Slave, Slavery
Slave, Slavery
1. Universal prevalence in the Apostolic Age.-Slavery was a conspicuous and unchallenged feature of the social order into the midst of which Christianity was born. Modern readers easily fail to realize its presence in the background of the NT Scriptures, so great are the social changes that have been brought about in the course of time, and so much is the harsh fact softened by the phrasing of our versions. The Authorized Version servant, with its present connotation, is a very mild equivalent for ; the Revised Version bond-servant is clearer, but is still a euphemistic substitute for slave-the term which exactly represents what the of the NT really was. In the only instance in which the English Versions use the term slaves in the NT (Rev 18:13) it represents a late but significant use of (body). Similarly, the English Versions master stands for terms (whether or the commoner ) that imply ownership. The existence of slavery must have lent special vividness and point to the early use of redemption as a figure to describe the experience of salvation.
In the old civilization of the world slavery appears as a most natural and inevitable fact. The well-known Code of Hammurabi, fragmentary as it is, affords us considerable insight into the social conditions of Babylonia as existing more than twenty centuries before the Christian era. Therein we have a number of remarkable laws regulating relations between slaves and their owners, side by side with others dealing with the wages payable for the employment of different kinds of free labour. And, most probably with a real relation to this older legal system, we have at a later period the Mosaic legislation similarly embodying slave laws, slavery having been just as much a recognized part of the system of things among the Hebrews as among other ancient peoples. Only the Pentateuchal Code (or Codes) must be admitted to be marked by a conspicuous humanity in this as in some other respects, and especially in the Deuteronomic form (see, e.g., Deu 15:12 ff.). The existence of slavery, indeed, was so old and general a phenomenon in human history that St. Augustine could explain it only as a result of sin, so sure was he that it was not the Divine intention that man should own and lord it over his fellow-man (de Civ. Dei, xix. 15). (St. Chrysostom takes a similar line in Hom. xl. ad 1 Cor. x. 5.) Incidentally he comments more suo on the fact that the term servus first appears in Scripture in the strange Genesis story of the curse of Canaan (Gen 9:25)-a source whence, curiously enough, many a Christian owner of negro slaves in modern times has derived flattering unction in defence of his position.
But never was slavery more conspicuous as a social institution than it was in the Roman Empire in the 1st cent. a.d. Numerous wars of conquest had swollen the numbers of the slave class to an enormous extent: for all prisoners of war were made slaves as a matter of course. Slave-dealers followed the armies on their campaigns and purchased on the spot those who were taken captive. Indeed, St. Augustine (loc. cit.) gives currency to a popular etymology of the term servus, deriving it from the verb servare. The servus was a man who might justly have been slain, but was preserved alive by the conqueror, though inevitably doomed to lose his freedom. There was, moreover, a regular slave-trade carried on in the East, the markets being abundantly supplied from the barbarous tribes of Western Asia. Barbarians were regarded as being naturally designed to be the slaves of their superiors-a sentiment not wholly wanting even yet in many white people towards the inferior races.
As in the Greek States at an earlier period the slaves numbered four or five times as many as the citizens proper, so the proportion in the Roman Empire must have been similarly great. Thus Pliny (Historia Naturalis (Pliny) xxxiii. 47) mentions a wealthy Roman, named Claudius Isidorus, of the time of Augustus, who left by will 4116 slaves as part of his possessions. When, too, it was proposed that slaves should wear a distinctive dress, the proposal was abandoned lest this should reveal their strength; and Roman history had already furnished evidence of grim possibilities in the serious slave wars of Sicily which occurred in the latter part of the 2nd cent. b.c. Similar considerations caused the enactment of severe laws that supplied drastic in terrorem methods for keeping slaves in subjection. Tacitus mentions the case of Pedanius Secundus, prefect of the city, who had been murdered by one of his slaves, and under a law requiring that, should a slave kill his master, all the slaves of the same household should forfeit their lives, some 400 of the culprits fellow-slaves were put to death at Rome a.d. 61 (Ann. xiv. 42).
2. The libertini.-As an outcome of the system of slavery, the class of libertini or freedmen, which formed so conspicuous a feature of Roman society, calls for passing notice. These were citizens who either had actually been slaves themselves aforetime or were the immediate descendants of freed slaves. They must have far outnumbered the free-born, and possessed overwhelming influence in the State. Manumission was of frequent occurrence. The enormous numbers of captives reduced to slavery after every war, and the frequent fluctuations in great Roman establishments, all tended to make manumission easy. Many slaves were permitted by their masters to accumulate savings and purchase their freedom with the money. Sometimes the enfranchisement was accomplished by the solemn rite of fictitious purchase on the part of some divinity. The slave first paid the purchase money which he had saved into the treasury of some temple: then owner and slave went together to the temple, and the latter was supposed to be sold to the god, the price being duly paid to the master. The slave became technically the property of the god (and was indeed regarded as his protg), but was to all intents and purposes, and especially as regards his former master, a completely free man. In inscriptions and papyri frequent references are to be found to slaves who had been bought by this or that god for freedom. The practice sheds much light on the argument pursued by St. Paul in Galatians 4, 5 (see A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East [Eng. translation , London, 1911, p. 326]). Manumission was often regarded as a normal result of faithful service. A man would emancipate slaves in individual cases during his own life-time, whilst very commonly a master would set a multitude at liberty on his death-bed or by will. But such wholesale emancipation was attended with evils of its own. One result was to flood the citizens roll with crowds of undesirables. On this account Augustus ordained (lex Furia Caninia, a.d. 8) that in no case should more than 100 slaves be emancipated by will.
When a slave was set free not by a legal but by an extra-legal process, i.e. by a simple exercise of authority on the part of his master, a kind of feudal tie still united the two. The freedman was his masters cliens, his master being now known as his patronus. A Roman noble depended very much on the multitude of his clients for his political and social importance. Only in the third generation did these restrictions disappear and the family of the freedman come into the enjoyment of complete liberty. But the power possessed by this class in the early Christian period was very great: emancipated slaves or their descendants occupied all kinds of State offices. The libertini, too, prospered greatly in trade and commerce, being, indeed, as a class notorious for their ambition to amass wealth. The literature of the early Empire exhibits many of them as playing the part of the nouveaux riches and vulgarly emulating the luxury of aristocratic palaces.
3. Evils of slavery.-The evils of slavery were manifold, deep-seated, far-reaching. If, as Matthew Arnold puts it,
On that hard Pagan world disgust
And secret loathing fell.
Deep weariness and sated lust
Made human life a hell
(Obermann once More, lines 93-96),
the evils of slavery contributed materially to that result.
(a) The slave population was necessarily a hot-bed of vice, contaminating all who came into contact with it. Moral excellence was not expected in a slave. He was only an animated chattel ( ): a tool could similarly be described as an inanimate slave ( ). (Cf. Varros classification of implements, in de Re rust. I. xvii. 1: (1) those with voice and speech, e.g. slaves; (2) those with voice but not speech, e.g. oxen; (3) those without voice, e.g. wagons.) The term slaves occurs only once in English Versions of the NT, viz. in Rev 18:13 as a crowning item in Babylons merchandise: and there it represents (bodies). How significant that thus came to denote a slave! The somewhat similar use of the term hands in modern industrialism-with subtle possibilities of suggestion lurking in the use-has often been remarked upon. Vast numbers of slaves hailed from Greece, from Western Asia, and from Egypt, whose great cities were the notorious seats of the wildest abominations; and their vices flourished with unimpeded growth.
(b) Luxury and extravagance increased in society as slaves increased in numbers and were more easily acquired. Friedlnder points out that in great houses large numbers of slaves were kept merely for ostentatious display. Their service was often limited to ridiculously insignificant functions. Some had only to act as torch-bearers, or as street-attendants: there were instances in which slaves had merely to serve as clocks and announce the hours (Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire, ii. 219). Masters and mistresses were thus spared every kind of personal exertion. Clement of Alexandria gives a scathing account of these evils in PCEdagogus, iii. 4.
