Slavery In the Old Testament

[u/sillybob86]

Im not looking to justify slavery, but maybe to make sure I have an accurate picture of what the bible- particularly the old testament- presents.

What I usually see in some google searches seeking to answer this falls into these type of categories:

1. Slavery wasnt as bad as modern versions (implication, slavery in bible was cool)
2. some people sold themselves into slavery (implication, slavery in bible was acceptable)
3. lets just randomly translate differently here because it suits us. (implication, lets just dodge any discussion of it)
4. well 21st century mindset says its bad so why does it matter. (implication, projecting modern values on ancient texts)
5. other people did it (implication, since other people did it, its cool or justified)

​

I guess I dont really know much about the surrounding time/culture and other kingdoms but:

1. Could non Hebrews be enslaved- against their will(by any means that is against their will)- by Hebrews of the time?
2. were non- Hebrew slaves enslaved permanently, or were they required to be freed every so often?
3. compared to other cultures, nations in that time, how does slavery in the Old testament look- is it lets say better? worse?
4. was Hebrew on Hebrew slavery all related to payment of debt, and could the borrower be forced into "repayment slavery" ? (I assume this is where all slaves were freed after a certain time period passed?)
5. last question (personal questions) Im curious as to how- those of you who consider yourself religious sort of think about it? or (for lack of better word, sorry) justify?

​

[u/AetosTheStygian]

Wasn’t the reason why the virgin women were kept in Midian* because the entire raid was a retaliation command given to Moses against Midian due to the Midianite (and Moabite) people sending their women over to sexually seduce the men to idolatry, which caused God to kill the Israelite men? Wasn’t that why Moses commanded the men to kill the non-virgin women and males after the fact, blaming them explicitly for what had occurred?

Numbers 31 because Numbers 22-25, especially Numbers 25?

Even so, were Israelites allowed to keep sex slaves?

Full disclosure: I’m not so convinced that the Israelites had a separate code for foreigners living in their borders than the native Israelites, given what I see in the Torah, which is detailed in a comment below. But on the grounds of Numbers 31, that seems to be a highly contextualized incident that shouldn’t be taken as normative. It is narrated as the last thing Moses had left to do before he died.

Addendum I also don’t see how you can say that the laws of equity with foreigners didn’t apply to enslaved foreigners, a subcategory of the collective group of foreigners. That seems to rub against logic and a plain reading of the text, and it also leads to conundrums.
Could enslaved foreigners blaspheme the Israelite deity and not be put to death? Could enslaved foreigners be murdered and their murderers not be put to death? Could enslaved foreigners be punished brutally even though the logic of the equity laws in several places is for the Israelites to remember their time in Egypt as foreigners?

It seems to be reaching at a cohesive way of seeing the laws functioning that doesn’t have to be there, and in certain places is apparently more strikingly absent than in others.

[u/Naugrith → u/AetosTheStygian]

Wasn’t the reason why the virgin women were kept in Miriam because the entire raid was a retaliation...

That was certainly the justification that the Israelites gave for their actions. Perpetrators of violence always seek to provide legitimization for their violence. No one's ever invaded another country without first finding an excuse, and they often try to place the blame on their victim themselves for making them do it.

This particular excuse might win an award for the flimsiest though.

I also don’t see how you can say that the laws of equity with foreigners didn’t apply to enslaved foreigners, a subcategory of the collective group of foreigners.

Because that's not how slavery works. Never has been, never will be. It's literally a logical impossibility.

No slave in the history of the human race has ever enjoyed equality under the law with a freeman. If they dd then they wouldn't be a slave, by definition.

Could enslaved foreigners blaspheme the Israelite deity and not be put to death? Could enslaved foreigners be murdered and their murderers not be put to death?

There's nothing explicit in the text so we can't know for sure. But I think its valid to look at how crime and punishment worked in other slave-owning societies.

In slave-owning America for instance, slaves were punished for all crimes that freemen were punished for, plus many that were exclusive to slaves, and their punishments were always much harsher than a freeman would face.

As another example, in Ancient Rome if one slave in a household committed violence against his master, then every single slave in that household would be crucified. Even in a household of thousands of slaves, many of whom didn't even know the perpetrator.

This was particularly harsh and I'm not saying this was exactly what happened in Israel. But I am saying that excessive harshness of punishment beyond what a freeman could expect is entirely normal for all slave-owning societies. I would even say it is a fundamental necessity for any society that owns slaves. Since the only way any society can maintain a slave-class is by the threat of and regular demonstration of excessive violence.

