view them as captors — more deaths, both of these young men and the Israelites they were now killing. However, the girls were not a threat. Thus, they were allowed to be adopted, taught basic homemaking skills, etc., until they were old enough to marry — likely the sons of the Israelite men. They would not have just been sex slaves — that was not practical at all as they were another mouth to feed, clothe, provide shelter for, etc. But a man is compensated when a daughter marries.
And by the way, I do find that passage abhorrant. And I’ve talked to other Christians about this passage who have given me ridiculous, cold, and heartless answers, or who just shrug and say God has a right to do what he wants, etc. I know that I have also done as you accused (put it into context), but I can look at the context and still find it abhorrant, and I do. I wish they had rounded up the children and taken them to another Midianit town (they were Midianites) and let their own people adopt them. Maybe that wasn’t an option, maybe they wouldn’t have wanted the mouths to feed and would have let them die in the streets by starvation and wild animals. Maybe God knew that, and figured it would be far less painful to be executed quickly (and relocated to Abraham’s bossom since they were young enough to be innocents, in which case, from an eternity perspective they are better off than growing up and dying as adult child sacrificing pagans.
There are only a few passages in all of Scripture that I have a hard time with. This one is #1. I will never be satisfied with it. I will never be happy with it. I will always find it abhorant. But if the Israelites had just been granted permission to walk through the land, none of it would have happened. Regardless of how abhorrant I feel it is, I do recognize that the blame is on the parents of the orphaned boys, not God/Moses.
With regards to Exodus 21:21, go back and reread 20:19. The preceding punishment is a monetary fine, not death. So I don’t think the way you have justified it through your interpretation of what “punished” means will work.
“No other culture even protected the rights of slaves.” You seem like a reasonable and thoughtful person, so not sure what to do with this statement. If in your mind this is a “win” for Christianity, then we will agree to disagree.
“In that culture, a woman WANTED to marry.” Yes, I have no doubt that a woman would be thrilled to be abducted by the man that just killed her family and be forced to marry and bare his children. Who wouldn’t?
“So, the men and women who were executed in Numbers 31 were done so for hiring Balaam to curse the Israelites…” Obviously grounds for genocide.
“…they had requested safe passage through their land on their way to Canaan and even promised not to drink from the wells.” Put yourself in the shoes of the Midianites. You know how unsafe it was to live in those times. A foreign tribe approaches you and says, “Let us march all of our people through your land, please. Don’t worry, we won’t attack, we promise.” Hell no I’m not allowing them to march through. If I’m the Midian leader, I’d look like a fool if I let them all in and they attacked us. So how you place the blame of the entire massacre on Midian is beyond me.
At a very high level, one tribe wanted to march through another tribe’s land and they were denied. So they marched through anyway and massacred the other tribe, killing all the men and boys, abducting the girls, and plundering the town. It’s not unheard of in history, but it’s still a disgusting act. No wonder you feel conflicted after reading it; any moral person would. It nevertheless amazes me how Christians will perform moral gymnastics in order to justify it all. I see you are still listening to your conscience – good for you.
The point of this article is not on the lesser of two kinds of slavery, which you called Jew-to Jew (I mentioned that sometimes it was Jew to Jew just to demonstrate it wasn’t a racial thing — it was a financial thing). But anyway, the point of the article was to show that God is against the slave trade, and that He ordered that any slave trader was to be executed. I then explained the financial aspect of the type of slavery that was allowed, and went into detail on it, to clearly differentiate between financial slavery and the slave trade/market since the same term (ie slave) is used.
What happened in Numbers 31 is not about slavery. You brought it up, and so I addressed it. I don’t think that execution for a crime should be confused as genocide. The Midianites intentionally seduced the Israelites to commit idolatry against God. They were executed AND the guilty Israelites were executed. God allowed the Ayssirans to come in and execute the Northern Kingdom of Israel (and take others captive), and the Babylonians to execute the Southern Kingdom of Israel (and take others captive), but no one accuses God of being genocidal against the Jews. In God’s eyes, the Midianites were guilty so He had the guilty ones exectued, and the innocent ones spared and adopted. Centuries later, when the Israelites were guilty of following pagan cultures and sacrificing their children, He had the guilty ones executed, and some of the innocent (as well as surviving guilty) were transported to Babylon, such as Daniel.
