- Feb 5, 2002
- 166,576
- 56,208
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Question: Exodus 21:16 seems to make it clear that we may not possess a stolen man.
The African people brought to the New World were obviously stolen people. It was always a mortal sin to own a stolen person. There are also references in Exodus to the ownership and treatment of “slaves,” so these “slaves” are apparently not the same as stolen people because the Jews are specifically allowed to have these people. Is not the slavery of the Bible different from the slavery of the Americas?
— Name, location withheld
Answer: Though your claims here are not indisputable, there is certainly merit in them. The terms “stolen,” “slave” and “servant” are sometimes used strictly and sometimes in a wider sense interchangeably in both the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Septuagint. That said, in the ancient world there was a difference between a stolen or kidnapped person and a slave. Most often slavery was imposed in the ancient world as a real or perceived act of justice. Those enslaved had either committed a crime, owed large debts, or were combatants in a war against the nation that enslaved them. Enslavement in cases like this was an alternative to prison or capital punishment. “Man-stealing” or kidnapping was to capture someone guilty of no crime, possessing no debt or warlike tendencies, and treat him as a slave. As you point out, this is condemned: “A kidnapper, whether he sells the person or the person is found in his possession, shall be put to death” (Ex 21:16). The same Book of Exodus however does acknowledge the possession of slaves and the proper treatment of them (cf. Ex 12:44).
This also goes to illustrate that the slavery of the colonial period was quite different that the slavery of the biblical period. As noted, the slaves of the ancient world were rendered so by debt, crime or acts of war. The African slaves of the Colonial period did none of this and were enslaved without cause other than greed and injustice. Perhaps, as you note, it is better to describe them as stolen people than as slaves.
But words are sensitive things. Calling them “stolen people” rather than slaves may promote a proper distinction but nonetheless may cause offense to some who see this nomenclature as having less impact and watering down the terrible evils of the antebellum South.
Is slavery in the Bible different than modern slavery? - Our Sunday Visitor
The African people brought to the New World were obviously stolen people. It was always a mortal sin to own a stolen person. There are also references in Exodus to the ownership and treatment of “slaves,” so these “slaves” are apparently not the same as stolen people because the Jews are specifically allowed to have these people. Is not the slavery of the Bible different from the slavery of the Americas?
— Name, location withheld
Answer: Though your claims here are not indisputable, there is certainly merit in them. The terms “stolen,” “slave” and “servant” are sometimes used strictly and sometimes in a wider sense interchangeably in both the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Septuagint. That said, in the ancient world there was a difference between a stolen or kidnapped person and a slave. Most often slavery was imposed in the ancient world as a real or perceived act of justice. Those enslaved had either committed a crime, owed large debts, or were combatants in a war against the nation that enslaved them. Enslavement in cases like this was an alternative to prison or capital punishment. “Man-stealing” or kidnapping was to capture someone guilty of no crime, possessing no debt or warlike tendencies, and treat him as a slave. As you point out, this is condemned: “A kidnapper, whether he sells the person or the person is found in his possession, shall be put to death” (Ex 21:16). The same Book of Exodus however does acknowledge the possession of slaves and the proper treatment of them (cf. Ex 12:44).
This also goes to illustrate that the slavery of the colonial period was quite different that the slavery of the biblical period. As noted, the slaves of the ancient world were rendered so by debt, crime or acts of war. The African slaves of the Colonial period did none of this and were enslaved without cause other than greed and injustice. Perhaps, as you note, it is better to describe them as stolen people than as slaves.
But words are sensitive things. Calling them “stolen people” rather than slaves may promote a proper distinction but nonetheless may cause offense to some who see this nomenclature as having less impact and watering down the terrible evils of the antebellum South.
Is slavery in the Bible different than modern slavery? - Our Sunday Visitor