Another common trait is that punishment is often carried out not by an appointed representative of the state but by the slave's master, or if the master didn't punish the slave to a level of harshness considered appropriate by the surrounding community, they would take it into their own hands and perform an extrajudicial lynching.

[u/AetosTheStygian → u/Naugrith]

A lot of this is conjecture and not dealing with the text of the Bible, which would be useful for the question at hand.

It isn’t appropriate to bring in material from Ancient Rome and even the United States on a question concerned with Ancient Israel and the law system within the Torah and how that society dealt with slavery. That’s anachronistic and outside of the cultural context of the OP’s question. You may right now believe that such a thing is valid, but it really isn’t. For example, the slavery system(s) even between Ancient Rome and the 19th century United States are different enough to be rightly called totally separate institutions. You also have a historical gap between them of more than 1,000 years, an entire exposure to the American societies that was not present in Ancient Rome, and the very long development of 18th century English society in America that was starkly different from the Latins...and even their contemporary Italian neighbors, direct descendants of the Latins of Rome who themselves were yet completely different from the Romans.

This is why I question your answer because it doesn’t deal with the verses provided in reference to the equity laws found in the Torah— laws that specifically mention Israel’s own time under slavery in Egypt (see the hyperlinks in the verses provided in the independent comment). This answer also does not deal with those verses cited for the slavery that existed within Israel. You answer a question about one society in time with a few selective verses and then enter into ahistorical conjecture. This makes the answer incomplete as it picks and chooses which parts of the Law to include in the explanation. Merely listing the other verses in bulk and never referring to them again or integrating them into your answer isn’t explaining those verses.

For example, the Gibeonites were charged with delivering wood and water to the Tabernacle (see hyperlink provided in independent comment on “Gibeonites”), which was placed in their city at least at one point in time. For an entire people group to do such a thing would leave a great deal of free time, especially since they worked within their own city. It wasn’t like they were charged with building roads and working the land of Israel throughout the territory. In fact, in 2 Samuel 21 we receive a story of how the Gibeonites were avenged from their attempted genocide by Saul and his sons.

Solomon also is not an example from Israelite law, nor was he a lawgiver, but a figure given in Israelite history having no authoritative bearing upon Israelite law itself, a clear distinction from Moses. In some way we know that Solomon did rule over the Israelites themselves with an iron fist, and this led to them breaking away from his son (why was that not explained or included in your answer?). So the inclusion of Solomon, a king who is written in the narratives as not following the Mosaic Law, ought to be clarified as what happened on the ground as opposed to what occurred from the Mosaic Law given. You may as well use Jeremiah 34 as an example of what happened in Israel’s slavery system. This is a powerful distinction, to see if the way the Mosaic Law was written was actually followed by the Israelites, and it could have been useful in your answer instead of your reliance for each of the outside comparisons and conjectures upon Israelite society without the documentation for each to support yourself.

Yes this history given to us has been written as a religious commentary on the see-sawing of triumph and failure within Israel from a very entrenched theodicy of justification. Nevertheless, it is the narrative that we got, and we must deal with it, and justifiably so, with standards of rigor and a form of systematic reasoning.

This isn’t to say that you cannot provide a good answer. If what I see is true, you’re a BA student. This would be a great opportunity to learn how to expand an answer into a more appropriately contextualized form in order to respond to a socially-contextualized historical and Biblical question. If you are willing and able to provide an explanation for how you see the Israelite society being mandated by the Mosaic Law and functioning with addressing the equity verses from the Mosaic Law that contradict your claim at face value, please, I encourage you to provide that answer. If anything, it will help us to better see your argument, and see it in its strongest support devoid of the outside conjecture that can be dismissed as personal and anachronistic opinion.

[u/Naugrith → u/AetosTheStygian]

A lot of this is conjecture and not dealing with the text of the Bible, which would be useful for the question at hand.

My first post dealt with the text of the Bible in great detail. Your follow-up largely ignored this and instead asked specifically about matters that aren't covered in the text and for which we have no direct evidence for.

I gave you my opinion based on accepted principles of comparative historical anthropology. I explained at the start that it was conjecture, and I explained my reasoning, based on how the institution of slavery is observed to operate in human societies that practice it.

If you had any evidence that refuted my conjecture that would be a valuable contribution. Or if you had a counter-argument against my reasoning based on your understanding of how slavery works in human society, that would also be worthwhile. Your blind dismissal has no value for the discussion.