(c) A tyrannical and ferocious spirit found easy development in the masters. There was always the temptation to treat slaves worse than dogs. Moreover, an iron rule seemed the only means of keeping slaves in subjection and guarding against outbreaks of violence. Masters could not feel perfectly sure even of slaves born on their estates, how much less of those who could be described as a rabble of various nationalities! (Tacitus, Ann. xiv. 44). This state of things gave rise to the proverb: Quot servi, tot hostes. The master might reckon every slave he had as a foe.
(d) The economic influence of slavery was disastrous. Trade and labour came more and more to be carried on by slaves. Poor citizens found themselves almost entirely excluded from ways of getting an honourable livelihood, and suffered degradation in consequence. Many even came to regard trade with repugnance. They betook themselves to corrupt and corrupting occupations, as actors, pantomimes, hired gladiators, political spies, and the like. Large numbers lived in idleness, having corn given them as a right and amusements gratuitously provided (panem et circenses).
(e) Friedlnder and others emphasize as the most revolting feature of slavery its contemptuous disregard of human dignity (op. cit., p. 221). But this is to speak from a modern point of view. We may well agree with J. S. Mill that what most injures and dishonours a country is the personal slavery of human beings; but it has taken the world many centuries to realize this. The average Roman citizen of the 1st cent. would be incapable of such a sentiment.
4. The better side of things.-There must, however, have been not a few lights to relieve the heavy shadows of such a system. Instances are not wanting of kindly affection in masters and of loyal devotion in slaves. Tacitus tells of the slave-girls of Octavia who braved torture and death in defence of her good name (Ann. xiv. 60). Slaves were to be found who preferred to remain slaves even when offered the chance of manumission (see the case of a slave belonging to the famous Maecenas referred to by Suetonius, de Gramm. Illustr. 21). Deu 15:16 f., it may be remembered, provides for such a case as a quite possible thing as regards slavery among the Hebrews. There must have been many houses like that of the younger Pliny, in which, as Seneca says, slaves were regarded as humble friends and real members of the family (Ep. 47. See also de Benef. iii. 21). Inscriptions, again, often reveal a better side of slave life, testifying to mutual love between master and servant, and also to faithful love between slave-husband and wife, even though de iure slaves could not occupy the status of matrimony (Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, p. 117).
Many a slave found some amelioration of his lot in being (with his masters permission) a member of one of the numerous collegia or sodalities which formed such a feature of plebeian society in those days. These clubs or unions, as an institution, were of great antiquity, and were maintained for protection against oppression, for mutual sympathy and support, for relief from the deadly dulness of an obscure and sordid life (Dill, op. cit., p. 256). In their gatherings fraternity found expression: slave could meet with freeman on equal terms and fully share in the same rights and privileges. Such gilds, indeed, most probably furnished to some extent the model on which the first societies of Christians were formed.
It must also be said that from the time of Augustus onwards a growingly humane sentiment made itself felt in legislation which decidedly improved the condition of the slave. The fact, also, that many people of superior ability, such as physicians, sculptors, and littrateurs, were of this class made legislative reforms urgent. The mass of laws dealing with slavery was immense (see Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery). By the changes that were made from time to time the absolute power of masters over slaves for life or death was curtailed. Thus, the Lex Petronia (in the time of Augustus or Nero) prohibited masters from condemning slaves to fight with wild beasts unless with judicial sanction. Under Nero, a special judge was appointed to hear complaints of slaves, and now masters could be punished for ill-treating them. There is on record a case in which Hadrian exiled a Roman lady for five years for treating her slaves with atrocious cruelty.
5. Christianity and slavery.-One thing is clear, however surprising it may seem to some: it was no part of the Christian propaganda to attack slavery as a system and seek its overthrow. But, as B. F. Westcott incidentally remarks, the abolition of slavery would have seemed in the first age more impossible than universal peace (Lessons from Work, London, 1901, p. 179). The existing social order was accepted as a fact. The Christian message addressed itself primarily to men in themselves. It had nothing to say as to their environment, their social status, the government and laws under which they lived-except so far as there were usages and characteristics of society to be denounced (e.g. idolatry, impurity, cruelty) as in deadly conflict with the cultivation of Christian character. So far from directly advocating efforts to effect social changes, Christianity rather counselled its adherents to acquiesce in their condition, though, as far as the servile class was concerned, their lot too commonly was degraded and hopeless.
Jesus Himself used the relation of master and slave to illustrate His teaching, without any word condemning slavery as an evil in itself (see, e.g., Mat 18:23 ff.). So, too, St. Paul in his Epistles has nothing to say against the institution. Indeed, in one important passage (1Co 7:20-24) he definitely counsels slave converts to stay contentedly in their lot, even if they should have an opportunity to become free. The rendering of the English Versions (use it rather) is enigmatical; and certainly from early times some have understood the Apostles phrase ( ) thus rendered to mean, take your freedom, if you can get it, but there is more to be said for viewing it as counselling them to stay as they were. (Revised Version margin dimly indicates this.) Again, in his letter to Philemon (that little classic in the literature of slavery), St. Paul does not dream of suggesting that Onesimus should be set at liberty because he has become a Christian. Nor is this attitude to be explained merely by the fact that St. Paul was absorbed in the expectation of the Parousia and the break-up of all society in the near future (as A. E. Garvie suggests in Studies of Paul and his Gospel, London, 1911, pp. 73, 304). Rather, surely, slavery was so ancient and established a feature in the social framework as to be regarded as quite natural. Besides, in the Apostles eyes, a slave could be as good a Christian as a freeman. The life of faith, the spiritual experience, was the one thing that mattered; and in Christ the distinction between slave and freeman, like other distinctions, was of no moment (Col 3:11, etc.). And then, did not the Lord Himself assume the ?-a consideration repeatedly used by the Fathers of the Early Church in consoling and encouraging believers who were slaves.
From the first both slaves and slave-owners were found in the ranks of the Christian society. No doubt the greater proportion of converts to the Faith came from the servile class-witness St. Pauls references in 1 Corinthians 1 and elsewhere; but, as Friedlnder says, the evangel certainly penetrated often enough from the cell of the slave to the house of the master (op. cit., iii. 195). There was many another Philemon as well as many another Onesimus. Otherwise there would be little point in the reiterated NT counsels addressed to masters and slaves. Athenagoras, the 2nd cent. apologist, mentions as a simple matter of fact: We have slaves, some more and some fewer (Apol. 35). In the persecution at Lyons, a.d. 177, pagan slaves gave evidence against their Christian masters (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.) v. 1). And, again, from Constantines time onwards we find numerous laws in operation dealing with the case of Christian slaves. Thus, Jews (against whom, especially as proselytizers, strict laws also existed in the Early Empire) were forbidden to possess such.
Yet the principles of Christianity were bound in time to act as powerful solvents on this institution. They contributed to its ultimate downfall. For one thing, Christianity set up a new order of relations that did not recognize class-distinctions. Master and slave sat together at the Agape, received the sacred elements together, and joined together in public worship. The Epistle to Philemon, though written to restore a runaway slave to his master, had within it the seeds of revolution in the words, No longer as a bondservant, but a brother beloved (v. 16). In penitential discipline, wrongs done to a slave were not distinguished from wrongs done to a freeman. Church legislation carefully guarded the chastity of female slaves. Slave-birth was no bar to admission to the priesthood; e.g. Callistus, a 3rd cent. bishop of Rome, was originally a slave. Many names of slaves appear in the roll of the martyrs, and the memories of such as Blandina, Felicitas, and Vitalis, who suffered in the persecutions of the first two centuries, received highest honour.
Again, Christianity placed a high value on what might be called servile virtues-the qualities that any master would esteem as most desirable in his slaves. Humility, obedience, patience, gentleness, resignation are cardinal virtues in a Christian. Jesus said to His disciples, when speaking of the high-handed exercise of authority and power in the world, Not so shall it be among you (Mat 20:26), and apostolic teaching followed the same line. It emphasized qualities that paganism neglected or under-rated, as was only natural since Roman society in general held slaves in utter contempt.
