DID THE HEBREWS OPPRESS FOREIGN SLAVES?

 

In response to a call on the Quora website for atheists' favorite Bible contradictions, one reader posted the following: “The Hebrews are never supposed to oppress a 'stranger' but then they are allowed to buy the children of strangers to use as lifetime slaves.”

One of the first problems in dealing with such blanket accusations is that the respondent did not bother to provide any specific Old Testament passages to which he/she was referring. And thus I am not 100% sure that I am responding appropriately. However, there were passages referring to Hebrews in debt being forced to sell their children to fellow Hebrews on a temporary basis. So here is the best I can do to try and answer this objection.

It all starts with an understanding what words such as 'stranger,' 'oppress,' and 'slavery' actually meant in OT times within the Jewish community. This is necessary before proceeding since to those in today's society,

    Stranger generally connotes anyone that we don't personally know.

    Oppress means any form of compulsion whatsoever that interferes with our right to live as we please.

    Slavery conjures up the worst excesses of Southern exploitation of blacks before the American Civil War.

With such a mindset, it is not at all surprising that some would self-righteously pass judgment on those living roughly three thousand thousand years ago in a completely different cultural setting than today. But the quotations below from noted Bible scholars on these issues may help to set the record straight.

Stranger

The various Hebrew words translated as 'stranger' in the OT simply refer to non-Hebrew people, those not descended from Jacob. It has nothing at all to do with whether you happened to know the person, but only with genealogy. And as such, care was taken (or supposed to be taken) to maintain the purity of that line in keeping with the fact that that the Jews were “God's chosen people.” There are numerous examples in the OT of people like Solomon who ignored that principle and ended up being caught up in the worship of the pagan deities of his many foreign wives. On the other hand, one can cite the example of Ruth, who certainly met the definition of a “stranger,” and her incorporation into the Hebrew line that ultimately led to the Messiah.

Oppress

Stepping away from our modern presuppositions, the biblical definition of oppression meant unduly harsh treatment of those owned.

Slavery

Understanding the definition of a slave in Old Testament times starts with the realization that the same Hebrew words are often used to describe both a slave and servant. Also, the fact that most of the regulations regarding slavery applied to both Hebrew and foreign slaves.

With that brief background, here are some randomly arranged comments taken from the scholarly literature that may help clarify the situation. Unfortunately, since all three of the above issues are quite interrelated, there is no real systematic way of presenting what commentators have to say.

Varieties of Servitude

“Three types of slavery existed in Israel: by birth or purchase Hebrews served fellow Hebrews as security against poverty, Hebrews took non-Hebrews as slaves through purchase or capture in war, and Hebrews sold themselves to non-Hebrews as security against debt. In the first type slaves were eligible for sabbatical and Jubilee benefits (Exod. 21:2-6; Lev. 25:10, 38-41). In the second type slaves were circumcised and sworn into covenant membership (Gen. 17:9-14, 23; Deut. 29:10-15) but were not eligible for sabbatical and Jubilee benefits (Lev. 25:44-46).” (Swartley)

The most common Hebrew word for slave is 'ebed, appearing about 800 times in the Old Testament. But Schultz explains that “there has been considerable debate concerning the basic concept underlying 'ebed, which allows it to describe both the lowest social status, abject slavery, and the highest privilege afforded a person – that of being God's servant. Since 'ebed can be used to describe relationships that involve no obligations, no social inferiority, and only temporary conditions..., it is best to understand the 'ebed as one who is dependent on another and accordingly carries out his will or acts for his benefit.”

One distinction between Hebrew slaves who were Jews and those who were not is that the jubilee release clause does not apply to the latter class. Wenham explains: “A theological reason underlies this discrimination: God redeemed his people from Egyptian slavery, to become his slaves (Leviticus 25: 42,55). It is unfitting that an Israelite should be resold into slavery, especially to a foreigner.”

Comparison with Other Societies

Next, it is necessary to compare Jewish laws on the subject of slavery with those of other nations in the Middle East at the time. And on this relative scale, the Bible proves to be much more enlightened. C. Wright says, “The OT did not eliminate all social structures, such as the subordinate social and economic status of the slave. It did, however, go a long way in mitigating the worst effects through a theology of essential human equality based on common createdness. OT law knows nothing of the graded penalties for crimes against different ranks of victim, as was common in ANE [the ancient Near East] law. God commanded both native and alien to be treated equally (Lev 24:22). The slave was given human and legal rights unheard of in contemporary societies (Exod 21:20-21, 26-27).”