But again, execution versus genocide and Numbers 31 was not the issue of this article. The intent of the article was only to show that OT slavery was not the slave trade market that conjures up images of Africans being kidnapped from thier homeland and sold to American slave owners. God is, and was, and always will be against that. OT/Mosaic slavery had to do with finances, and had nothing whatsover to do with race.
Just to make sure we are on the same page, the definition of genocide is: “The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.” So, unless I’m mistaken, what god ordered to be done to the Midianites was precisely genocide. If your attempt to defend this genocide is that god was also genocidal against the jews, I would not disagree, however I would not agree that that somehow helps his case – two wrongs don’t make a right in my opinion.
“In God’s eyes, the Midianites were guilty so He had the guilty ones executed, and the innocent ones spared and adopted.” We MUST be reading different parts of the bible. Perhaps you have forgotten this dandy: “Have you allowed all the women to live?…Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man…” Yes, obviously very judicious about just punishing the “guilty ones”.
I want to reach through this screen and shake you and say “Take off your rose colored glasses and see Numbers 31 for what it is!” But I know you have some cognitive dissonance going on, so it can’t be easy. But I applaud you for attempting to deal with it.
I explained in an earlier comment about why the boys were killed, their innocence would not last, whereas the girls were not a threat nor would they become a threat.
The definition of genocide is precisely the point — God did not order the killing of all the Midianites…just the five towns that were guilty. It had nothing to do with their ethnicity. If 2000 Arabs with Isis were executed for cutting off the heads of American elemntary school girls, it would not be genocide just because they were all Arabs. If 10,000 white men were executed for killing the inhabitants of an African-American orphangae, it would not be genocide. It would be an execution. Ethnicity is not even an issue in these situations, and no one would accuse the goverment who ordered the execution of the guilty as genocidal.
Eek, you’re further along in the indoctrination than I thought. So killing the male babies was totally ok, because they would have attempted to avenge the massacre of their tribe when they grew up? This rationale sounds familiar, oh yes, I’ve seen it in mafia movies several times.
And you seem to always gloss over the “And kill every woman who has slept with a man.” Yes, I’m sure all of them were guilty, even the old ladies.
I think you need to reread the definition of genocide. It does not depend on every person of a group being killed. The key is that you are killing a large number of them just because they are of that tribe/nation. “…just the five towns that were guilty.” — indeed.
But really, debating definitions just obscures the important takeaways. God ordered the killing of a lot of innocent people, I think we can both agree with that. That is not good, no matter how you try to spin it. I don’t think putting a “curse” on the Israelites (or idolatry) is grounds for any mass “executions”, but if you do, then at least be honest about the fact that god ordered the murder of a lot of innocent people.
So, just to make sure I understand your analogies, you are equating putting a “curse” on the Israelites, or idolatry, to decapitating school girls? You are equating the curse/idolatry to murdering orphans? If so, then we have no common ground to debate this.
Frank, I do want to be clear that my original question was not intended to claim that there was anything intentionally missing from JC’s article. I think it was a very good article and it seemed to me that, in light of the content, she might have some insight into the question I raised. I have no reason to think that there was any special pleading going on or that she was “conventiently focus[ing] on the ‘lesser’ of the two kinds of slavery.”
Just wanted to make sure that was clear.
Thanks!
Excellent article. This is a very good way to help explain the OT idea of slavery. I do wonder if you might also be able to offer further insight with regards to the situation of Gentiles who become slaves to Jewish masters as a result of war. That particular scenario seems distinct from some of the more common ones.
Also, with regards to Exodus 21:21, what are your thoughts on a potential response that, while such an abusive slave owner may not receive the death penalty since the slave in question did not die, does the owner just receive no justice at all in this situation? I would be interested to hear how you might respond.
Thanks!
The case would go to the courts (the elders/Sanhedrin) who would determine what the correct penalty for the slave owner would be. Taking into all the laws which God issued to protect slaves, the elders would have to deal with each case as it came up. But a likely example would be the slave was compensated for his injury, such as being freed early (paid less of his debt than was due, which is essentially the owner being fined). How early (how steep the fine) would be based on the injury sustained, etc.
Thanks for your question.
Thanks for the reply. That does seem to make sense. Could you point me toward some resources to learn more about those kinds of cultural/societal norms? Better still, do you know if this type of situation is actually referenced in the OT? (Sorry…my OT studies aren’t what they should be.)
An actual incidence is not referenced in the OT. But the best resource I can point you to is here: http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html