Atheists and other critics will point to these three verses which, in their opinion, is an obvious slam dunk proof that the Bible, the Christian God, condoned and endorsed chattel slavery, just read it for yourself:
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,
According to the critic, these three lines:
- Allows for the buying of people
- Who then become the buyer's property,
- Who can be bequeathed to your children as inherited property
- For life
The key to understanding this passage is that the Bible prohibited chattel slavery long before Leviticus.
This passage does not depict involuntary or chattel slavery, but rather a system more akin to employment: voluntary indentured servitude. The case is quite easy to make.
The Anti-Kidnap Law -
“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)
This verse outlaws involuntary slavery since one cannot take nor hold anyone involuntary
One might object that this is about kidnapping not slavery. However to force one into involuntary servitude one must first be kidnapped, taken unwillingly and usually by force. This is clear that selling a person or buying someone
against their will into slavery was punishable by death in the OT.
But wait, war captives didn't volunteer to become slaves.
This is an interesting point, however if a city surrendered [for example Deut 20.10], it became a vassal state to Israel, with the population becoming
serfs (mas),
not slaves (ebed, amah). They would have performed what is called 'corvee' (draft-type, special labor projects, and often on a rotation basis--as Israelites later did under Solomon, 1 Kings 5.27). This was analogous to ANE praxis, in which war captives were not enslaved, but converted into vassal groups:
"
The nations subjected by the Israelites were considered slaves. They were, however, not slaves in the proper meaning of the term, although they were obliged to pay royal taxes and perform public works. [Anchor Bible Dictionary. "Slavery, Old Testament"]
Anti-Return law - "You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you. Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not oppress him." (Deuteronomy 23:15-16, ESV)
Some dismiss DT 23:15-16 by saying that this was referring to other tribes/countries and that Israel was to have no extradition treaty with them. But read it in context and that idea is nowhere to be found; DT 23:15-16 refers to slaves, without any mention of their origin.
"A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to his master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of. This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations, and is explained as due to Israel's own history as slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution. [History of Ancient Near East Law - pg1007]
The importance of Anti-Kidnap law & Anti-Return law
These laws very explicitly outlaw chattel slavery, involuntary servitude. With these two laws, one could not take anyone against their will, sell or possess them, nor could they be returned. Leviticus 25:44-46 is the main verse critics use to argue for chattel slavery, but given these two laws, it's reasonable to concludes that one must read that passage through the lens of indentured servitude.
These two passages lay out the framework of outlaw involuntary slavery and give us what we need in order to evaluate Leviticus 25 correctly.
Let’s examine Leviticus now through the correct contextual lens of the Anti-Kidnap law & Anti-Return law:
“
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.” (Leviticus 25:44, ESV)
Look at the word for “slaves.” In Hebrew, it is the word ebed.
As any Hebrew dictionary will tell you, this word can mean “servant,” “slave,” “minister,” “adviser,” or “official.”
Based on Exodus and Deuteronomy verses above, we can reasonably conclude that this word does
not mean “chattel slave” in Leviticus 25. The better translation is “servant,” “worker,” or as we’d say today, “employee.”
Next, look at the word “buy.” Exodus 21:16 forbids owning and selling people, so how can Leviticus 25 allow "buying" people? Again, let’s look at what the word means. In Hebrew, this word קָ× ָ×”/qanah means “
buy,” or “acquire,” or "gained.” Or in modern phraseology, “hire”; this makes the most sense since this is a voluntary arrangement, the ebed/slave is going freely and can leave anytime.
Through failed crops or other disasters, debt tended to come to families, not just individuals. One could voluntarily enter into a contractual agreement (“sell” himself) to work in the household of another:
What is being bought or sold is one's labor.
But what about slaves being “property.”
This fits in well with the idea of one selling their labor. For example: Any professional athlete who signs a contract with a team is their "property" in that they can only play for that team.
