Christians are occasionally faced with the charge that God is pro-slavery. This is based on a misreading of the Old Testament. Typically the person making the charges will claim that God approved of slavery like that in the United States in the 1800's. In fact, Biblical slavery was indentured servanthood.
Benjamin Franklin came to America under a system like this as an indentured servant to his older, more established brother. His brother paid his fare to the United States and promised support in exchange.
The Old Testament passage is:
Exodus 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
The year of jubilees was the point of freedom for the male slave. Seven years was the maximum allowed by law as jubilees occurred every seven years. The average would be about 3 years. Prices and values would rise and fall over the time period depending upon how close they were to the next jubilee.
3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
If he was already married, he gets to take his wife with him. He could also make arrangements to buy her freedom if he could afford to pay the price. He also received a generous "severance pay" at the time of freedom.
4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
If he accepts the wife that the master gives him, he understands that it will come at the cost of one of two things:
This is a totally free-will choice. He is not forced to take the wife as it is his choice. There is no compulsion to take the wife in the passage.
5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
When it is time to be released, he could choose freedom or marriage (pun intended). I suppose that married people face the same situation today with divorce being as easy as it currently is. Remember that the master payed the price for the wife for the slave.
6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.
Need witnesses for the contractual agreement that they are entering. Shedding of blood for the contract. A little pain. Left with a mark. One way contract. No way out.
7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
She appears to be stuck. At first blush it looks like the critic might be right, but I know that if I just read the next verse... Let's, read the rest of the passage in verse 8.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
If she does a crappy job she gets free. What kind of deal is that for the master? Basically, if she want to be free to leave, she just doesn't please the master. Stop working, start fighting, get free. Seems real tough. Another critics argument defeated by the text itself.
Anyway, it seems like this is marriage that is being discussed here (at least that is the presumption of the text). It is recorded that he has "dealt deceitfully" her in the Biblical sense. How could he do that if she had not been in agreement and had no power over the situation? The man can't sell her away and is pretty much stuck with her.
9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
If he "bought" her for the son he must treat her like a daughter. Seems like a real tough life to me. The father doesn't have sexual relations with the son's wife-to-be.
10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
Polygamy was allowed under the law, and fair treatment of all of the wives was mandated by law.
11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
She could take him to court and win her freedom in that case. No severance pay for her.
Since in subcultures of America today, the majority of families have unwed teenage daughters maybe that old system worked pretty well anyway. At least the father was not stuck supporting daughter and grandchild.
Of worse yet, we are currently being stuck paying the price due to the welfare state for their actions. We are in slavery to the state to pay the price for their actions and didn't even get the conjugal visit.
Women, OTOH, were "sold" as wives. It is also known as a dowry. You incurred expenses in raising the daughter that would not be recouped later in life as a son would provide for the parents. In our backwards system the father of the bride even gets stuck with the wedding bills. We are so far from the Bible.
The scripture says little about her will either one way or the other. The critic must presuppose that the father is "selling" the daughter to someone that she does not want to be with. Well, if that's the case, I feel sorry for the person who bought her as he is stuck with her in their system and can not get rid of her. Would you buy into that deal? I can't see why someone would "buy" the woman if the woman hated them.
In a time of arranged marriages, this system was totally logical. The woman was protected in that system. The rules were pretty tight there too. This is nothing like slavery became later in North America anyway with the blacks. Ultimately the distinctions between the Bible and the practice in North America with the blacks WERE part of the debate of the day 150 years ago.
When the Word of God is replaced with some arbitrary standard of man, then we get the result that we now see. The current system is helplessly broken and only a complete return to the Biblical standard can repair what it wrong.
Copyright © 1996 - webmaster@douglasgilliland.com
- All Rights Reserved
These pages contain personal opinion and commentary on various issues.
We reserve the right to have our own opinions and the right to state them publicly.
We believe that the Constitution of the U. S. gives us this right.
Last Updated 10/16/03
Order Amazon.Com books through us.