Slavery in the Bible: Is the Good Book Really "Good?"
______________________________________
Here is the text with endnotes included...
Slavery and the Bible: Is
the Good Book Really “Good?”
It was spoken less as a question and more as a challenge:
“Why does anyone think this is a good book?!”
Someone had brought up a number of pieces of the Old
Testament legislation as examples to be mocked and this brought forth the
incredulity regarding the Bible’s moral value. In previous generations the Bible was seen as the “good
book” but today it is more likely to be thought of as a work that is oppressive
and morally deficient.
One of the particular items brought forward to show the
Bible’s moral failure was the law contained in Exodus 21:20-21—with specific
focus on verse 21:
20If a man strikes his male
or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a
day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
It was alleged that this ethical stipulation allowed
Israelites to beat their slaves and, as long as they didn’t die within a day or
two, everything was okay.
In light of such a law what kinds of answers can be given to
the question, “Why does anyone think this is a good book?” Actually, there are a number of things
to be said in response! The
following provides a close reading of the law in Exodus 21:21 in light of both
the immediate context as well as the larger narrative structure of the
Bible. This is done to model what
a fair reading of the text looks like as well as strengthen the faith of those
who affirm the Bible as a “good book.”
Reading the Details
in Light of the Whole Bible
First, let us grant, for the sake of argument only, that
this item mentioned in Exodus 21:21 is somehow morally deficient. This, in and of itself, does not render
the whole Bible less than good.
There are all sorts of transcendentally good things in the Bible:
ethical stipulations centered in love, narratives of heroic and self-giving
actions, beautiful poetry in praise of God than aligns with the human emotional
element, and, ultimately, its portrayal of Jesus Christ as the unique Son of
God both in his teaching and in his actions of redemptive healing. In other words, to take one (or a few)
ethical stipulations that one finds questionable and indict the whole Bible
shows either a lack of literary sensitivity or a failure to read the entire
Bible.
But is it the case that this law in Exodus 21:21 calls into
question the moral integrity of the Bible? Has the law been understood correctly in its larger
contexts? Consider the following
analogy. Take, as an example, the
sentence, “A man cut a child open.”
This sentence is consistent with at least three different
scenarios. (1) A murderer killing
a child with a knife, (2) A medical examiner performing an autopsy on a dead
child’s body, and (3) A professional surgeon performing a life-saving operation
on a child. These three different
scenarios are open to vastly different moral evaluations due to the varying
contexts. Simply analyzing the
phrase “A man cut a child open” is insufficient. Larger contextual issues must be taken into account to
accurately assess what is going on.
The same is true for the legislation contained in Exodus 21:21.
Contextual Issues to
Note
When examining this issue the numerous contexts should be
kept in mind or else misunderstanding will soon set in. First, the immediate context should be
read and understood. Exodus 21:21
appears in a section of the Mosaic law code dealing with issues of personal
injury. The law code distinguishes
between pre-meditated murder and, what we would call, manslaughter (Exodus
21:12-14). When coming to talk
about how slaves are to be treated Exodus 21:20 states: “If a man strikes his
male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be
punished.” Old Testament
specialist David L. Baker writing in the book The Humanisation of Slavery in the Old Testament argues that the
term “punished” in verse 20:
“[P]robably implies the death
penalty, which means that a master who kills his slave is treated as a murderer
and receives the same punishment as for killing a free person. Thus the law provides some protection
for slaves from cruel treatment by their masters, and recognizes the life of a
slave to be of equal value to that of any other human being.”1
Reading verse 21 in light of this context causes Old
Testament scholar Walter Kaiser to comment:
“The aim of this law was not to place the
slave at the mercy of the master, but to restrict the master’s power over his
slaves. Simply put, proof was needed only of a master’s malice or of his
murderous intent. In cases where the slave lived ‘a day or two’ after the
chastisement, the benefit of doubt was given to the master only because proof
became more difficult. But if the slave died immediately, no more proof
was needed and presumably laws such as Exodus 21:12 would be operative.”2
Exodus 21:21 is thus setting a kind of statute of
limitations to offer guidance on how to apply Exodus 21:20. The law is thus not given to facilitate
but, rather, to mitigate abuse.
Not only this, but just a few verses after Exodus 21:21
there is the following piece of legislation:
26If a man strikes the
eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on
account of his eye. 27And
if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free
on account of his tooth.
A number of Old Testament specialists have argued that this
legislation is almost unparalleled in the ancient Near East context. Christopher Wright notes, “The inclusion of
the ‘tooth’ indicates that the law does not intend only grievous bodily harm,
but any unwarranted assault. The basic humanity of the slave is given
precedence over his property status.”3 This leads Wright to conclude:
“The law, if it were to have any
meaningful legal (as distinct from merely charitable) force, must presuppose
that there were some circumstances in which a slave could appeal to judicial
authority against his own master, that in some situations a slave could have
definite legal status as a person, notwithstanding his normal status as
purchased property.”4
These laws bring us into a context which is far removed from Harriet
Beecher Stowe’s description in Uncle
Tom’s Cabin: “The legal power of the master amounts to an absolute
despotism over body and soul,” and “there is no protection for the slave’s
life.”