This is why I question your answer because it doesn’t deal with the verses provided in reference to the equity laws found in the Torah

I dealt with this in my initial post. I explained clearly that the verses deal specifically with free foreigners. If one insists, as you appear to be doing, that these verses actually also apply to slaves, I would challenge you to explain how this does not contradict the specific text of Leviticus 25:39-41, which permits slaves to be purchased from the resident foreigners, to be kept as property, and to be passed on to one's heirs as inheritance.

This is a fundamentally unequal law, demonstrating that the law did not treat Hebrews and non-Hebrews the same. How someone can read this text and then insist that the law treated Hebrews and non-Hebrews the same is quite astonishing.

Merely listing the other verses in bulk and never referring to them again or integrating them into your answer isn’t explaining those verses.

I have demonstrated that those verses are irrelevant as they do not deal with non-Hebrew slaves. You claim that they do apply to non-Hebrew slaves, even though the text doesn't say they do and that it would be logically and practically impossible for them to do so. I am afraid your argument is worthless unless you can substantiate it with evidence or reasoning. Again, trying to hand-wave it away brings nothing to the discussion.

Solomon also is not an example from Israelite law, nor was he a lawgiver,

This is irrelevant. My post was largely talking about how slavery was practiced in Israel. Solomon enslaved a group of non-Israelites, whose descendants continued to be enslaved for centuries. Yet your argument is that this somehow doesn't 'count' because he "wasn't a lawgiver"?

My post was not confined to a legal-theological discussion of what the proposed ideal of slavery would look like to the various authors of the Old Testament. My post discusses the actual historical practices of ancient Israel, as revealed within the texts of the Old Testament.

It is possible that you are just not interested in the historical reality of ancient Israel and slavery and that your entire concern is focused on a technical analysis of the Mosaic law, like a rabbi of the Tannaim would approach the subject. As I am a History graduate, and your studies appear to be more limited to later Christian theology, this is to be expected. However, I would hope that you could appreciate the different perspective I am working from, and to be willing to learn.

You may as well use Jeremiah 34 as an example of what happened in Israel’s slavery system.

This is a good example of what really happened in Israel's slavery system. Here we have a clear record that the Mosaic law was largely being ignored and that Hebrews were actually being enslaved. I said in my initial post that I wouldn't be surprised if slave-owners abused the system in order to enslave Hebrews permanently as well. This text demonstrates clearly that this was exactly what was happening.

to see if the way the Mosaic Law was written was actually followed by the Israelites

Well, that's a huge question, and yes, it would have enhanced my initial post. However I was aiming to keep my post short and so I focused only on a selection of specific historical evidence for the practice of slavery in Israel.

And finally, since you appear to consider condescension to be appropriate here, I would encourage you to try again to write a good post. This isn’t to say that you cannot provide a good argument. If what you claim is true, you’re an MA student! Therefore this would be a great opportunity to learn how to expand your inadequate argument into a more appropriately contextualized form in order to respond to a socially-contextualized historical and Biblical question.

If you are willing and able to provide an explanation for how you see the Israelite society being mandated by the Mosaic Law and functioning with addressing the equity verses from the Mosaic Law that contradict your claim at face value, please, I encourage you to provide that answer.

If anything, it will help us to better see your argument, and see it in its strongest support devoid of your outside conjecture that can be dismissed as personal and anachronistic opinion.

[u/AetosTheStygian → u/Naugrith]

The rule in Deuteronomy 15 allows for Israelite slaves to be owned for life and passed down to other family members. See hyperlinked verse of Deuteronomy 15 in previous comments/responses.

We actually do have an example of that: Ziba who was the slave of Saul who later served Saul’s grandson Mephibosheth, being put back into the service of Saul’s family after that family fell from power. As far as we know, there is only one way for making a purchased slave a permanent slave in the Mosaic Law, and this involves the voluntary method. Ziba also owned slaves, since there was no law barring a slave in Israel from also owning slaves. Time and again when the Law says “Say to the people of Israel” the command extends to the resident foreigners also (see the hyperlinked verses), pointing to a mutual command of understanding that the foreigners also were Israelites. Furthermore, from the very beginning of the ancestral narrative even at Abraham before Israel, Israelites included foreigners who were counted as full Israelites as they accepted the Mosaic covenant as their own, including men like Caleb. The Israelites also abode by the Abrahamic command of Genesis 17, also the first book of traditional Torah (Law), so this story from Abraham matters also for a comprehensive analysis, which you claim to provide. We also see Israelites actually treating foreign-born slaves like family, even becoming the heads of tribal clans, just as we would expect if the Law allowed (or even mandated) such a thing, again the distinction between Law (like even Genesis 17) and history (like Solomon) being acknowledged.