But you can bequeath them
“You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.” (Leviticus 25:46, ESV)
Let’s again clarify this through Exodus and Deuteronomy as this all comes down to what the Hebrew words really means. The word for “inherit,” nahal, can indeed mean “give as an inheritance.” Or it can also mean simply “assign.” Since Exodus 21:16 forbids owning people, we cannot justify “give as an inheritance” as a translation.
We’re left with “assign,” which happens to make perfect sense in the context. If a man hires a servant, he can assign that worker to work for his son; even after his death if his term of service is still valid.
What about Lev 25:39-40?
These verses say not to make Hebrews slaves
Read the verses: “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves [ebed] . 40 They are to be treated as hired workers [charash] or temporary residents ... 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.
The key to understanding this is the phrase "They are to be treated as" in vs 39. This doesn't mean that they are not bond servants [ebed], just that there are to be treated as hired workers [charash]
That is the distinction being made here, the type of labor being performed by a Hebrew bond-servant and a non-Hebrew bond-servant.
What about “forever,” or “for life.”
Exodus 21 clarifies:
But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his servant forever. (Exodus 21:5–6, ESV)
Note who has the power in this situation. The master cannot force the servant to stay. The only way a servant becomes a servant forever is by the servant’s own choice.
Leviticus 25:46 seems to refer to servants who have chosen to voluntarily serve perpetually. A man could assign these servants to his children, to work for them. Leviticus 25:46 clarifies Exodus 21:5–6, stating that the service is to the family, not simply to the individual.
Also, remember Deuteronomy 23:15–16. Any servant can choose to go free at any time — even those who decided to serve perpetually.
If a man assigns a servant to work for his son, but the son begins mistreating the servant, that servant can leave. They are not bound to an abusive situation.
If you let the entire Law inform the translation of Leviticus, any hint of involuntary slavery disappears.
When you let the foundation of Exodus 21 and the clarification of Deuteronomy 23 speak, you end up with a perfectly moral code of employment for foreigners.
The problem for critics
The
Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) is a method of reasoning used to determine which explanation of a set of facts or evidence is the most plausible. This is commonly used in all fields of inquiry, including science.
Where the atheists and other critics fail with LV 25:44-46 is that they do not follow that IBE
One criteria for the IBE is explanatory scope: The most likely hypothesis will explain a
wider range of data than will rival hypotheses. The critics just usually just uses a few while ignoring those that challenge their view. How do critics explian verses like Deuteronomy 23:15–16 and Exodus 21:16?
Bowen's first question, "is this passage describing a Hebrew slave or foreign slave"? [113] then looks at verses 1 through 6 to show that the passages begin with laws regarding Hebrew slaves. Bowen attempts to make a connection between the word "eved ivri" (Hebrew slave) and similarities between the word "habiru/hapiru" that was used to describe groups of outsiders or outlaws and other Ancient Near East texts [114]. He reaches his conclusion: "the passage is speaking about the laws concerning slavery of the Israelite". [115]
So, Bowen's argument is that the use of "eved ivri" [Hebrew slave] means this Ex 21 is about Hebrew slaves.
The first problem is that "eved ivri" is not found in vs 16. In fact, after being used in verse 2, it's not used again in all of Exodus 21.
Bowen wants us to think that all the following verses pertain to laws regarding Hebrew slaves. I will grant that the context to verse 11 seems to be in regard to Hebrew slaves.
However, starting in verse 12 we get four verses starting with "whoever", then ten starting "when men" or "when a man does x" versus. [There is one "when an ox", and one "when a fire" verse] This strongly suggests that Exodus 21 switch gears in verse 12 to another topic that extends to all people - personal injuries, manslaughter, murder, theft, etc
So to think that verse 16 is about a Hebrew slave based on the use of "eved ivri" in verse ONE seems to fall apart.... given the multitude of "whoever" and "when a man" verses.
Secondly, the writer who chose to use "eved ivri", chose not to use that term, and instead a different identifier - the terms translated "whoever" and "when a man". And in verses 20 and 22 the writer uses ebed (slave)- not "eved ivri" (Hebrew slave). Bowen's argument falls apart right here.