As examples, Schultz points out that “slaves were to be protected from physical abuse by their masters (Exod 21:20-21, 26-27), and runaway slaves were to be given refuge (Deut 23:15-16).” Elsewhere he writes: “The Pentateuchal legislation does not criticize the institution of slavery, but includes numerous laws that protect salves and accord them many of the rights of a citizen, regardless of the circumstances leading to their enslavement...These laws are theologically significant, for there is wide agreement among scholars that Israelite attitudes toward and treatment of slaves were unique in the ANE.”

“Few pieces of literature, ancient or modern, come close to the prophetic defense of the poor against the wiles of the rich. Amos cries out against the rich who abuse the poor by means of slavery (Amos 2:6), through their uncaring lifestyles (4:1), through their denial of justice (5:12), and by economic exploitation (8:4,6).” (Domeris)

Ross states that “the indentured servants must not be treated harshly (25:44-46). The word perek means 'harsh, crushing.' The Israelites had indentured servants from time to time and they sometimes acquired other people as their possessions. They could not, however, rule over their servants with crushing or backbreaking force.”

One indication that slavery among the Hebrews was not that harsh comes from Exodus 21:6 and Deuteronomy 15:17, which describe an ear-piercing ceremony carried out if a temporary slave wished to become a permanent one.

Kaiser provides a good summary of this subject: “What about the status of non-Hebrew slaves? These captives were permanent slaves to the Israelites, but that did not mean they could treat them as if they were mere chattel. The same rules of Exodus 21:20-21,26 applied to them. One evidence of mistreatment and they too went free. The foreign slave, along with the Hebrew household, had a day of rest each week (Ex 20:10; Deut 5:14)...The laws concerning slavery in the Old Testament appear to function to moderate a practice that worked as a means of loaning money for Jewish people to one another or for handling the problem of the prisoners of war...But in all cases the institution was closely watched and divine judgment was declared by the prophets and others for all abuses they spotted.”

Progressive Revelation

As with a number of other issues, it appears that God only revealed his full will for mankind in stages. This process began even within the OT. “A creditor was legally entitled to recover a debt from an insolvent debtor by taking into service the man's wife and children (cf. Exod 21:7). There are good grounds for thinking that the law in Deut 15:1-3 is later than both Exod 23:10-11 and Lev 25:27 and that its aim was to expand on the law of seventh year fallow so that compassion would be extended not only to the landless poor, but also to those landowners who had become burdened by poverty and debt...the Sabbath year and Jubilee laws demanded remission of both debts and bondages every seventh and fiftieth year, respectively.” (Wakely) But keep in mind that this release from bondage only applied to slaves who were fellow Hebrews.

To really obtain a biblical perspective on the subject of slavery, one must by necessity look at New Testament teachings and examples for the most complete revelation. Some of this is discussed in my posts titled “Why Philemon?” and “Philemon.” Paul presents the final word when he states in Galatians 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

One Final Comparison

I realize that some may not be convinced by any of the above and will argue that it only goes to prove that the OT teachings on slavery were marginally better than the practices of foreign nations at the time. So instead of going back 3,000 years, let's consider an example from our own “free” country at a time soon after of its founding. And rather looking at the sad example of oppressive slavery of blacks by plantation owners in the deep South, what about that universal idol of atheists and freethinkers today – Thomas Jefferson himself. He is deeply admired by many for his great intellect, wisdom and statesmanship. Atheists especially look up to him as a shining example for his willingness to rise above the restrictive Christian doctrines at the time, casting them aside and declaring himself not even a Theist, but a Deist who did not believe the impersonal Deity had any interaction with human beings or earthly affairs after setting the Creation in motion. One of the sacred texts of atheists and agnostics is the famous Jefferson Bible in which he cut and pasted only those parts of the Bible of which he approved along with equally applicable teachings from ancient philosophers.

This paragon of enlightenment was exposed not too many years ago when his diaries became readily available to the general public. It turns out that Jefferson took advantage of his position of master to sexually abuse a black servant and have children by her, and then refused to have them liberated on his death. In addition, he spent so much money on constantly redesigning Monticello, that he desperately needed more income from his estate. His main source of revenue came from the number of black children which were kept at work for long hours in his small manufacturing enterprise. And when the income from this source began to fall, he hired back an overseer whom he had earlier fired for his overly harsh treatment of the children. In that way he hoped to increase their output.

If one argues that Jefferson should not be judged by today's standards but by the society in which he lived at the time, then that is exactly what I have done above concerning biblical teachings on slavery. And even that is not an excuse for Jefferson since there are records showing clearly that when his neighboring landowning Virginians pleaded with him to emancipate his slaves as they had already done, he staunchly refused.