Primitive Christian teaching, however, in relation to the various duties of life, kept the balance even as between masters and slaves. That teaching in its essence still supplies the fundamental principle for regulating similar relations (masters and servants, employers and employees) under whatever changed conditions they may continue to exist. Masters were warned against a tyrannical spirit, a disdainful inhumanity; slaves were counselled to avoid eye-service and do their work as for Christ (Eph 6:5 ff.), and even to be patiently submissive towards hard masters (1Pe 2:18). So also the Didache (4) exhorts Christian masters not to show harshness towards their slaves, whose hope is in the same God, and slaves to submit to their lords as being a type, or copy, of God. The regulating consideration for both parties is summarily given in the so-called Apostolic Constitutions (iv. 12); it is their common humanity-even as he is a man. The warning addressed to slaves in 1Ti 6:1 f. is noticeable, and by no means superfluous, human nature being what it is. If their masters were fellow-believers, they were not to despise them, because they are brethren. similarly Ignatius (Ep. ad Polyc. 4): Do not despise slaves, yet neither let them be puffed up with conceit, but rather submit themselves the more (sc. as Christian slaves with Christian masters) for the glory of God. He adds: Let them not long to be set free at the public expense, lest they be found slaves to their own desires. With the continuance of slavery in the Christian era the need for such counsels continued. How imperfectly Christians sometimes followed them may be gathered from the simple fact that the Synod of Elvira (circa, about a.d. 300) could legislate for the possibility that a Christian mistress might whip her handmaid to death (Canon v.).
The Church also in the course of time sought to bring about practical ameliorations of the state of servitude. A surprising illustration of this is afforded by Apostolic Constitutions, viii. 33, where it is laid down that slaves are to be exempt from labour at all the great ecclesiastical seasons, on the days of apostles and martyrs, and on both the Jewish Sabbath and the Lords Day. The reference to enfranchisement at the public expense found in the quotation from Ignatius given above points also to the encouragement given by Christianity to the liberation of slaves as its influence increased. Christian slaves, as such, had no claim to help from the Church in order to purchase their freedom, yet cases occurred in which such help was given. After the time of Constantine still more is heard of the manumission of slaves by Christian masters. It came to be regarded as a meritorious, and even expiatory, act.
It must be fully admitted that in the ancient non-Christian world there were those who felt the manifold evils of slavery. Sentiments of enlarged philanthropy were not wanting. Among the Jews, the community of the Essenes, with their interesting experiment in social reconstruction, must not be forgotten. Philo says: There is not a slave amongst them, but all are free (Quod omnis probus liber, 12). The Stoics held the fraternity of mankind. We are members of one great body, says Seneca (Ep. 95), and the same spirit breathes in many of his writings. Cicero, too, emphatically proclaims universal brotherhood (see, e.g., de Officiis, iii. 6). Still, such voices were comparatively rare. Men for the most part acquiesced in the system: some argued for its necessity. It is idle to ask if humaner sentiments would have gained force in time and brought about the overthrow of slavery, had Christianity not emerged. All that we know is that Christianity, with all its imperfections, is the one power that has most effectively led to such a result.
6. In no instance has the incubus of slavery been easily or speedily removed. Serfdom, that modified form of slavery, lingered in Europe well into the last century. In Scotland colliers were legally serfs up to the end of the 18th cent.; and Archibald Geikie (Scottish Reminiscences, Glasgow, 1904, p. 341) speaks of having talked in his boyhood with men and women who had been born in servitude and had worked as serfs in the pits of Midlothian. And long after the system itself in any particular instance has disappeared, its baneful effects are clearly traceable, sometimes in conditions of national decadence, as Wallon says regarding Greece: degradation of the man, disorganization of the family, ruin of the States-these were the certain effects of slavery (Histoire de lesclavage dans lantiquit, i. 452). Our very language, too, bears witness to long-lingering legacies in character and temper derived from this source, e.g. in servility and a domineering spirit-both hateful things.
Slavery still exists in various parts of the world, and anti-slavery campaigns are not unnecessary. The sons of freedom themselves sometimes succumb to the temptation to make slaves practically of their weaker fellow-men. If the cause of worldwide liberty for men is to prosper, the teaching of the NT must have full effect given to it. Christians have, indeed, sometimes defended slavery (as in America), and often failed to carry out the Christian doctrine of brotherhood: but the doctrine is there, and its corollary is liberty. Nor has Christianity wholly failed in exemplifying both brotherhood and the passion for freedom. It is surely bias that makes I. Benzinger hold up Islm and ancient Israel as perfect examples of the brotherhood in the faith, and declare that this has come to be, in the Christian world, a mere empty phrase (article slavery, in Encyclopaedia Biblica iv. 4658; also in his Hebrische Archologie2, Tbingen, 1907, article sklaven).
Literature.-H. Wallon, Histoire de lesclavage dans lantiquit2, 3 vols., Paris, 1879; W. W. Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery, Cambridge, 1908; L. Friedlnder, Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire (translation from Die Sittengeschichte Roms7, Leipzig, 1901), 3 vols., London, 1908-1909; S. Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, do., 1904; W. E. H. Lecky, History of European Morals7, 2 vols., do., 1886; J. B. Lightfoot, Colossians and Philemon, do., 1879, Philippians 4, do., 1878 (Excursus on Caesars Household).
J. S. Clemens.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
Slave, Slavery
SLAVE, SLAVERY.While is the general term for a slave, (Luk 16:13; cf. Act 10:7, Rom 14:4, 1Pe 2:18) denotes specifically one employed in household service or in immediate attendance upon the master or . Except in the latter form the institution did not flourish amongst the Jews in NT times. Field-work was done generally by hired labourers (, Luk 15:17; or less technically , Mat 10:10; Mat 20:1, cf. Jam 5:4). In large houses, especially of a Gentile (Luk 7:2) or foreign type, there would be slaves, generally of non-Jewish or mixed blood, as also in the great establishments of the Sadducaean and priestly aristocracy. In Palestine the institution was familiar enough in experience as well as tradition to supply popular illustrations and give point to practical religious teaching; but features met with in Greek and especially in Roman usage must not be transferred without modification to the Jewish practice. Not only were the dimensions different, but the prevalent oppression and fear in the one case were replaced in the other by a general spirit of kindliness and content.
1. Jewish slaves abroad.On several occasions before the Fall of Jerusalem, large numbers of Jews had been deported and sold into captivity. Such incidents were frequent during the wars of the Seleucids and Ptolemies (cf. 1Ma 3:41, 2Ma 8:21), and recur during the period of the Roman over-rule (Josephus BJ vi. ix. 3). Herod ordained that thieves should be sold to foreigners; but the enactment aroused such a degree of animosity as rendered its enforcement impracticable (Josephus Ant. xvi. i. 1). The supply of Jewish slaves was kept up almost entirely from among prisoners taken in the numerous campaigns, and the children of those who were already in captivity, with a few who lost their freedom under the laws of the foreign country or city in which they resided. Their treatment, like that of other slaves, was as a rule cruel to the degree of barbarity. Exceptions are met with, where courtesy to slaves is commended, as by Seneca (Ep. xlvii.). But the great mass of evidence is on the other side. Pallas, a brother of Felix (Act 23:24), considered his slaves too abject to be spoken to, and would signify his pleasure to them only by a gesture or nod (Tac. Ann. xiii. 23). The slave was merely property, and could be transferred like any other property. He was incapable of contracting a legal marriage, and was not regarded as invested with any rights. On the ground of expediency, he was gradually protected against excessive cruelty. By the Lex Petronia, which may have been first enacted in the time of Augustus, a slave could not be punished by condemnation to fight with gladiators or wild beasts; and the masters power of life and death was threatened, if not actually restricted, by Claudius. In such hesitating improvements of their condition Jewish slaves abroad would share.
The redemption of Jewish slaves was regarded in theory as a sacred duty (cf. Neh 5:8); but there is no evidence of any general attempt during our period to acquire the merit of such service. The wealth of the country was chiefly in the hands of those sections of the people in whom racial feeling was not strong; and the majority were at once too poor and too much hindered by political conditions to be able to act in other than rare individual cases. The price of a slave, or of his redemption, varied with his qualities, and with the state of the market. Exact particulars for the 1st cent, are not available. Ptolemy Philadelphus redeemed Jewish captives in Egypt at the price of 120 drachmae, or about 4 each (Josephus Ant. xii. ii. 3). And Nicanor endeavoured to raise the Roman tribute of 2000 talents by the sale of Jews at the rate of ninety per talent (2Ma 8:10 f.).
