I came across this Christian site, Revelation.co. It was presenting its view on slavery as recorded in the bible and I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at its content.
On slavery, it said, "Instead, slavery was more like a form of indentured servitude, or like a live-in maid or butler. Some compare it to a social class, and with good reason: A person who was financially broke could become a “slave” for a set period of time, and work to pay off debt, or to have guaranteed housing and care. This was actually a good thing, and it did wonders to keep the “homeless” population under control. If you were broke, no problem–just go be a servant for a while."
Live in butler??? Your brandy and chocolate mints sir.
As for beating slaves and the slave dying as a result of the beating, their take on this was something I had to read twice to make sure that it said what I thought it said.
"If the slave died, the master would be put to death, but not if the slave survived (or, at least for a few days). Why? First, if the slave survived, it shows the master’s intent was not to kill or seriously harm the slave. Maybe they just got into a physical argument. Or maybe the master had to defend himself. Either way, it was a simple case of domestic violence, not pre-meditated murder. There is a big difference between those two."
Next, the Bible clears up the meaning when it says this, “he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.” What does that mean? That slaves are cheap property and worthless? No, not at all. The Bible makes clear that we are all of tremendous value to God our Father, whether we are lowly slaves or wealthy kings:"
In that last paragraph, they are not even denying that if a slave dies as a result of a beating the slave owner will not have to answer for the killing. How can they say that everyone is of tremendous value, slave or king when the death of a slave as a result of a beating is overlooked because he is considered to be no more than a piece of property?
The mind boggles!
Imagine for a minute indentured servitude done best -- like a contract of employment.
Ok, a real employment that is fair
allows the employee to leave.
Right? (first, I'm asking if you agree that there can be a type of employment contract of get the pay at the beginning, and serve for a set time)
Well, then how do
you interpret the law in those same set of laws you are considering here about that very question of leaving that putative contract of employment, and...even for an outright slave also:
15 “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him."
e.g. -- the servant, and even an outright slave, could simply leave and go elsewhere and start a new life, and they are then
protected by law from God (no less, not merely law from man).
Surprised? What do you think of this? It's pretty much like you'd better treat your servant/slave well, or they can simply leave, and God's law says for their new neighbors to treat them like a brother, pretty much.
As for instance we can see in action at the beginning of the very short New Testament letter to Philemon, which itself goes further and makes the escaped slave an outright social equal, regardless of any past debts or class distinctions. But Philemon is a later point in time.
What's your own viewpoint of the Deuteronomy 23 law just above?
(really asking)
In your 2nd paragraph you point to a disturbing Exodus 21 law, but....that very law turns out to be only 1 of several additional laws about hurting a slave. They are given piecemeal, in more than just one chapter.
That's very unlike the New Testament, where we become accustomed to hearing the law stated by Christ in a very general and perfected form, such as: "
in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you".
So...we can't read old testament regulations as if it is a perfected and more advanced law as we see later in time.
Instead, they seem incremental, and micro regulations. Like little steps upward.
The next step on that one about beating a slave though comes
very soon (in the
same chapter).
Only
5 verses later. Does that mean that law was promulgated on the same day? Perhaps so.
26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye.
27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth."
Now, does it seem there is a bit more than just verse 21 you were rightly worried about?
But 26-27 aren't the end yet. More is added.
It's a progression. Why?
It could easily be that because Israel was having slaves for the first time (having themselves been slaves in Egypt), that the piecemeal laws, incremental, were necessary, since Israel proved over and over it could
not simply follow a very general law -- they failed to follow even the simple 10 commandments, repeatedly -- and would therefore need micro regulation.
Just like our own modern American law.
Maryland sexual assault law in brief summary (think Kavanaugh):
Maryland Rape and Sexual Assault Laws - FindLaw
If you look at that quick summary of Maryland sexual assault laws, you find it has a variety of categories.
Why not just say: be kind and treat others as you would like to be treated in their shoes...
?
What do you think is the answer to this question?
The answer is few people love all of their neighbors. They tend to love a select few, and do wrong to others, frankly.
I think the answer is that many people simply won't follow any general law to simply: do what is just and right and good, but need micro regulations, because they are not yet into the state of "love your neighbor as yourself" applying to
everyone they meet, but are in some much less good state.
So...Israel got micro regulations.
That means when you find one law, as you did in your 2nd paragraph, you cannot assume that's all there is, but you'd have to look for the rest, like in the Maryland statues -- there is more than one, more than 2, more than 3, more like Maryland, a variety (and not all in one chapter or 1 book like the convenient Maryland summary I linked).
We all learn by experience that when anyone takes a verse or 2 (or marshalls together a group of isolated verses that seem to be pointing one way if we color them), that this kind of thesis is not reliable.
Here's the rub -- to understand Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, you have to read entirely through them all the way (sorry!....), and that's not enough for some certain things in those books, but some pieces are expanded or added to radically later in other books, so you are stuck in the situation you need the entire Old Testament to have any confidence in a thesis about some topics of great meaning.
Which, I'd suppose, guessing, only about 3% or less of people have read fully through in the last, say, 20 years (lately enough to have a good chance to have a clue if they see whatever thesis to consider). Ergo, not only do non-believers who read say half the books in the OT not have much of a chance to get it right on certain questions in the OT, but also plenty of Christians don't either.