Given Bowen's argument relies on specific words being used in verse 2, and the fact they not only are they not used elsewhere, but different words were used, this strongly indicates that we are no longer talking about Hebrew slaves exclusively in the rest of Exodus 21.
Are we to think that laws in verses 12 to 36 about personal injury, manslaughter, murder, theft etc only concern Hebrew slaves but not the general population?
No, The best explanation is that verse 12 veered off onto other topics which include all people and thus Ex 21:16 deals with any and all persons.
An Objection from Reddit
Prudent-Town-6724 responded to
my post on Reddit [edited for clarity - you can click the linfk for the full comments]
In response to my statement about Exodus 21:16 - that the verse outlaws involuntary slavery since one cannot take nor hold anyone involuntary he wrires:
The laws of the Roman Republic and late the Roman Empire prohibited kidnapping: Are you going to argue that Ancient Rome didn't have slaves?My Reply: This seems to be a bit of
whataboutery I am not making an argument about Roman laws I made a argument about the OT law. If you think Roman law can shed light on whether the OT condoned chattel slvery, make your argument.
Prudent-Town-6724: Deuteronomy 20 makes clear that Israelites (in theory) should only have relations with foreign states to the extent that the foreign states submitted to Israel and became their client states doing labour for them. So the idea IS to be found.
My Reply: Deuteronomy 20 is about "When you go out to war against your enemies... [vs 1]
Prudent-Town-6724: Also the anti-return law is also explicable as a desire to profit from the presence of an economic producer - most states in antiquity wanted to increase their populations.
My Reply: What? Is this supposed to be a
koan? I have no idea what your point is.
Prudent-Town-6724: Exodus 21:1 makes clear that the following verses are referring only to Hebrew slaves, not foreigners. In particular, there is a continuous sequence of nouns and pronouns from verse 1 to verse 6 (he, the slave etc.) that make clear verses 1 to 6 form a single unit.
My Reply: The Anti-Return law is in verse 16, not verse 1-6. Furthermore, the phase "whoever" is used 4 times, the phrase "when a man" is used 6 times after verse 12 [ESV] So, if the logic is that "Hebrew slave" [used once] means the whole chapter is about Hebrew slaves, then wouldn't "whoever" [used 4x] and "when a man" [used 6x] after vs 12 mean that those verse are referring whoever and any man? The "Hebrew slave in verse 1" argument implodes upon itself given the data above.
Another Objection from Reddit - cod3man
But there are plain statements of it, like the mentioned Leviticus 25:44-46, which explicitly says you can take slaves and they will become your property, repeatedly and with multiple clarifications as well as with an opposite example. It's hard to imagine a clearer way to convey "chattel slavery is allowed" than that.
My Reply: One of the basics of a well thought out theory [of anything] is to accouint for all of the data. But cod3man refers to just 3 verses. While blatantly ignoring the anti-kidnap law, the anti-return law, the anti-opression laws, the nuances of the Hebrew word ebed [slave or servant] and etc, etc, etc. cod3man is like a flat-earther who looks at only data points that "justify" his view, ignores the rest, then calls it a day. I can only provide the data, and argument, but I cannot make somebody thibk critically.
Objection A - Your first quote basically undermines your whole argument except for the assertion that it doesn’t mean what it obviously means. To say this line about slavery isn’t really about slavery, and this line about slavery isn’t really about slavery … until you realise it’s about slavery. You are just trying to fix it with playing with language.
Reply: What the critic apparently doesn't understand is that the English word "slavery" comes from the
Hebrew word "ebed" which means 1) slave, servant, subjects servants - worshippers (of God), servant (in special sense as prophets, Levites etc), servant (of Israel), servant (as form of address between equals)
For it to mean any of those it would have to be derived from the context. For it to mean "chattel slave", it would have to be derived from the context. The critic cannot just assume that it means this. They have to do the work to show that it does.
