That's nice. But guess what: it's still
horribly immoral, and a terrible system to codify into law. What of the children of slaves? How could it
possibly be moral to enslave someone based on the situation of their birth? What of the laws allowing beatings? You can make excuses all you want, but the fact of the matter is, the system described in the bible is
horribly immoral. And completely unnecessary, to boot. God could have saved a lot of suffering by actually
saying "indentured servitude" and laying down strict rules on how to treat these servants correctly. But he didn't, instead opting for explanations on how to trick your slave into permanently becoming your property, and exactly how hard it's legal to beat them.
But I don't have access to the reformation study bible, so I did the responsible thing and tried to corroborate your source on my own. I went and did a little digging. What you're describing applies
only to Hebrew slaves. To quote
Wikipedia:
The
Hebrew Bible contains two sets of rules governing slaves: one set for Hebrew slaves (Lev 25:39-43) and a second set for
Canaanite slaves (Lev 25:45-46).
[1][21] The main source of non-Hebrew slaves were prisoners of war.
[18] Hebrew slaves, in contrast to non-Hebrew slaves, became slaves either because of extreme poverty (in which case they could sell themselves to an Israelite owner) or because of inability to pay a debt.
[16] According to the Hebrew Bible, non-Hebrew slaves were drawn primarily from the neighboring
Canaanite nations,
[22] and religious justification was provided for the enslavement of these neighbors:
the rules governing Canaanites was based on a curse aimed at Canaan, a son of Ham,
[23] but in later eras the Canaanite slavery laws were stretched to apply to all non-Hebrew slaves.
[24]
The laws governing non-Hebrew slaves were more harsh than those governing Hebrew slaves: non-Hebrew slaves could be owned permanently, and bequeathed to the owner's children,
[25] whereas Hebrew slaves were treated as servants, and were released after seven years of service or the occurrence of a jubilee year.
[26][27] One scholar suggests that the distinction was due to the fact that non-Hebrew slaves were subject to the curse of Canaan, whereas God did not want Jews to be slaves because he freed them from
Egyptian enslavement.
[28]
Oh, and the bible
explicitly states that female slaves are not to be released after 7 years. So that's
also terrible.
But I'm not talking about the slaves of 200 years ago. I'm talking about slavery
as described by the holy bible. Even outside of
any other context, even completely ignoring the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the system described in exodus is
still monstrous, and still completely immoral. There's a reason we did away with indentured servitude in the modern world - it's an unconscionable abridgment of one's personal liberties, and only the truly desperate and stupid would be willing to sign up for it. But what is described in Exodus is not simply indentured servitude. You buy your slaves from the heathens around you. Female slaves remain slaves for life. Caananite slaves remain slaves for life, and can be bequeathed to your children. The children of your slaves will also become your slaves. Nothing in here is moral, and attempting to make it sound justifiable just seems desperate.
