BIBLICAL SLAVERY HAD BEEN A HUMANE INSTITUTION

Those who want to denigrate the Bible argue that its morality is sub-standard. Just recently, one young man angrily charged that the institutional of biblical slavery was all that he needed to reject the Bible. However, I wondered whether he really took the time to try to understand this institution.

Biblical slavery was never conceived or practiced in a racial way, as had been practiced in the USA and in other nations. Actually, Biblical slavery (or servanthood) was quite humane compared to our prisons.

For one thing, kidnapping of foreign peoples in order to enslave was strictly forbidden:

·       "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)

The NT also forbids kidnapping for the purpose of slavery (1 Timothy 1:10). Instead, biblical slavery had been instituted to address the problem of unpaid debts and criminality:

·       “A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.” (Exodus 22:3)

This practice was regarded as just, far more just than simple imprisonment or having your hand cut off. Although slavery was degrading, it was also a humane institution:

·       “If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the Lord your God has blessed you.” (Deut. 15:12-14)

In many instances the Israelites could be redeemed by their family members (Leviticus 25:48). Even if the family wouldn’t or couldn’t redeem them, they were to be released after six years of labor.

The institution of biblical slavery also provided legal protections for the slave:

·       "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.” (Exodus 21:26-27)

The slave or servant was even to be treated almost like family. They were to travel together to Jerusalem to rejoice by eating their offerings. Servants/slaves were considered part of the household:

·       Deuteronomy 12:7, 11-12 “And there [at the Temple] you shall eat before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your HOUSEHOLDS, in all that you undertake, in which the LORD your God has blessed you…then to the place that the LORD your God will choose, to make his name dwell there, there you shall bring all that I command you: your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the contribution that you present, and all your finest vow offerings that you vow to the LORD…And you shall rejoice before the LORD your God, you and your sons and your daughters, your MALE SERVANTS AND YOUR FEMALE SERVANTS, and the Levite that is within your towns, since he has no portion or inheritance with you. (Also Deut. 16:11-15; 26:11)

Slavery also addressed the problem of what to do with a defeated enemy. While the ancient practice entailed the extermination of the males and the sexual abuse of the females, the Bible prohibited this:

·       “When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife…If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.” (Deut. 21:10-11, 14)

Biblical slavery would not divide families, as had been the practice of racial slavery:

·       When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. (Exodus 21:2-3)

The secularist will protest – “Well, this only applies to the Hebrew slave.” Although this is true, a slave could always become an Israelite and partake in all of the rights extended to them.

Mosaic Law was inclusive. God commanded Abraham that even those he bought as slaves were to be circumcised, thereby erasing any possible class or racial distinction within his “household”:

·       “This is my covenant with you [Abraham] and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner--those who are not your offspring.” (Genesis 17:10-12)

Israel was to be a model of inclusiveness. All could and should come to God; all were to be under the covenant of God, and none were ever turned away:

·       “Any slave you have bought may eat of [the Passover] after you have circumcised him…An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the LORD'S Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it. The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you." (Exodus 12:44-49)

Even the slave could choose circumcision and receive full inclusion as an Israelite. It had been God’s intention that Israel would be the model of inclusion, and circumcision was the ticket in. Race, education, national origin would present no obstacle. Instead, God’s intention was that all would be under the same law.

There was no indication of any racial superiority in any of Israel’s legislation. Instead, Israel was always reminded that they had been slaves so that they would be gracious to their slaves and that a single egalitarian set of laws would suffice for all – whether Jewish or not. Israel was also to be a model society for the surrounding nations:

·       “See, I [Moses] have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?” (Deut. 4:5-8)

Predictably, secularism now wants to claim the mantle of the “protector of human rights.” This certainly wasn’t the case under secular communism and hasn’t been the case historically.  “Secularism does not liberate,” according to Indian scholar Vishal Mangalwadi. He quotes historian Rodney Stark to support his claim:

·       A virtual Who’s Who of “Enlightenment” figures fully accepted slavery…It was not philosophers or secular intellectuals who assembled the moral indictment of slavery, but the very people they held in such contempt: men and women having intense Christian faith, who opposed slavery because it was sin…The larger point is that abolitionists, whether popes or evangelists, spoke almost exclusively in the language of Christian faith…Although many Southern clergy [in America] proposed theological defenses of slavery, pro-slavery rhetoric was overwhelmingly secular – references were made to “liberty” and “states’ rights,” not to “sin” or “salvation.” (The Book that Made your World, 114)

There were compelling reasons why “Biblical Theology abolished slavery.” Unbiblical slavery was simply unbiblical, as Mangalwadi affirms:

·       [Christians] considered slavery to be sinful. Slavery means toil, and the Bible said toil was a consequence of sin. God loved sinners enough to send his son to take their sin upon Himself. The curse of sin was nailed upon the cross. (114)

Biblical slavery differs from other forms of slavery as the punishment of the innocent differs from the punishment of the guilty. Dinesh D’Souza adds:

·       Christians were the first group in history to start an anti-slavery movement. The movement started in late eighteenth century in Britain…In England, William Wilberforce spear-headed a campaign that began with almost no support and was driven entirely by his Christian convictions…Pressed by religious groups at home, England took the lead in repressing the slave trade abroad. (What’s So Great About Christianity, 73)

·       The Second Great Awakening, which started in the early 19^th century and coursed through New England and New York and then through the interior of the country, left in its wake the temperance movement, the movement of women’s suffrage, and most important, the abolitionist movement. (75)

The secularist also charges that the NT condones even non-biblical slavery. This is not true. However, the NT does counsel the Christian slave to be faithful to his “master,” as he should be to any employer or even prison guard. This is because we are commanded to show love and kindness to all.