2. Slaves in Palestine.Nehemiahs influence had made it a fundamental rule in Jewish practice that no Jew should be held as a slave by another Jew (cf. Neh 5:8); and as the rule obtained also in Talmudical times (cf. Winter, Die Stellung der Sklaven, 10 ff.), it is almost certain to have been observed in the intermediate period. Even thieves were not to be reduced to a state of permanent slavery; and while the disorganization of trade due to a strict observance of the Sabbatic law of Deu 15:1-11 was prevented by Hillels statute of Prosbol, which made registered debts always recoverable, other means were adopted of freeing poor Jews from the burden of their mortgages than that of their reduction to actual servitude. Work was accepted and required as a substitute for repayment, but as far as possible the personal freedom of the debtor was respected. In regard to females, the Talmud decides that a wife can never be sold into slavery, but that a daughter under marriageable age can; with the apparent proviso that, if she be sold again, the purchaser must not be a foreigner. Amongst the Essenes, the holding of slaves was unknown and not allowed (Philo, ed. Mang. ii. 457, 482; Josephus Ant. xviii. i. 5). In a few of the great houses of alien officials there would be the retinue usual in other lands; but even then the slaves would be chiefly of Canaanitish or mixed blood. In Jewish houses free service was the rule for men, whilst some of the girls might be servile in status, though comparatively unrestrained. By law, and even more effectually by usage and public sentiment, they were protected from many cruelties customarily practised upon their class elsewhere.
3. Treatment of slaves.Discipline without undue laxity was recognized as the right treatment of slaves (cf. Sir 33:24 ff., where the two prominent features are the severity to which the discipline might legally be carried, viz., yoke and thong and even racks and tortures. and the kindliness that was the customary rule). So in NT times the master could legally imprison or chastise a slave (Mat 25:30, Luk 12:46 with the alternative rendering severely scourge), though the power of life and death was withheld, as also any punishment that led to the loss of a limb. An early tradition recounts a controversy between Pharisees and Sadducees, assumed to have taken place in or about our period, as to the incidence of the responsibility for an injury done by a slave (Yadayim, iv. 7). The solution of the Pharisees was that the slave himself, and not the master, must be held responsible, as the slave was capable of reasoning, and not to be classed with beasts of burden. Another regulation (Bab kamm, viii. 4) required the slave to make compensation on his release, and thus has clearly in view a case of temporary servitude amongst Jews, akin to those met with in the OT.
At a time when Pharisaism was predominant, such slaves as were found in a Jewish household, whether Hebrews or aliens by birth, had on religious grounds to be treated humanely. They shared the family worship, and in regard to obligations were classed with the women and children as bound to observe all religious ritual in the home, except the repetition of the Shema and the wearing of phylacteries. Laws of an earlier date required the circumcision of slaves (Gen 17:12) and their participation in feast and sacrifice (Deu 12:18; Deu 16:11). Such regulations could not have fallen into desuetude without involving the ceremonial pollution from which it was one of the first objects of the legalists of the first century to escape. The knitting together of master and slave in religious bonds supplied a strong motive for kindness and forbearance. And in later literature the life of the Jewish home is represented as united and happy, master and slave partaking of the same food, exchanging words of respect and tenderness, and mourning over the separation effected by death (Berakhth 16b, Kethubth 61). Altogether the condition of slavery, as far as it existed, was much less oppressive than in Greece or Rome, and was already being superseded by the freer relationships of voluntary service, which alone are in complete accord with the genius of Christianity.
4. Teaching of the Gospels.The institution of slavery was not directly condemned by Christ, but its continuance was undermined by the new principles of social life which He emphasized. Supreme praise is passed upon service marked by absolute submission (Mar 10:44). The title of slave is appropriated to the highest usage (Mat 21:34, Mar 12:2; Mar 12:4, Luk 20:10 f.), and sanction is thus given to the practice which had applied it to Moses (cf. Jos 14:7, Psa 105:26), and made it the formal style of a prophet (cf. Jer 7:25, Zec 1:6, and the Pauline usage of the term). Redemptive love recognizes no distinctions of sex or status, but makes men of all social ranks equally responsible for their attitude towards God; and thus society becomes an organism of free men, amongst whom the only authority that is strictly imperial or beyond questioning is that of Christ. The bond-servant of Jesus Christ can be bound to no other master; and in their equal dependence upon Him disciples cease to be able to maintain artificial distinctions of grade or privilege.
Literature.Articles in the handbooks of Jewish Archaeology, and in such Cyclopaedias as those of Hamburger, Riehm, and Herzog-Hauck; Winter, Die Stellung der Sklaven bei den Juden nach talm. Quellen; Grnfeld, Die Stellung nach bibl. und talm. Quellen; Brace, Gesta Christi, ch. v. For the conditions in non-Jewish districts see Mommsen, and Smiths Dict. of Gr. and Rom. [Note: Roman.] Ant.
R. W. Moss.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Slave, Slavery
SLAVE, SLAVERY.The Heb. ebhedh, usually tr. [Note: translate or translation.] servant, has a variety of meanings, between which it is not always easy to distinguish. E.g. in 2Sa 9:2 servant = retainer, in 2Sa 9:10 b = bondman, in 2Sa 9:11 = a polite expression of self-depreciation (cf. 2Ki 4:1 and 1Ki 9:22). In a discussion of Hebrew slavery only those passages will be dealt with in which the word probably has the sense of bondage.
1. Legally the slave was a chattel. In the earliest code (Book of the Covenant [= BC]) he is called his masters money (Exo 21:21). In the Decalogue he is grouped with the cattle (Exo 20:17), and so regularly in the patriarchal narratives (Gen 12:16 etc.). Even those laws which sought to protect the slave witness to his degraded position. In the BC the master is not punished for inflicting even a fatal flogging upon his slave, unless death follows immediately. If the slave lingers a day or two before dying, the master is given the benefit of the doubt as to the cause of his death, and the loss of the slave is regarded as a sufficient punishment (Exo 21:21). The jus talionis was not applicable to the slave as it was to the freeman (cf. Exo 21:26 ff. with Exo 21:22 ff.); and it is the master of the slave, not the slave himself, who is recompensed if the slave is gored by an ox (Exo 21:32). In these last two instances BC follows the Code of Hammurabi [= CH] ( 196199, 252).
In practice the slave as a chattel was often subject to ill usage. He was flogged (Exo 21:20, Pro 29:19), and at times heartlessly deserted (1Sa 30:11 ff.). Though the master is here an Amorite, the cases of runaway slaves in Israel bear testimony to their sufferings even at the hands of their fellow-countrymen; cf. the experiences of the churl Nabal (1Sa 25:10), of the passionate Shimei (1Ki 2:39), and of Sarah (Gen 16:6); the implications as to the frequency of such cases in the law of Deu 23:15 ff. and in later times (Sir 33:24-31). The position of the maid-servant was in general the same as that of the manservant. In the BC it is assumed that the maid-servant is at the same time a concubine (Exo 21:7 ff.; cf. Hagar, Zilpah, and Bilhah in the patriarchal narratives). Even in P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] the idea of the slave-girl as property is still retained (Lev 19:20). Here the punishment for the violation of a slave-girl was almost certainly a fine to be paid to the master, if we may judge from the analogous law in Exo 22:16 = Deu 22:28; i.e. it is an indemnity for injury to property. In practice the maid-servant, though the concubine of the master, is often the special property of the mistress (Gen 16:6 a, Gen 16:9, Gen 25:12, Gen 30:3), at times having been given to her at marriage (Gen 24:56; Gen 29:24; Gen 29:29). She is subject to field labour (Rth 2:8 ff.) and to the lowest menial labour (1Sa 25:41, figurative, but reflecting actual conditions).
