When it comes to the institution of slavery in the Bible we must understand a few basic realities. First, the word often translated “slave” in the Bible (Hebrew
‘ebed and Greek
doulos) covered a wide range of relationships. It could refer to a slave, bondservant, or servant.
[ii] This reminds us that we must be careful not to impose our modern understanding of slavery on the usage of the word in the Old and New Testaments, which were written in a different cultural and historical era. In other words, we must be careful not to assume that when we see the word “slave” in the Bible that it is speaking of the brutal, race based slavery of 19
th century America.
We must also note that the Old Testament law regulated the life of God’s people and acknowledged the fact that slavery existed. It had laws preventing a Hebrew from permanently enslaving his fellow Israelite (Ex. 21:2). At times, an Israelite could sell himself into servitude if he was broke and needed the money and benefits that such servitude would provide for him (Lev. 24:39). The Bible makes it very clear that slave trade (kidnapping someone and placing them into slavery) was serious sin. Exodus 21:16 says “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” The ESV Study Bible, in commenting on this verse, says, “This instruction, repeated in Deut. 24:7, indicates that the people of Israel were called to justice not only in the way they treated slaves but also in the manner by which a person could become a slave.”
So, we must begin our examination of the question at hand by first realizing that the Bible does not approve of a “slave trade” and cannot be used to support 19th century slavery or 21st century slavery (yes slavery still exists in parts of the world, including sex trade). We must also bear in mind that the Old Testament law provides regulations for how God’s people were to live as a people “set apart” in a fallen world.
The fall of the world into sin means that everything is broken. Human hearts seek to love self more than God and others. Even the economy is difficult because of the effects of the fall on this world. The slavery of Old Testament times existed in a fallen world because of the sinfulness of man and effects of the curse on the earth (even economic difficulty).
Exodus 21:20-21
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.”
Are slaves being described as less than human?
At first glance, verse 21 seems to indicate that a slave was not seen as a person. However, to understand what is going on here we must look at the context. First, the broad context of the biblical narrative going back to Genesis shows that all men and women are created in the image of God and, therefore, are equal in essence no matter what social status they have (Gen. 1:27).
Second, the immediate context also tells us there is more here than meets our initial gloss. The ESV Study Bible again provides a helpful comment on the context (specifically vv. 2-11) when it says, “Although the restitution for slaves is governed by their social situation, their identity as full human beings, rather than mere possessions, is assumed, since they are not included in the laws governing the loss of property.” If you continued reading in Exodus 21, you would see the discussion moves to laws about animals and possessions (21:33-22:15). Slaves are included in a section about people including slaves, children, pregnant women, and others accused of manslaughter. So, the context indicates slaves are not being described as less than human.
What does the passage mean then?
The passage is providing law for how a master who has beaten his slave is to be handled legally (it is not approving any ill treatment of a slave).
Verse 20 says that if the slave dies after such a beating, he is to be “avenged.”
“Avenged” is actually two words in the Hebrew.
It is a special Hebrew construction which serves to emphasize the word.
[iii] So, it could read, “he shall
surely be avenged” (see the KJV translation).
The idea is that there
must be an avenging of such an action. So, when a master beats his slave and kills him during the beating, it is clear he intentionally killed the slave.
Justice must be served for this action of murder.
Verse 21 says, “But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.” The word “survives” can actually mean “stands up.” So, the NIV might translate verse 21 better when it says, “but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers [or gets up] after a day or two…”.
Taken this way, the passage says the slave survived with no permanent damage. In this case, the loss of the slave’s work was his master’s punishment (“time is money” as they say). Support for this view is found in the context. Verses 18-19 say, “When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed.”
But what if this should be translated to mean the slave survives a few days and then dies? Here the idea is more like manslaughter. The slave survives a few days. So, obviously, the master did not intend to kill him. Was he wrong? Yes. But, as for the courts, they will not treat this manslaughter the same way as murder (our courts are similar). So, he is not guilty of murder. And, in this case, since the slave belongs to him, there is no one else to pay restitution to but himself. Therefore, his punishment is the loss of his slave (not a small thing in terms of economics). This verse does not relate to the person-hood of a slave nor is it a prescription for how to treat one’s slave. It is, rather, a law governing how to handle a slave owner who unintentionally kills his slave. Was what he did wrong? Yes. Was it murder in this case? No. So, the punishment should not be that of a murder (again our courts do a similar thing in distinguishing between murder and manslaughter).
Does this mean masters could seriously injure the slaves and not face punishment?
No. Later, in the same passage, we read, “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth” (vv. 26-27). If the slave is mistreated in a way that results in permanent harm, he is released from slavery (and the owner loses the economic benefit of his slave). In this case, the slave is still alive and, therefore, there is someone who can be given restitution- namely the slave himself.
Conclusion
The Bible does not encourage or condone the unjust treatment of any person. It did not consider slaves as less than human. It did provide laws to govern the various situations that came up in the lives of those living in ancient Israel. God gave the people legislation for all of life in a fallen world.
[ii] See the online version of the ESV Study Bible preface to the translation.
[iii] It is an infinitive absolute construct in which the same Hebrew is used twice in a row (one being an infinitive absolute).
This serves to emphasize the word (see Russell Fuller
Invitation to Biblical Hebrew: Beginning Grammar, pg. 117
. Also cf. Genesis 2:17 which literally says, “dying you shall die” and is translated, “you shall
surely die”).
