Showing posts with label slavery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label slavery. Show all posts

Monday, 5 December 2022

Selling my daughter

President Josiah Bartlet:

I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

To become president of the United States you have to be one thing first of all: very wealthy. This presumably goes for West Wing’s fictional president as well who feigns an interest in making more money by selling his youngest daughter into slavery. Her virtues, he suggests, will fetch a good price.

This is very far removed from the situation envisaged in Exodus 21:7. Selling your daughter into slavery was not a choice within a free-market economy designed to maximise profit. Many in ancient Israel lived much closer to subsistence levels than modern despisers of the Old Testament. There was no such thing as a single-person household. Everyone was attached to a family – for a woman this meant being a daughter (and/or sister), a wife (and hopefully mother), or a widow (hopefully with children).

Exodus 21:7 concerns the transition from daughter to wife. This would usually involve a reciprocal financial transaction which binds two households together. The father of the bride pays a dowry which is meant to offer financial security for his daughter (if she were to be divorced she would receive back this dowry rather than be left destitute) and the groom’s family pays a bride price (which compensates the woman’s first family for lost labour).

Exodus 21:7 has a situation in view in which a father is unable to pay a dowry for his daughter. His household may struggle to feed everyone, e.g., if the poverty is the result of a series of bad harvests. But even if the extra labour of his daughter would make it possible for her to survive within her father’s household in the short run, her long-term security is under threat. The following verses indicate that she is bought as a wife or concubine either for the master of the household (verse 8) or his son (verse 9). In other words, someone will pay the bride price but no dowry is received.

Given that the dowry is a back-up for the daughter, getting married without one presents a risk. The regulation in Exodus 21 seeks to minimise this risk by forbidding the master to sell her on, as if she were his possession over which he could freely dispose. (The text specifies “sell her to a foreign people” because within the covenant community slavery was essentially only permitted for defaulting debtors.) If he wants to be rid of her, he is not allowed to receive any payment. In this case, the woman would be free to leave without owing the master anything. 

The example is taken from case law and regulates a situation in which an attempt by a poor man to provide a better life for his daughter might put her at risk by specifying an arrangement which preserves her honour as an Israelite woman. Insinuating here a parental permission to maximise profits by selling one of their daughters is bearing false witness to the text.

Thursday, 8 February 2018

The Bible and Slavery

A few initial thoughts putting the question of why the Bible does not offer an outright condemnation of slavery in context. There is a simple answer sometimes given which has more than a kernel of truth ("slavery was such an integral part of societies in antiquity that calling for the abolishment of slavery in the ancient world would have been akin to calling for the abolishment of money in our world")* but it is worth reflecting on this more broadly.

(1) Slavery is not a natural part of creation order but a social-historical institution. It is possible to be born into slavery but the Bible offers no justification for the belief that some people are born to be slaves based on their race** (as, e.g., in much of Western colonialism) or class (as maybe in the Hindu caste system in the East). There is no instruction within the Bible to uphold slavery as if the institution was necessary for an ideal ordering of the world.

(2) The institution of slavery can and should be regulated. Not all slavery is governed by rules. In the ancient world as well as in Islamic and European and American slave trade, slavery was often linked with kidnapping. This is condemned in the Bible (e.g., Exodus 21:16; Amos 1:6, 9). The people of God under the old covenant were given rules to regulate the institution (Exodus 21:1-11; Leviticus 25:39-55; Deuteronomy 15:12-18) and were commanded not to return fugitive slaves to their masters but welcome them within their own community (Deuteronomy 23:15-16).

(3) One corollary of the first two points is that slavery was not a monolithic entity within the biblical world. It can take many and various forms and there are fuzzy boundaries. "Given the historical significance of the Atlantic trade it is not surprising that the dominant stereotype of slavery is that of the New World Afro-American plantation system, a stereotype in which 'slavery is monolithic, invariant, servile, chattel-like, focused on compulsory labour, maintained by violence, and suffused with brute sexuality' (Kopytoff 1982:214). Yet examples from different times and places of what is usually taken to be slavery reveal a great variation in both the type of servitude slaves experienced (a common difference often being noted between domestic and chattel slaves), and the political and economic systems in which the institution existed." (P. Thomas, "Slavery," Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, ed. A. Barnard and J. Spencer [Taylor & Francis, 1996], 509-10, p. 509) Many slaves within the Greco-Roman world carried out sensitive and highly responsible tasks, e.g. as doctors and accountants, teachers and bailiffs, sometimes being better educated than their masters, and emancipation was a real possibility for the majority of urban and domestic slaves.