Slaves were recruited (1) principally from war, at least in earliest times. Captives or subject populations were often employed not only as personal attendants, but also as public slaves at the Temple (Jos 9:23; Jos 9:27 [21 a gloss], Neh 7:57-60, and see art. Nethinim) or on public works in the corve (Jos 16:10, Jdg 1:28 ff., 1Ki 9:20-22 = 2Ch 8:7-9), while captive women were especially sought as concubines or wives (Deu 21:10-14). (2) From the slave-trade, of which the Israelites undoubtedly a vailed themselves (cf. the implications in Gen 37:26; Gen 17:12, Lev 25:44). This trade was mainly in the hands of the Phnicians and Edomites (Amo 1:6; Amo 1:9, Eze 27:13, Joe 3:6). (3) From native Israelites who bad become enslaved as a punishment for theft (Exo 22:1-4), whether for other crimes also is not stated; Josephus (Ant. XVI. i. 1) knows of no other. (4) From native Israelites who, through poverty and debt, had been forced to sell themselves (Exo 21:2, Amo 2:6; Amo 8:6, Deu 15:12, Lev 25:39, Pro 11:29 [?] Pro 22:7 [?]) or their children (Exo 21:7, 2Ki 4:1, Neh 5:6; Neh 5:8, Isa 50:1, Job 24:9) into servitude.
Whether the creditor had the right to force the debtor into slavery against his will is not clear. Exo 21:2 and 2Ki 4:1 (cf. Mat 18:25) rather favour this view. The reflexive verb in Lev 25:39 a and in Deu 15:12, where the same verbal form should probably be again translated by the reflexive, not by the passive as in RV [Note: Revised Version.] , favours voluntary servitude. But possibly the later codes are modifications of the earlier practice. Neh 5:5 is ambiguous.
As to the number of slaves we have no adequate data. Gen 14:14 cannot be used as evidence. The numbers in the corve (1Ki 5:13; 1Ki 5:15) are discrepant, and in any case probably do not refer to slaves proper. The prosperous retainer of Saul has 20 servants (2Sa 9:10). The proportion of slaves to freemen in Neh 7:66 ff. is 1 to 6. The price of slaves naturally varied. The BC (Exo 21:32) fixes the average price at 30 shekels (about 4). CH in the same law allows but 17 shekels ( 252, cf. 214). Joseph is sold for 20 shekels (Gen 37:26). In later times the price in Exodus seems to have been maintained (2Ma 8:11; Ant. XII. ii. 3).
2. But while the slave was a chattel, nevertheless certain religious and civil rights and privileges were accorded him. In law the slave was regarded as an integral part of the masters household (Exo 20:17), and, as such, an adherent of the family cult (cf. the instructive early narratives in Gen 24:1-67; Gen 16:1-16). Accordingly the BC (Exo 23:12) and the Decalogue (Exo 20:10) guarantee to him the Sabbath rest. Deuteronomy allows him a share in the religious feasts (Deu 12:12; Deu 12:18; Deu 16:11; Deu 16:14), the humanitarian viewpoint being chiefly emphasized. In P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] the more primitive idea of the slave as a member of the family, conceived as a religious unit, is still retained and utilized in the interest of religious exclusiveness. Thus, while the gr (sojourner) cannot partake of the Passover unless circumcised, the slave must be circumcised and so is entitled to partake (Exo 12:44; cf. the narrative Gen 17:12 ff.). Again, while the gr in a priests family, or even the daughter of a priest who has married into a non-priestly family, may not eat of the holy things, the priests slave is allowed to do so (Lev 22:10 ff.).
As to civil rights: In the BC, murder of the slave as well as of the freeman is punishable with death (Exo 21:12 = Lev 24:17; the law is Inclusive). If death results from flogging, the master is also punished, conjecturally by a fine (Exo 21:20 ff.). If the slave is seriously maimed by his master, he is given his freedom (Exo 21:26 ff.). At this point the BC contrasts very favourably with the CH. The latter does not attempt to protect the slaves person from the master, but only provides for an indemnity to the master if the slave is injured by another (199, 213, 214). While a man could be sold into slavery for debt (see above), man-stealing is prohibited on pain of death (Exo 21:16 = Deu 24:7). Deuteronomy interprets the Exodus law correctly as a prohibition against stealing a fellow-countryman. Deut. also forbids returning a slave who has escaped from a foreign master (Deu 23:15 ff.). If the slave in this case were a non-Israelite (which, however, is not certain), the law would be a remarkable example of the humane tendencies in Deut. and would again contrast favourably with CH, which prescribes severe penalties for harbouring fugitive slaves (Deu 23:16; Deu 23:19). The humane law for the protection of captive wives (Deu 21:10-14) is also noticeable.
But practice often went far beyond law in mitigating the severity of servitude. Indeed, slavery in the ancient East generally was a comparatively easy lot. The slave is grouped with wife and child as part of the masters household (Exo 20:17). Children are property and can be sold as well as slaves (Exo 21:7; cf. Exo 22:16 = Deu 22:28 where the daughter is regarded as the fathers property). Children are flogged as well as slaves (Pro 13:24). Wives were originally bought from the parents, and wives and concubines are often almost indistinguishable. Hence the lot of the slave was probably not much harder than that of wife or child (cf. Gal 4:1), and the law implies the possibility of a genuine affection existing between master and man (Exo 21:5 = Deu 15:16). Accordingly we find many illustrations of the man-servant rising to a position of importance. He may he intrusted with the most delicate responsibilities (Gen 24:1-67), may be the heir of his master (Gen 15:1-4), is often on intimate terms with and advises the master (Jdg 19:3 ff., 1Sa 9:5 ff.), the custom of having body-servants (Heb. naar, Num 22:22, 1Ki 18:43, 2Ki 4:12, Neh 4:22 etc.) favouring such intimacies, and he may even marry his masters daughter (1Ch 2:34 ff.; cf. similar cases in CH 175 ff.). Especially servants of important men enjoy a reflected dignity (1Sa 9:22, 2Ki 8:4). The rise of servants into positions of prominence was so frequent as to be the subject of making-making (Pro 14:35; Pro 17:2; Pro 19:10; Pro 30:22 a).
Whether a servant could own property while remaining a servant is not clear. The passages adduced in favour of it (1Sa 9:8 [a gratuity], 2Sa 9:2 ff; 2Sa 16:1 ff. [Ziba is a retainer], Lev 25:49 b [not a real servant]) are not pertinent. Deu 15:13 makes against it, but not necessarily, and the fact that in Arabia and Babylonia (CH 176) the slave could own property awakens a presumption in favour of the same custom in Israel.
Under a good house-wife the maid-servant would be well taken care of (Pro 31:15). At times she also seems to be the heir of her mistress (Pro 30:23 b [?]). The son of the slave-concubine might inherit the property and the fathers blessing (Gen 16:1 ff; Gen 21:13; Gen 49:1 ff.), but this depended on the fathers will (Gen 25:5), as in Babylonia (CH 170ff.). The effect of occupying such positions of trust was often bad. Proverbs fears it (Pro 19:10; Pro 30:21-23), and such passages as 2Ki 5:20 ff., Neh 5:15, Gen 16:4 justify the fear. Servants also tended to become agents of their masters sins (1Sa 2:13-15, 2Sa 13:17).
3. Thus far no distinction between native and foreign slaves has been observed either in law or in practice, except possibly by implication at Exo 21:16 = Deu 24:7, and Deu 23:15 ff. The view that the protective laws in Exo 21:20 ff., Exo 21:26 ff., Exo 21:32 apply only to the native slave is without exegetical justification, and Gen 17:12, Exo 12:44, Gen 15:2 [if the text can be trusted] Gen 39:1 ff. [probably equally applicable to conditions in Israel], 1Ch 2:34 ff. and Gen 16:1 ff. show that the foreign man-or maid-servant may enjoy all the advantages of the native Israelite.
The distinction drawn between the subject Canaanites and the Israelites at 1Ki 9:20 ff. = 2Ch 8:7 ff. is clearly incorrect (cf. 1Ki 5:13) and belongs to a later development in the ideas of slavery (see below). The distinction drawn in P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] between the home-born slave and the one purchased with money (Gen 14:14; Gen 17:12 etc.) does not refer to the two classes of foreign and native slaves.