So back to the question: “Why does anyone think this is a good book?” One answer is that someone who had to
live in the ancient Near Eastern context outside of Israel would have found
these provisions good. They would
have seen these laws as good because, as David Baker states, “slave abuse is
considered in terms of human rights rather than property rights.”5
A second contextual issue to note is the placement of Exodus 21:21 in
the larger context of the book of Exodus itself. Old Testament scholar Joe Sprinkle notes that the specific
legislative stipulations of Exodus 21-23 must be read in light of the larger
narrative concerns of Exodus 19-24 and, beyond that, in light of the
deliverance of Israel from slavery in Egypt.6 Sprinkle draws attention to the fact of
the prominence and placement of slave laws in the Mosaic law in relation to
other ancient Near Eastern law codes.
Sprinkle also notes that these provisions in Exodus 21 are intimately
related to other laws in Exodus 22 regarding the sojourner, widow, orphan, and
the poor. He concludes:
“This is not
accidental. The disadvantaged classes of Exod 22:22–27, the sojourner, the
widow, the orphan, and the poor, were the very people most subject to becoming
enslaved on the basis of unpaid debts. Israel
itself had become enslaved in Egypt after entering it as sojourners, as the
regulation itself suggests: “Do not oppress a sojourner, for you were
sojourners in the land of Egypt” (Exod 23:9). The experience of Israel in Egypt
recorded by the narrative is thus the basis for the motive clause promoting
legal obedience.”7
Again, “Why does anyone think this is a good book?” Those most subject to abuse due to
their disadvantage class would find the provisions in the Mosaic law as
protections rather than burdens.
Canonical Context:
Keeping an Eye on the Big Picture
The Bible is a big book and is important to keep an eye on the
large narrative that is moving in the Scriptures. The Bible has as a beginning, an end, and a center-piece
focused in Jesus Christ. All these
have relevance to how to interpret the issue of slavery in the Bible. Consider the beginning. In Genesis chapters one and two there
is the creation of man and woman.
There is no slavery or provision for slavery. James Hamilton aptly notes:
“We don’t know exactly when slavery was
first practiced, but the first mention of it in the Bible comes when Noah
curses the descendants of his youngest son: ‘Canaan will be cursed. He
will be the lowest of slaves to his brothers’ (Gen 9:25). This shows that
slavery was not part of God’s original good creation. Rather, slavery is
mentioned in response to the sin of Ham.”8
Moving to the end of the Bible we see that in the eternal state there
is no slavery. The fullness of
freedom comes to all of God’s people and even the creation itself (Romans
8:21). Thus, these two narrative
markers—creation and glorification—reveal God’s intentionality with regards to
slavery. It was not the original
design nor is it the eternal destination.
This may help explain why when the apostle Paul discusses various
household relationships in his letters he quotes Scripture as undergirding the
marriage relationship (Ephesians 5:31) and the parent/child relationship
(Ephesians 6:2-3) but when he discusses the master and slave relationship he
never quotes the Old Testament Scriptures. The other two family relationships are grounded in creation
but slavery is not so, therefore, he does not quote a supportive proof-text.
When coming to look at Jesus and his teaching it has often been noted
that the words of Isaiah 66:1-2 are a template for Jesus’ vision of the Kingdom
of God.
18The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because
he anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and
recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, 19to
proclaim the favorable year of the Lord (Luke 4:18-19)
It is Jesus’ intention and goal to bring about release for the
captives. Now some will note that Jesus
did not go on a crusade to set free literal slaves from Roman oppression. This is true but must be seen in light
of Jesus’ larger Kingdom purposes.
He was going after the larger issue of slavery to sin (John
8:31-36). The New Testament
teaches the centrality of this liberation from sin and its consequences. Furthermore, by doing this Jesus sets
in motion a revolution that will ultimately do away with all slaveries in human
history as God’s Kingdom purposes are worked out over time.
So again, the question, “Why would anyone think this is a good book?”
has a number of relevant answers from this larger canonical context. God’s goodness expressed in creation
and God’s profound goodness promised in the future both give us positive reason
to affirm the Bible’s goodness. Of
course, for Christians the central glory of Jesus Christ is the supreme
goodness revealed to us in the pages of Scripture. Ultimately, the revelation of Jesus himself contained in the
Bible is the great reason to think the Bible is a “good book.”
Historical
Considerations: How the Bible Influences History
The Kingdom revolution began by Jesus Christ in human history has
moved through the corridor of time in influential ways regarding slavery. Thomas Schirrmacher is the president of
the International Council of the International Society for Human Rights and has
written about the role of Christianity in the reduction of slavery in history
and around the world. He notes how
the early church allowed the complete participation of slaves in their
congregations. Slaves were able to
become clerics and bishops.