(4) The assumption within the Bible is that people holding ownership rights over other people is not in and of itself immoral. This is the nub of the issue for us today. It is arguably first of all a philosophical clash relating to notions of freedom and self-determination. In practice the biblical world and ours are not quite as far apart as it appears at first because on the one hand ownership was not total and absolute but governed by God's decrees and on the other hand individual liberty in the contemporary world is also sometimes severely restricted and in the same circumstances that led to slavery in the ancient world, namely economic hardship. Again, the experience of New World slavery misleads some into thinking that slavery is defined by treating people as property in a way which denies their personhood but if one were to accept this definition much of ancient slavery within and outside the Bible would have to be called something else. In the ancient world it was possible to consider slaves both property and persons with legal rights, e.g. the right to appear as witnesses, plaintiffs or defendants in court and to own property, including slaves.

(5) Slavery within the ancient world was gendered. In particular, masters seem to have been universally male or nearly so and female slaves were treated differently from male slaves. A woman sold into slavery regularly became a concubine or secondary wife in the process with attendant obligations and rights. In particular, this seems to have been a way to provide for a woman when a father could not provide a dowry. Thus the issue relates to the question of patriarchy and the relationship between the institution of slavery and the functioning of kinship structures. Masters also bought female slaves to give in marriage to their male slaves.

(6) Legally regulated slavery within ancient societies was regularly related to either avoiding or responding to economic hardship. P. Garnsey observes: "This points to a paradox at the heart of the slave system. Slavery is the most degrading and exploitative institution invented by man. Yet many slaves in ancient societies (not all, not even all skilled slaves, a class that included miners) were more secure and economically better off than the mass of the free poor, whose employment was irregular, low-grade, and badly paid...It was not unknown for free men to sell themselves into slavery to escape poverty and debt, or even to take up posts of responsibility in the domestic sphere." (Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine [CUP, 1996], 5)*^

(7) Slavery was often a consequence of war. This is sometimes considered the chief source of slaves in ancient societies but this seems unlikely for Israel and Judah. The regulations are again gendered and varied depending on the course of the battle. A city that accepted terms of peace seems to have become subject to serfhood as a vassal entity rather than slavery, while military confrontation led to slavery as an alternative to death (cf. Deuteronomy 20:10-15; 21:10-14).

Much more could be said, especially about the way in which Christ elevates slaves in such a way that the abolishment of slavery arguably becomes at one and the same time less urgent and inevitable in the long run but for now it is worth noting by way of summary that the Bible does not condone slavery in all its various forms. It specifically condemns theft and allows for slavery only within a certain framework. The biblical instructions assume (a) that slavery is not in and of itself immoral but can become so, and (b) that there was not always a ready, less de-humanizing alternative to slavery. Today we have found other ways of dealing with people who cannot pay their debts (prison) and children who are an economic burden on their parents (abortion, adoption).


* Cf. "The institution of slavery was taken for granted not only by the free persons but also by the slaves themselves, who never demanded its abolition. Therefore ideology of the [Ancient Near East] contains no condemnation of slavery or any protest against it." (M. A. Dandamayev, "Slavery (ANE)," ABD 6:58-62, p. 61) -- S. S. Bartchy observes that "ancient Greece and Rome are two of only five societies in world history which seem to have been based on slavery." He also notes: "It must also be stressed that, despite the neat legal separation between owners and slaves, in none of the relevant cultures did persons in slavery constitute a social or economic class...Slaves' individual honor, social status, and economic opportunities were entirely dependent on the status of their respective owners, and they developed no recognizable consciousness of being a group or of suffering a common plight...For this reason, any such call as 'slaves of the world unite!' would have fallen on completely deaf ears." ("Slavery (Greco-Roman)," ABD 6:65-73, p. 66)

** "Slavery, which both long preceded and continued after the emergence of race, assumed a new dimension with global racialization. Before the 1400s, slavery was widespread in state societies, but its victims, either recruited internally or from neighbouring groups, were largely physically indistinguishable from slave-holders; slavery was a status that, as fortunes changed, might be held by anyone." (R. Sanjek, "Race," Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, ed. A. Barnard and J. Spencer [Taylor & Francis, 1996], 464-64, p. 463)