In apparently but one particular, though this is of vital Importance, the native slave is legally better off than the foreign-born, namely, in the right to release. Already in CH ( 117) provision was made for the release, after three years, of a wife or children who had been sold for debt. In the BC (Exo 21:1-6) this idea was associated with the Sabbath idea, and a release was prescribed after 6 years of servitude, but the law was extended to cover every Israelite man-servant. Yet in the specifications of the law (Exo 21:3-4) the rights of the master still noticeably precede the rights of the husband and father. Provision is also made for the slave to remain in servitude if he prefers to do so. In this case the servant is to be brought to the door of the masters house, not of the sanctuary (the rite would then lose its significance), and have his ear pierced with an awl (a wide-spread symbol of servitude in the East), when he would become a slave for life.
The phrase unto God (Exo 21:6 a) can scarcely refer in this connexion to the local sanctuary, as has usually been held. It signifies the adoption of the slave into the family as a religious unit, and probably referred originally to the household gods (or ancestors?).
In the case of the maid-servant (Exo 21:7-11) no release was permitted under ordinary circumstances (Exo 21:7), for it is assumed that the slave-girl is at the same time a concubine, and hence release would be against the best interests both of herself and of the home. Yet she is not left without protection. Her master has no right to sell her to a family or clan not her own (foreign people, Exo 21:8 b, probably has this restricted significance, sale of an Israelite to a non-Israelite being out of the question), but must allow her to be redeemed, presumably by one of her own family. Failing this, he may give her to his son, in which case she is to be treated as a daughter (Exo 21:9). If neither of these methods is adopted, a third way is provided. He may take another (concubine or wife), but must then retain the first, provide for her maintenance and respect her marital rights (Exo 21:10). If the master refuses to adopt any one of these three methods (these three, Exo 21:11, refers to the three methods in Exo 21:8-10, not to the three provisions in Exo 21:10), then, and then only, the maid-servant has a right to release.
The above is but one of several possible interpretations of this passage. Further, the meaning of Exo 21:8 a is doubtful. The text is corrupt. Instead of the phrase who hath espoused her to himself, we should read either so that he hath not known her, or who hath known her. On the first reading the two methods of procedure in Exo 21:8-9 are allowable if she be still a virgin (in Exo 21:10 she is no longer such). On the second reading one of the three methods in Exo 21:8-10 must be followed when she is de facto a concubine. The latter reading is exegetically preferable. The resultant possibility of a father giving his concubine to a son was probably not offensive, at a time when wife and concubine were regarded as property which a son could inherit. Among the Arabs marriage with a stepmother was common till the rise of Islam. In later times these marriages were forbidden both in the Koran and in the Hebrew law (Deu 22:30; Deu 27:20, Lev 18:8; Lev 20:11).
The Deuteronomic re-formulation of the Law of Release (Deu 15:12-18) is noteworthy. (1) Release is extended to the maid-servant. Consequently the specifications in Exo 21:8; Exo 21:4; Exo 21:7-11 are allowed to lapse, and in the rite-rite only the possibility of the slave continuing in servitude through love of his master is considered. This change is due to the increasing respect for the marriage relation. The slave-husbands rights over the wife are now superior to the masters rights, and it is apparently no longer assumed that the maid-servant as such is the concubine of her master. Where concubinage does not exist, the maid-servant can be released without prejudice to the marital relation. (2) In Deut. the rite-rite is clearly only a domestic rite. This confirms the interpretation of the rite given above. The Deuteronomist, who localizes all religious observances at the central sanctuary, consequently drops the unto God of Exo 21:6 a. (3) The characteristic humanitarian exhortation (Exo 21:13-14) is added, and the reasonableness of the law defended (Exo 21:15; Exo 21:18).
Jer 34:8-17 describes an abortive attempt to observe the law in its Deuteronomic formulation. The law had evidently not been observed in spite of its reasonableness, and was subsequently again allowed to become a dead letter.
A third version of the Law of Release is found at Lev 25:39-55. Three cases are considered: (1) that of the Israelite who has sold himself, because of poverty, to his fellow-countryman (Lev 25:39-43). Such an one is not to be regarded as a real slave but as a hireling, and is to be released in the year of Jubilee. (2) Actual slaves are to be obtained only from non-Israelite peoples (cf. 1Ki 9:20). For them there is no release (Lev 25:44-46). (3) If an Israelite sells himself to a gr, he may be redeemed at any time by his next of kin or by himself (power to acquire property assumed), but in any case he must be freed at the year of Jubilee (vv. 4754). The redemption-price is proportioned to the number of years he had yet to serve from the time of his redemption to the Jubilee year, in other words, to the pay he would receive as an hireling during that period. Thus the possibility of an Israelite becoming an actual slave is again obliterated. The differences between this law and the earlier legislation are marked. (a) It formulates the growing protest against the idea that an Israelite could be a slave (cf. Neh 5:5; Neh 5:8). (b) Through the institution of the Jubilee year it provides that even the quasi-servitude which is admitted should not be for life, and consequently it ignores the awl-rite.
A difficulty emerges at this point. The Levitical law, which postpones release till the 50th year, seems to work a greater hardship at times than the earlier laws, which prescribe release in the 7th year. Here three things are to be remembered: (a) the earlier law had probably become a dead letter long before the present law was formulated (cf. Jer 34:1-22, above); (b) the Jubilee law is the result of a theological theory (cf. Lev 25:23; Lev 25:42; Lev 25:55), and never belonged to the sphere of practical legislation; (c) as such it is to be construed, not in antithesis to the 7th year of the earlier laws, but to the lifelong period of servitude often actually experienced. It will not lengthen the time until the year of release, but will theoretically abolish all lifelong servitude. This theoretical point of view so predominates that the prolongation of the time of servitude, if the law had ever become actually operative, is left out of account. The fact that the Israelite in servitude to another Israelite is really worse off than an Israelite attached to a gr, who could be redeemed at any time, also shows that we are not dealing with practical legislation.
4. In these three laws of release we have three clearly marked stages in the recognition of the slaves personality. The BC provides for the release of the Israelite man-servant. Deut., with its humanitarian tendencies, extends this privilege to the maid-servant. Lev., on the basis of its theological conceptions, denies that any Israelite can be an actual slave. But all these laws remain within nationalistic limitations. One step more must be taken. The rights of the slave as a man, and not simply as a fellow-countryman, must be recognized. The growing individualism which accompanied the development of the doctrine of monotheism prepared the way for this final step, which was taken by Job in the noble passage Job 31:13-15. In the same spirit Joel universalizes the primitive conception of the necessary attachment of the slave to the family cult, and makes him share equally with all flesh in the baptism of the Spirit of God (Joe 2:29).
Note.The relationship of servant to master is a favourite figure in the OT for the relationship of man to God (esp. in the Psalms). The nation, Israel, is also often thought of as the servant of Jehovah (cf. Isa 41:8 ff.)a thought which finds its most profound expression in Isa 42:1-4; Isa 49:1-6; Isa 50:4-10; Isa 52:13 to Isa 53:12. Cf. art. Servant of the Lord.