Schirrmacher draws attention to the most famous example—Bishop Kallist
(d. 222 A.D.), “who went from slavery to become the highest representative of
the church as Bishop of Rome.”9 He also draws attention to various Synods
of the Church:
“The Synod of Chalons in France declared
the following in 650 A.D.: ‘The highest piety and religion demands that
Christianity be completely freed from the chains of slavery.’ in 922 A.D. the Koblenz Synod in the
East Frankish Empire came to the resolution that the sale of a Christian was to
be considered murder.’”10
Schirrmacher draws attention to a number of other medieval
developments on this issue and then, of course, draws attention to the role of
evangelical Christianity in the abolishing of slavery in England under the
leadership of William Wilberforce.
He quotes the German scholar Egon Flaig as demonstrating that this
opposition to slavery “is indebted to the longest and most intensive fight for
the liberation of mankind. Those
who carried on this battle are not to be found in Enlightenment philosophy;
where one makes a find is in the spiritual realm of Protestant minorities.”11
Schirrmacher further notes:
“In 1975 Roger Anstey defended and
documented the thesis that Evangelicals were so strongly opposed to slavery
because they understood conversion and redemption to be from the slavery of sin
into the freedom of the gospel, and for that reason could only view slavery
negatively. The fight against
slavery was an ‘end in itself’ for Evangelicals and a moral truth that could
not be surrendered.”12
Schirrmacher goes on to outline the evangelical contribution to the
stand against slavery in America where some scholars estimate that two-thirds
of the anti-slavery movement consisted of Evangelicals.
Yet once more, “Why would anyone think this is a good book?” Well, it is this book that has provided
the impetus for so many Christians throughout human history to work at great
cost to end slavery. The quest
continues today. Estimates of
current-day slavery range from 27-100 million depending on the definition used.13
There are more slaves today than at any other time in human history! This produces a fascinating historical
irony. Although the vast majority
of nations today sign on to international treaties outlawing slavery there is more
slavery today, whereas while the Bible mentions slavery in both the Old and New
Testaments, it is the worldview flowing from the Bible that historically
undermines the institution of slavery.14 Thomas Schirrmacher’s words
are an apt conclusion to this short look at the Bible and slavery:
“The Old and New Testaments did not
totally outlaw slavery in all circumstances, but the comprehensive provisions
for the legal protection of servants and maidservants, as well as the right to
be redeemed through the use of a slaves’ own possessions or by others,
fundamentally distinguishes the slavery that is described there from the later
slavery of the 15th to the 18th centuries and from the
present, illegal slavery that occurs everywhere. It is no wonder that …,
the thought established itself that God was completely against modern slavery
and that all slaves should be set free.”15
And we learned all this from the “Good Book”—the Bible.
Richard
Klaus graduated from Phoenix Seminary and is a former pastor. He is currently
the Ratio Christi (ratiochristi.org) Chapter Director for the campus of
Glendale Community College (AZ).
Endnotes:
1.
David L. Baker, “The Humanisation of Slavery in
the Old Testament” in The Humanisation of
Slavery in the Old Testament edited by Thomas Schirrmacher (Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft, 2015), 15-16. Online: https://www.bucer.de/fileadmin/dateien/Dokumente/Buecher/WoT_8_-_Thomas_Schirrmacher__ed.__-_The_Humanization_of_Slavery_in_the_OT.pdf.
2.
Walter Kaiser, Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1983),
102.
3.
Christopher J. H. Wright, God’s People in
God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990), 243.
4.
Christopher J. H. Wright, God’s People in
God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament, 244.
5.
David L. Baker, “The Humanisation of Slavery in
the Old Testament,” 16.
6.
Joe M. Sprinkle, “Law and Narrative in Exodus
19-23” Journal for the Evangelical
Theological Society 47 (June, 2004), 241-242.
7.
Joe M. Sprinkle, “Law and Narrative in Exodus
19-23,” 245.
8.
James M. Hamilton, “Does the Bible Condone Slavery
and Sexism?” 341. Online: http://jimhamilton.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Does-the-Bible-Condone-Slavery-and-Sexism.pdf.
9.
Thomas Schirrmacher, “Slavery in the Old Testament,
in the New Testament, and Today: With Special Research on ‘The Role of
Evangelicals in the Abolition of Slavery’” in The Humanisation of Slavery in the Old Testament, 56.
10.
Thomas Schirrmacher, “Slavery in the Old
Testament, in the New Testament, and Today,” 58.
11.
Thomas Schirrmacher, “Slavery in the Old
Testament, in the New Testament, and Today,” 62.
12.
Thomas Schirrmacher, “Slavery in the Old
Testament, in the New Testament, and Today,” 66.
13.
Thomas Schirrmacher, “Slavery in the Old
Testament, in the New Testament, and Today,” 71-72.
14.
John Warwick Montgomery, “Slavery, Human Dignity
and Human Rights” in The Humanisation of
Slavery in the Old Testament, 21-25.
15.
Thomas Schirrmacher, “Slavery in the Old
Testament, in the New Testament, and Today,” 75.