I've made my argument with the Anti-Kidnap law & Anti-Return law; this objection just an unjustified assertion that 1) slavery must mean "chattel slavery" and 2) ignores any argument or evidence contrary to that. One can simply apply Hitchens's razor to this objection: "
what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
Objection B - Under what condition is it ok to own other human beings as property? I'll provide a hint - never. It is never ok to own another human being as property
Reply: Well good since my argument is that the Bibkle does not condone nor endorse owning another human being as property
Objection C - A professional athlete is not the property of the team. Not in any way. The professional athlete can break that contract if they want. There might be financial consequences, but they are allowed to leave at any time. A slave is not. A slave cannot break the contract and leave. A slave will be killed for such. The profession athlete also is not a permanent employee of the team. A slave is permanently owned. A professional athlete gets to negotiate their contract.
Reply: in a sense a professional athlete is not the property of the team. He can be traded [or sold]to another team, there are restrictions on his behavior even off the field. And a OT servant can break their contract as well - see above the Anti-Return law. A servant is only stays until the till the end of the servitude contract. And then they can negotiate another one. Thank for pointing out the similarities!
Objection D - I don't expect a reply, since it seems like you have no interest in replying to the responses here.
Objection E Using entirely separate passages only works if one presupposes the Bible to be univocal, and there is nothing to suggest this.
Reply: You don't define "univocal", But if you mean the view that the Bible speaks in One voice i.e. the doesn’t itself in any significant way, then showing how all the verses about slavery are actually about indentured servitude and not chattel slavery would be proof of univocality
Objection F - Exodus 21:16 is a punishment for kidnapping, yes, but it is not a restriction on buying kidnapped persons. Exodus 21 nowhere bans the owning of another human being
Reply: Did you read the verse? Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” Death penalty for stealing, selling, or in possesion - a buyer would be in possesion. What do you think in possesion of someone against their will is but ownership?
Objection G - Deuteronomy 23 contains a law against returning slaves who have fleed. It does not have any restrictions on a master for trying to stop their escaping, but once they are escaped, other Israelites should not return the slave. It also doesn't say that the master cannot retrieve the slave themself.
Reply: For the master to forcibly take back a servant, that would be kidnapping resulting in the death penaly
Objection H - You also ignore for the most part how the Israelites were commanded to take slaves in war if a city did not surrender and were defeated in battle (Deuteronomy 20).
Reply: not sure why you say thisa since I addressed war captives above in the post
Objection I - Exodus 21:5–6 is about
Hebrew servants. A couple lines before, Exodus literally clarifies "if you buy a
Hebrew servant".
Reply: Read the "Excursus" above where I shoot down this argument that Exodus 21 is about Hebrew slaves
Objection J - Leviticus 25:44-46 states that “you can buy slaves from foreign countries… -you can give them to your children as property; You can make them slaves for life." Those three sections clearly indicate that God allows (or commands) the Israelites to buy slaves, own them as “property”, give them as property to their children, and make them slaves for life without freeing them.
Reply: You just totally ignored my argument; I can only post it, I cannot make anyone read it ot consider it.
Objection K - I find it interesting how men always ignore the women and children in these passages. According to Exodus 21:1-6, children born to slaves are slaves for life.
Reply: see the link below
Objection L - I love how you quoted the part of Exodus 21 that shows a man staying with his master because he loves his wife and children, without even trying to address the problems inherent in that situation. see Exodus 21:3-6 So what you presented as a person willingly giving themselves over to slavery is in fact someone whose family is being held ransom toward that end.
Also of note is the following verse 7, which torpedoes your notion that slaves could go free / terminate their employment at will, as well as the notion that all slaves gave themselves over voluntarily.
Reply: See the links for Exodus 21:1-6 and Exodus 21:7-11 below
Objection M- Every time you this, you get eviscerated. As in debunked, refuted, disproven. I don't think that you care what the bible says. God allowed chattel slavery in certain circumstances. There is no honest question about that.
Reply: Yeah, I get a lot of people asserting that I'ves been debunked, refuted, and disproven. But invariably the fail to actually engage the actual points in the argument. Critics seem to have a visceral, irrational reaction to the idea that it's indentured servitude.