5. In the NT it is only the attitude of Jesus and St. Paul towards slavery that demands attention. Jesus was not a political agitator, or even a social reformer. In nothing is this fact more strikingly illustrated than in His allusions to slavery. He refers to it only for purposes of illustration (e.g. Mar 12:2; Mar 12:4, Mat 24:45, Joh 8:35 etc.). He never criticizes it, even when it violates, as He must have realized, His own principles of love and brotherhood (Mat 18:25, Luk 17:7 ff.; contrast the figurative picture in Luk 12:37). But, as Christianity reached into the world and developed into a social force, it became increasingly necessary to consider what its attitude towards slavery should be, especially as many slaves became Christians (in Rom 16:10-11, 1Co 1:11, Php 4:22 them of the household are the slave-retainers). In this connexion St. Paul enunciates just one great principleIn Christ all the distinctions of this world disappear; the religion of Jesus knows neither bond nor free (1Co 12:13, Gal 3:28, Col 3:11). But he did not use this principle to overthrow the institution of slavery. On the contrary, at 1Co 7:21-23 he counsels one who has been called (into the Christian life) while a slave not to mourn his lot. He even advises him, if the opportunity to become free is offered, to remain in servitude (1Co 7:21, but the interpretation is doubtful), the near approach of the Parousia (1Co 7:29) apparently throwing these external conditions of life into a perspective of insignificance for St. Paul. The Apostle does not seek to make free men out of slaves, but good slaves out of bad slaves (Eph 6:5-9, Col 3:22 to Col 4:1; cf. 1Pe 2:18). In these passages the corresponding duties of master to man are also insisted upon, as there is no respect of persons with Christ. It is significant that in the later Pastoral Epistles (1Ti 6:1 ff., Tit 2:9-11) the exhortations to the masters are omitted. It would seem as if some slaves had taken advantage of the Christian principle of brotherhood to become insurbordinate. In Philemon we have the classical illustration of St. Pauls attitude towards slavery exemplified in a concrete case. Here again he does not ask Philemon to free Onesimus; and it is clear from 1Ti 6:1 ff. and the subsequent history of the Church that Christians in good standing owned slaves. But in Phm 1:16 the slave is transfigured into a brother in Christ. For further discussion of this point see art. Philemon.
Though the Church recognized slavery, it is a remarkable fact that in the epitaphs of the catacombs the deceased is never spoken of as having been a (human masters) slave, though often described as a slave of God. In death, at least, the Christian ideal was fully realized. The slave becomes with the master only the slave of God. Contrast the gloomy equality in Job 3:19.
Kemper Fullerton.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Slave, Slavery
slav, slaver-i:
1.Acquiring of Slaves
2.Hebrews as War Captives
3.Freedom of Slaves
4.Rights of Slaves
5.Rights of Slave Masters
6.The New Testament Conception
LITERATURE
The origin of the term slave is traced to the German sklave, meaning a captive of the Slavonic race who had been forced into servitude (compare Slav); French esclave, Dutch slaaf, Swedish slaf, Spanish esclavo. The word slave occurs only in Jer 2:14 and in Rev 18:13, where it is suggested by the context and not expressed in the original languages (Hebrew yeldh bayith, one born in the house; Greek soma, body). However, the Hebrew word , ebhedh, in the Old Testament and the Greek word , doulos, in the New Testament more properly might have been translated slave instead of servant or bondservant, understanding though that the slavery of Judaism was not the cruel system of Greece, Rome, and later nations. The prime thought is service; the servant may render free service, the slave, obligatory, restricted service.
Scripture statement rather than philological study must form the basis of this article. We shall notice how slaves could be secured, sold and redeemed; also their rights and their masters’ rights, confining the study to Old Testament Scripture, noting in conclusion the New Testament conception. The word slave in this article refers to the Hebrew slave unless otherwise designated.
1. Acquiring of Slaves:
Slaves might be acquired in the following ways, namely:
(1) Bought.
There are many instances of buying slaves (Lev 25:39 ff). Hebrew slavery broke into the ranks of every human relationship: a father could sell his daughter (Exo 21:7; Neh 5:5); a widow’s children might be sold to pay their father’s debt (2Ki 4:1); a man could sell himself (Lev 25:39, Lev 25:47); a woman could sell herself (Deu 15:12, Deu 15:13, Deu 15:17), etc. Prices paid were somewhat indefinite. According to Exo 21:32 thirty shekels was a standard price, but Lev 27:3-7 gives a scale of from 3 to 50 shekels according to age and sex, with a provision for an appeal to the priest in case of uncertainty (Lev 27:8). Twenty shekels is the price set for a young man (Lev 27:5), and this corresponds with the sum paid for Joseph (Gen 37:28).
But in 2 Macc 8:11 the price on the average is 90 for a talent, i.e. 40 shekels each. The ransom of an entire talent for a single man (1Ki 20:39) means that unusual value (far more than that of a slave) was set on this particular captive.
There were certain limitations on the right of sale (Exo 21:7 ff).
(2) Exchange.
Slaves, i.e. non-Hebrew slaves, might be traded for other slaves, cattle, or provisions.
(3) Satisfaction of Debt.
It is probable that a debtor, reduced to extremity, could offer himself in payment of his debt (Lev 25:39), though this was forbidden in the Torath Kohanm; compare ‘Ocar Yisra’el, vii. 292b. That a creditor could sell into slavery a debtor or any of his family, or make them his own slaves, has some foundation in the statement of the poor widow whose pathetic cry reached the ears of the prophet Elisha: Thy servant my husband is dead;… and the creditor is come to take unto him my two children to be bondsmen (2Ki 4:1).
(4) Gift.
The non-Hebrew slave, and possibly the Hebrew slave, could be acquired as a gift (Gen 29:24).
(5) Inheritance.
Children could inherit non-Hebrew slaves as their own possessions (Lev 25:46).
(6) Voluntary Surrender.
In the case of a slave’s release in the seventh year there was allowed a willing choice of indefinite slavery. The ceremony at such a time is interesting: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges (margin), and shall 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 (Exo 21:6). A pierced ear probably meant obedience to the master’s voice. History, however, does not record a single instance in which such a case occurred.
(7) Arrest.
If the thief be found breaking in,… he shall make restitution: if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft (Exo 22:2, Exo 22:3).
(8) Birth.
The children of slaves, born within the master’s house of a wife given to the slave there, became slaves, and could be held, even if the father went free (Exo 21:4; compare Lev 25:54).
(9) Capture in War.
Thousands of men, women and children were taken in war as captives and reduced, sometimes, to most menial slavery. Such slavery, however, was more humane than wholesale butchery according to the customs of earlier times (Nu 31:7-35). Males were usually slain and females kept for slavery and concubinage (Deu 21:10, Deu 21:11, Deu 21:14). Captive slaves and bought slaves, from nations round about, forced moral ruin into Israel’s early civilization. See SIEGE, 3.
The two principal sources of slave supply were poverty in peace and plunder in war.
2. Hebrews as War Captives:
The Hebrews themselves were held as captive slaves at various times by (1) Phoenicians (the greatest slave traders of ancient times), (2) Philistines, (3) Syrians (2Ki 5:2 ff), (4) Egyptians, and (5) Romans. There must have been thousands subjected to severest slavery. See also EGYPT; ISRAEL; PHARAOH; SERVANT, etc.
3. Freedom of Slaves:
The freedom of slaves was possible in the following ways:
(1) By Redemption.
Manumission by redemption was common among the Hebrews. The slave’s freedom might be bought, the price depending on (a) the nearness to the seventh year or the Jubilee year, (b) the first purchase price, and (c) personal considerations as to age and ability of the one in bondage. A slave could be redeemed as follows: (a) by himself, (b) by his uncle, (c) by his nephew or cousin, (d) or by any near relative (Lev 25:48-55). The price depended on certain conditions as indicated above.
(2) By the Lapse of Time.
The seventh year of service brought release from bondage. If thou buy a Hebrew servant (margin bondman), six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing (Exo 21:2-4).
(3) By the Law of the Jubilee Year.
The year of Jubilee was the great year when slaves were no longer slaves but free. He shall serve with thee unto the year of jubilee: then shall he go out from thee, he and his children … return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers (Lev 25:40 f).
(4) By Injury.
A servant whose master maimed him (or her), in particular by causing the loss of an eye or even a tooth, was thereby freed (Exo 21:26 f).
(5) By Escape.
(Deu 23:15 f; 1Ki 2:39). See Code of Hammurabi in HDB (extra vol, p. 600) and compare Phm 1:12 ff.
(6) By Indifference.
In case of a certain kind of female slave, the neglect or displeasure of her master in itself gave her the right to freedom (Exo 21:7-11; Deu 21:14).
(7) By Restitution.
A caught thief, having become a bondsman, after making full restitution by his service as a slave, was set at liberty (Exo 22:1-4).
(8) By the Master’s Death.