*^ See also the various references to debt slavery in R. Westbrook and G. M. Beckman, A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, 2 vols (Brill, 2003) and S. S. Bartchy's comment: "Furthermore, by no means were those in slavery regularly to be found at the bottom of the social-economic pyramid...Rather, in that place were those free and impoverished persons who had to look for work each day without any certainty of finding it (day laborers), some of whom eventually sold thesemlevs into slavery to gain some job security." ("Slavery (Greco-Roman)," p. 66)

Thursday, 3 April 2014

The Apostle and the Run-Away Slave



Sarah Ruden, Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time (New York: Image Books, 2011) argues that the apostle Paul wants to do more than emancipate the run-away slave Onesimus because emancipating him may well have jeopardized the man. (Manumission did not make someone a citizen.)

Paul had a much more ambitious plan than making Onesimus legally free. He wanted to make him into a human being, and he had a paradigm. As God chose and loved and guided the Israelites, he had now chosen and loved and could guide everyone. The grace of God could make what was subhuman into what was more than human. It was just a question of knowing it and letting it happen.
The way Paul makes the point in his letter to Philemon is beyond ingenious. He equates Onesimus with a son and a brother. He turns what Greco-Roman society saw as the fundamental, insurmountable differences between a slave and his master into an immense joke (160).

picked up from Scot McKnight.

Friday, 14 February 2014

Not By Texts Alone: David Runcorn



The Pilling Report offers disagreements about whether it is legitimate for Christians to fight in a war as an analogy for handling disagreements about appropriate sexual activity. This is discussed in the previous post.

David Runcorn's contribution “Evangelicals, Scripture and same sex relationships – an ‘Including Evangelical’ perspective” (Appendix 4 in the Report) refers to a few more possible analogies.

David Runcorn identifies himself as an "including evangelical" which refers to someone for whom "obedient submission to the Scriptures in personal discipleship and in the life and practice of the Church is primary and non-negotiable" and who has "come to believe that there is a place for faithful same sex relationships in the Church."[1] This he contrasts with "conserving evangelicals" who, affirming the same stance of obedient submission to the Scriptures, continue to uphold the traditional ethical teaching.

David Runcorn lists "slavery, apartheid, usury, divorce and remarriage, contraception and women in society and the Church" as "important social and ethical issues" which reveal that evangelicals have been able "to revise, reverse or adopt ‘including’ positions" having resisted to do so initially. (The use of ‘including’ with reference to the first two issues presumably relates to the effect of more inclusive communities; as far as actual practices, attitudes and behaviour patterns are concerned the move was  towards exclusion which puts them in a different category from the following.)

He observes "that the unsettling process of reading, re-interpreting and revising even long unquestioned biblical convictions under the compelling of the Spirit is not a task this conserving tradition is unfamiliar with or unwilling to undertake."  This much hardly needs stating. As David Runcorn himself adds, "its own understanding of Scripture requires it."

So what is it that "conserving evangelicals" may be overlooking to which David Runcorn wants to draw our attention? Maybe the nub of the issue is to be found in this statement:
Christian history warns of the hazards of using texts alone to establish the biblical teaching on any issue.
This is a necessary warning against proof-texting. But it is potentially more than that. Observing that "the Christian Church today believes slavery to be evil and wrong on the basis of biblical teaching and ethics," David Runcorn adds the rhetorical question,  "But on what scriptural basis?"

We would of course expect both Christian slave-holders and Christian abolitionists to appeal to biblical warrant. The fact that both sides on this or any number of issues appeal to Scripture is hardly surprising, given the place of the Bible in Christian faith and practice. What is unsettling is that this appeal to Scripture was not entirely superficial. The book I want to read on this is Mark A. Noll, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis (The University of North Carolina Press, 2006).

When we look back to how the Bible was read during the civil war in the United States, or in apartheid South Africa, do we shudder at how easily sin can blind us to "what Scripture really says"? Do we need to go further, as David Runcorn seems to suggest, and acknowledge that the pro-slavery and pro-apartheid argument is exegetically as sound as the argument on the other side?


[1] The phrase "faithful same sex relationships" apparently refers to sexually active partnerships analogous to marriage, as committed friendships between members of the same sex are not controversial.