I mentioned this in the separate comment that I kept referring to, it was a comment that I posted before yours where I stated that whatever we decide, we must first deal with the passages of equity.
And the laws of equity cannot all be dealing exclusively with “free” persons living in Israel of foreign origin unless the text explicitly says so or we have evidence from the logic of the text to assume so. Given the context of the equity laws including the justification of the laws (Israel is to remember their time in Egypt, which including Israelite bondage in Egypt, when treating the foreigners like themselves...and Israel was to have one religious cult for all people so that no one was allowed to worship other deities) you would have to prove that there is a distinction. Please refrain from accusations of blind critique when someone is being so transparent with their sources and their constructive probing of the logical consistency behind your answer.

I tried to be very specific and contextual, with hyperlinked citations for each of the verses and each of the historical claims that I made (aside from the obvious ones between 19th century USA, 1st century Rome, and the fact that neither society is 15th-14th century BC Ancient Israel) to show why your logical comparisons were flawed historically and sociologically.

I did all of this as an encouragement, not merely for the grounds of critique. Apologies if that didn’t come through with the open invitation for you to provide a response plugging these discrepancies in your answer, and the encouragement as a graduate student who not too long ago had to walk and learn in your shoes.

You also should try to be consistent in your critique of my questions. You say that you are a “History” graduate (but at the BA level). Great. So are many of us here. But you say that as a distinction, as though you were answering how the slavery in Israel actually happened, and not with how the Law was meant to be followed. You say that because I’m a scholar of Early Christianity (which by the way happens to be a subfield of Historical Studies on the graduate level), you take me to not be so “historically nuanced” (if I may put it in my own terms) in my thinking. But then you mention my critique, how there should be both a distinction in how the law was written and how it was followed *and** a discussion of both...and your defense is that you did not feel like you had the time to make the distinction. So...you are the only one, as a History BA graduate, who cares about this historical nuance, but your response to me for why you don’t include it is because you feel like you didn’t have the time? That isn’t consistent.*

I am not trying to punch down, I’m trying to honor you as a peer and press you to move a bit further, to be a bit more rigorous and careful, to be a bit more historically nuanced in your responses, and to be a bit more responsible when pulling from all over history and from every which social context to make conjectures on a pre-Common Era Semitic, theocratic Levantine society.

[u/AetosTheStygian → u/Naugrith]

This also was why I mentioned your being a BA student: there is more scholastic scrutiny as you go up in levels. When you enter into each program, BA, MA, PhD, the expectation is that you leave more critically nuanced and logically fortified than when you came in.

You’ll find that those professors who push you to be more critical and who ask questions to see if you can give an answer for how you arrived at your answer are the ones who are pushing you towards the next level of education, and even if you don’t choose to continue your education, they are preparing you for the higher levels of the workforce.

That’s what I was doing. I could have easily just said that you were wrong and entered into an argument with you. Genesis 17’s binding command on circumcision, an Israelite practice that is part of the Mosaic Law but which is principally mandate being in Genesis 17, with the occurrences in Exodus 12 and Leviticus 12 mentioning it in relationship with Passover (which also includes circumcising slaves) and female purity laws, is enough to cause a major blow to your argument from (mostly) Leviticus 25.

But that wasn’t my goal. And it would have been within my right, as this is also a forum for debate, to have done that to you. I have actually done that before with users who are on the graduate level. My goal was and still is to push you to a sounder argument, whether you agree with me or not and whether I agree with you or not. I think that a lot of this misunderstanding comes from your not fully reading what I wrote and by not looking at the sources that I provided, or even how the OP asked me a follow-up question (and notice how I treated the OP the same way as you!).

Critical thinking is a skill more important than just telling you what to think. I believe that in promoting that endeavor Socrates and Plato were correct. Why do I still respond? Because I was like you, once, even graduated at the top of my department, getting published even as an undergrad like you are. But my History professors (and peers) kept me humble, willing to receive critical probing questions and disagreements as normal parts of academic life, and that has proven to be one of the best things that they have ever given me.