And Abram said,… I go childless, and he that shall be possessor of my house is Eliezer of Damascus … and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir (Gen 15:2 f). This passage has been mistakenly supposed to indicate that a master without children might give freedom to a slave by constituting the slave an heir to his possessions. But on the contrary, Abram seems to contemplate with horror the possibility that Eliezer will take possession of his goods in the absence of an heir. In view of the fact that adoption, the adrogatio of the Roman law, was unknown both to Biblical and Talmudic law (see Jewish Encyclopedia, under the word), the statement in Gen 15:2 does not seem to indicate any such custom as the adoption of slaves. If any method of emancipation is here suggested, it is by the death of the master without heir, a method thoroughly discussed in the Talmud (mthath ha-‘adhon).
(9) By Direct Command of Yahweh.
The word that came unto Jeremiah from Yahweh,… that every man should let his man-servant, and … his maid-servant, that is a Hebrew or a Hebrewess, go free; that none should make bondsmen of them … they obeyed, and let them go (Jer 34:8-10).
The nine methods here enumerated may be classified thus:
A.By operation of law:
1.By lapse of time.
(a) After serving six years or other contractual period. See (2) above.
(b) Upon the approach of the Jubilee year. See (3) above.
2.By death of the master without heirs. See (8) above.
B. By act of the parties:
1.By an act of the master.
(a) Voluntary manumission, including (9) above.
(b) Indifference in certain cases. See (6) above.
(c) Maiming servant. See (4) above.
2.By act of the servant.
(a) Redemption. See (1) above.
(b) Restitution. See (7) above.
(c) Escape. See (5) above.
3.By act of a third party.
Redemption – (1) above.
4. Rights of Slaves:
As noted in the beginning of this article, the Hebrew slaves fared far better than the Grecian, Roman and other slaves of later years. In general, the treatment they received and the rights they could claim made their lot reasonably good. Of course a slave was a slave, and there were masters who disobeyed God and even abused their brothers in bonds. As usual the unfortunate female slave got the full measure of inhuman cruelty. Certain rights were discretionary, it is true, but many Hebrew slaves enjoyed valuable individual and social privileges. As far as Scripture statements throw light on this subject, the slaves of Old Testament times might claim the following rights, namely:
(1) Freedom.
Freedom might be gained in any one of the above-mentioned ways or at the master’s will. The non-Hebrew could be held as a slave in perpetuity (Lev 25:44-46).
(2) Good Treatment.
Thou shalt not rule over him (Hebrew slave) with rigor, but shalt fear thy God… Ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigor (Lev 25:43, Lev 25:46). The non-Hebrew seemed to be left unprotected.
(3) Justice.
An ancient writer raises the query of fairness to slaves. If I have despised the cause of my man-servant or of my maid-servant, when they contended with me; what then shall I do when God riseth up? (Job 31:13 f). No doubt the true Hebrew master was considerate of the rights of his slaves. The very fact, however, that the Hebrew master could punish a Hebrew slave, to within an inch of his life, gave ready opportunity for sham justice. And if a man smite his servant, or his maid (bondman or bondwoman), with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money (Exo 21:20 f).
(4) Family.
The slave before his release might have his wife and children (Exo 21:5).
(5) Voluntary Slavery.
Even when the seventh year came, the slave had a right to pledge himself, with awl-pierced ear, to perpetual service for his master (Exo 21:5 f; Deu 15:16). The traditional interpretation of forever in these passages is until the next Jubilee year (compare Kiddushn 21).
(6) Money or Property.
Some cases at least indicate that slaves could have money of their own. Thus, if a poor slave waxed rich he could redeem himself (Lev 25:49). Compare 1Sa 9:5-10, where, however, the Hebrew throughout calls the servant naar, a youth, never ebhedh.
(7) Children.
If married when free, the slave could take wife and children with him when freedom came, but if he was married after becoming a slave, his wife and children must remain in possession of his master. This law led him often into perpetual slavery (Exo 21:3 f).
(8) Elevation.
A chance to rise was allowable in some instances, e.g. Eliezer, a foreign slave in a Hebrew household, and Joseph, a Hebrew slave in a foreign household. Each rose to a place of honor and usefulness (Gen 15:2; Gen 39:4).
(9) Religious Worship.
After being circumcised, slaves were allowed to participate in the paschal sacrifice (Exo 12:44) and other religious occasions (Deu 12:12).
(10) Gifts.
Upon obtaining freedom, slaves, at the discretion of masters, were given supplies of cattle, grain and wine (Deu 15:13 f).
5. Rights of Slave Masters:
The rights of a slave master may briefly be stated as follows: (1) to hold as chattel possession his non-Hebrew slaves (Lev 25:45); (2) to leave such slaves as an inheritance for his children (Lev 25:46); (3) to hold as his own property the wife and children of all slaves who were unmarried at the time they became slaves (Exo 21:4); (4) to pursue and recover runaway slaves (1Ki 2:39-41); (5) to grant freedom at any time to any slave. This is implied rather than stated. Emancipation other than at the Sabbatical and Jubilee years was evidently the right of masters; (6) to circumcise slaves, both Jew and Gentile, within his own household (Gen 17:13, Gen 17:23, Gen 17:27); (7) to sell, give away, or trade slaves (Gen 29:24. According to Torath Kohanm a Hebrew servant could be sold only under certain restrictions. See 1, (1)); (8) to chastise male and female slaves, though not unto death (Exo 21:20); (9) to marry a slave himself, or give his female slaves in marriage to others (1Ch 2:35); (10) to marry a daughter to a slave (1Ch 2:34 f); (11) to purchase slaves in foreign markets (Lev 25:44); (12) to keep, though not as a slave, the runaway slave from a foreign master (Deu 23:15, Deu 23:16. See 3, (5)); (13) to enslave or sell a caught thief (Gen 44:8-33; Exo 22:3); (14) to hold, in perpetuity, non-Hebrew slaves (Lev 25:46); (15) to seek advice of slaves (1Sa 25:14 ff; but the reference here is open to doubt. See 4, (6)); (16) to demand service (Gen 14:14; 24).
Throughout Old Testament times the rights of both slaves and masters varied, but in general the above may be called the accepted code. In later times Zedekiah covenanted with the Hebrews never again to enslave their own brothers, but they broke the covenant (Jer 34:8).
6. The New Testament Conception:
There were slaves during New Testament times. The church issued no edict sweeping away this custom of the old Judaism, but the gospel of Christ with its warm, penetrating love-message mitigated the harshness of ancient times and melted cruelty into kindness. The equality, justice and love of Christ’s teachings changed the whole attitude of man to man and master to servant. This spirit of brotherhood quickened the conscience of the age, leaped the walls of Judaism, and penetrated the remotest regions. The great apostle proclaimed this truth: There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free,… ye all are one man in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28). The Christian slaves and masters are both exhorted in Paul’s letters to live godly lives and make Christ-like their relations one to the other – obedience to masters and forbearance with slaves. Bondservants (m), be obedient unto … your masters,… as bondservants (m) of Christ … And, ye masters … forbear threatening:… their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with him (Eph 6:5-9).
Christ was a reformer, but not an anarchist. His gospel was dynamic but not dynamitic. It was leaven, electric with power, but permeated with love. Christ’s life and teaching were against Judaistic slavery, Roman slavery and any form of human slavery. The love of His gospel and the light of His life were destined, in time, to make human emancipation earth-wide and human brotherhood as universal as His own benign presence.
Literature.
Nowack, Hebrew Arch.; Ewald, Alterthumer, III, 280-88; Grunfeld, Die Stellung des Sklaven bei den Juden, nach bibl. und talmud. Quellen, 1886; Mielziner, Die Verhaltnisse der Sklaven bei den alter Hebrdern, 1859; Mandl, Das Sklavenrecht des Altes Testament, 1886; Kahn, L’esclavagedans la Bible et le Talmud, 1867; Sayce, Social Life among the Assyrians and Babylonians; Lane, Manners and Customs of Modern Egyptians, 205; Arabian Nights, I, 64 ff; Thomson, LB; McCurdy, HPM, 1894; Trumbull, Studies in Oriental Social Life, 1894. There is a wealth of material in the Talmudic tractate Kiddushn (pp. 17-22).