spes clara

SLAVERY – A HUMAN ‘INSTITUTION’ IN A HARD WORLD

In my first post on slavery in the Old Testament I pointed out that slavery – particularly in the ancient Near East (ANE) – has been around for a very long time. It was essentially a human ‘institution’, predating written human records [13]. Africa and Mesopotamia appear to have been early centres of slavery [14], though E. A. Judge points out that most economies in the ANE were not substantially based on slave labour in the way later empires such as the Greek or Roman empires were [15]. There are different kinds of slavery and different ways by which slaves were acquired. A likely reason slavery developed was that humans acquired agricultural skills to grow significant quantities of food, and this enabled larger settlements to develop. These agricultural skills, coupled with improving technology and growing population centres, brought with them wealth inequalities and struggles for power and survival. The harshness and brevity of life in the ancient world, combined with these emerging socio-economic developments seem to have opened the way for slavery.

It’s not hard to imagine different scenarios in which some form of slavery could seem like a viable option for ancient peoples. For example, if your family died of a disease and you had no means of supporting yourself, you couldn’t collect social welfare payments. Generally speaking, you would either beg, become a slave, or die. Or do all three, in that order. On a larger scale, if your small city was attacked by a neighbouring city, they could either kill you all, or subjugate you in some way. Turning war captives into slaves instead of corpses had several advantages. Follow the logic:

1. slaves = low cost labour = bigger crops, building projects, and greater wealth

2. bigger crops, building projects, and greater wealth = more power and prosperity

3. more power and prosperity = more military victories = more slaves

4. more slaves = low cost labour = bigger crops, building projects, and greater wealth

    and on it goes.

The historical evidence supports the notion that the more prosperous a city or empire became, the more slaves they were likely to have.

Slavery was an answer to socio-economic realities as the human population increased and developed. To put it crassly – it was often a choice between becoming someone’s slave or dying. Slavery was also a consequence of emerging socio-cultural dynamics as the human population increased and population centres came into contact with each other. Power, money, or prosperity bring with them a growing desire for even more (does that ring a bell in today’s world?). To prosper more and protect what you have, you require more resources. In a rather obvious way people are resources, just like cows, carts and corn are. Even today we have “human resources” departments. Slavery in the ANE context may have been an unfortunate answer to socio-cultural and economic problems, and it may have been a bad answer to the need for growth and power, but it was an answer.

Slavery didn’t develop because ancient people were sadistic mongrels – although some of them were, especially those with power. But if you had no food or financial support, a more prosperous person could probably have a better life if you became their slave; and you, the slave, would get some food and shelter out of the deal. Likewise, if a wealthy village official was worried that the nearby township was going to attack his flocks and grain stores, his village could potentially launch a pre-emptive strike and bring back some free labourers. By doing that, the dominant village has even greater capacity to produce food and build up their township.

Balancing all the available evidence we can say that slavery emerged as a human institution for reasons related to survival, power, and the will to prosper. These ancient slaves were treated like property because they were at the bottom of the human circumstantial food chain. In a harsh, brutal world of survival and conflict, that seems to be the stark reality. People could ‘own’ others – at least in a relative sense. If you didn’t have the power or resources or support to be a free person, someone could take social and legal authority over your life circumstances, either by choice or by force. Such is the nature of the ancient world.

In a hard world, hard things happened.    

SLAVERY IN ANCIENT ISRAEL

Since slavery was a widespread socio-economic institution across the ancient Near East, it is no surprise to find the ancient Hebrew people were not only were enslaved at times but also had slaves themselves. This is made clear in the pages of the Old Testament, where we find numerous references to slavery. An examination of the biblical data on slavery leads some people to charge the Bible with being morally compromised, as it doesn’t outright condemn slavery. If a good God inspired ancient authors to write the documents of the Old Testament, then surely we should find this God condemning the practice of slavery?! In response to this concern, I will offer and evidence four interrelated responses, three of which will appear in the next post. The fourth – my main argument – will appear in the post after that. For right now, here are the three points I will argue in my next post:

1. Old Testament slavery laws must be read in the context of the hope-filled narrative arc of the Bible, centred on promises of global blessing and renewal through Jesus Christ.

2. Old Testament slavery laws must be read alongside Old Testament teachings which views slavery as unfavourable.

3. Old Testament slavery laws are generally more humane than most ancient societies in the ANE.

REFERENCES

[13] “Historical survey: Slave-owning societies”. Encyclopædia Britannica

[14] Tetlow, Elisabeth Meier (2004). “Sumer”. Women, Crime and Punishment in Ancient Law and Society: Volume 1: The Ancient Near East. Women, Crime, and Punishment in Ancient Law and Society. Vol. 1. New York: A&C Black. p. 7. ISBN 9780826416285. 

[15] E. A. Judge, “Slavery” in New Bible Dictionary, 3^rd Edition, I. Howard Marshall; A. R. Millard; J. I. Packer; D. J. Wiseman (eds). pp 1110-1114.  Inter-Varsity Press.