the Third Week after Easter
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Encyclopedias
Slave
Kitto's Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
or Slave (Auth. Eng. Version, servant and bondman). It is difficult to trace the origin of slavery. It may have existed before the deluge, when violence filled the earth, and drew upon it the vengeance of God. But the first direct reference to slavery, or rather slave-trading, in the Bible, is found in the history of Joseph, who was sold by his brethren to the Ishmaelites (). In , we find a reference to the slave-trade carried on with Tyre by Javan, Tubal, and Meshech. And in the Apocalypse we find enumerated in the merchandise of the mystic Babylon, slaves and the souls of men ().
The sacred historians refer to various kinds of bondage:—
1. Patriarchal Servitude—The exact nature of this service cannot be defined: there can be no doubt, however, that it was regulated by principles of justice, equity, and kindness. The servants of the patriarchs were of two kinds, those 'born in the house,' and those 'bought with money' (). The servants born in the house were perhaps entitled to greater privileges than the others. Eliezer of Damascus, a home-born servant, was Abraham's steward, and, in default of issue, would have been his heir (). This class of servants was honored with the most intimate confidence of their masters, and was employed in the most important services. An instance of this kind will be found in , where the eldest or chief servant of Abraham's house, who ruled over all that he had, was sent to Mesopotamia to select a wife for Isaac, who was then forty years of age. The servants of Abraham were admitted into the same religious privileges with their master, and received the seal of the covenant (;;; ).
There is a clear distinction made between the 'servants' of Abraham and the things which constituted his property or wealth. Abraham was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold; ). But when the patriarch's power or greatness is spoken of, then servants are spoken of as well as the objects which constituted his riches (). A similar distinction is made in the case of Isaac and of Jacob. In no single instance do we find that the patriarchs either gave away or sold their servants, or purchased them of third persons. Abraham had servants 'bought with money.' It has been assumed that they were bought of third parties, whereas there is no proof that this was the case. The probability is that they sold themselves to the patriarch for an equivalent; that is to say, they entered into voluntary engagements to serve him for a longer or shorter period of time, in return for the money advanced them. Probably Job had more servants than either of the patriarchs to whom reference has been made (). In what light he regarded, and how he treated his servants, may be gathered from . And that Abraham acted in the same spirit, we have the Divine testimony in , where his conduct is placed in direct contrast with that of some of his descendants who used their neighbor's service without wages, and gave him not for his work ().
2. Egyptian Bondage.—The Israelites were frequently reminded, after their exode from Egypt, of the oppressions they endured in that 'house of bondage,' from which they had been delivered by the direct interposition of God. The design of these admonitions was to teach them justice and kindness towards their servants when they should become settled in Canaan, as well as to impress them with gratitude towards their great deliverer. The Egyptians had domestic servants, who may have been slaves (;; ). But the Israelites were not dispersed among the families of Egypt; they formed a special community. They had exclusive possession of the land of Goshen, 'the best part of the land of Egypt.' They lived in permanent dwellings, their own houses, and not in tents. Each family seems to have had its own house; and judging from the regulations about eating the Passover, they could scarcely have been small ones. They appear to have been well clothed. They owned 'flocks and herds, and very much cattle.' They had their own form of government; and, although occupying a province of Egypt, and tributary to it, they preserved their tribes and family divisions, and their internal organization throughout. They had to a considerable degree the disposal of their own time. They were not unacquainted with the fine arts. They were all armed. The women seem to have known something of domestic refinement. They were familiar with instruments of music, and skilled in the working of fine fabrics; and both males and females were able to read and write. Their food was abundant and of great variety. The service required from the Israelites by their task-masters seems to have been exacted from males only, and probably a portion only of the people were compelled to labor at any one time. As tributaries, they probably supplied levies of men, from which the wealthy appear to have been exempted. The poor were the oppressed; 'and all the service wherewith they made them serve was with rigor.' But Jehovah saw their 'afflictions and heard their groanings,' and delivered them, after having inflicted the most terrible plagues on their oppressors.
3. Jewish Servitude.—Whatever difficulties may be found in indicating the precise nature of patriarchal servitude, none exists in reference to that which was sanctioned and regulated by the Mosaic institutes.
The moral law is a revelation of great principles. It requires supreme love to God and universal love among men; and whatever is incompatible with the exercise of that love, is strictly forbidden and condemned. Hence, immediately after the giving of the law at Sinai, as if to guard against all slavery and slave-trading on the part of the Israelites, God promulgated this ordinance: 'He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hands, he shall surely be put to death' (; ). The crime is stated in its threefold form, man-stealing, selling, and holding; the penalty for either of which was death. The law punished the stealing of mere property by enforcing restitution, in some cases twofold, in others fivefold (). When property was stolen, the legal penalty was compensation to the person injured; but when a man was stolen, no property compensation was allowed; death was inflicted, and the guilty offender paid the forfeit of his life for his transgression. Such was the operation of this law, and the obedience paid to it, that we have not the remotest hint that the sale and purchase of slaves ever occurred among the Israelites. The cities of Judea were not, like the cities of Greece and Rome, slave-markets; nor were there found throughout all its coasts either helots or slaves. With the Israelites, service was either voluntary, or judicially imposed by the law of God (;;;; ). Strangers only, or the descendants of strangers, became their possession by purchase (); but, however acquired, the law gave the Jewish servants many rights and privileges; they were admitted into covenant with God; they were guests at all the national and family festivals; they were statedly instructed in morals and religion; and they were released from their regular labor nearly one-half of their term of servitude. The servants of the Israelites were protected by the law equally with their masters; and their civil and religious rights were the same. Finally, these servants had the power of changing their masters, and of seeking protection where they pleased (); and should their masters, by any act of violence, injure their persons, they were released from their engagements (). The term of Hebrew servitude was six years, beyond which they could not be held unless they entered into new engagements (; ); while that of strangers, over whom the rights of the master were comparatively absolute (), terminated in every case on the return of the jubilee, when liberty was proclaimed to all (;; ).
4. Gibeonitish Servitude.—The condition of the inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim, under the Hebrew commonwealth, was not that of slavery. It was voluntary (). They were not employed in the families of the Israelites, but resided in their own cities, tended their own flocks and herds, and exercised the functions of a distinct though not independent community (). The injuries inflicted on them by Saul were avenged by the Almighty on his descendants (). They appear to have been devoted exclusively to the service of the 'house of God' or the Tabernacles, and only a few of them comparatively could have been engaged at any one time. The rest dwelt in their cities, one of which was a great city, as one of the royal cities. The service they rendered may be regarded as a natural tribute for the privilege of protection. No service seems to have been required of their wives and daughters.
The laws which the great Deliverer and Redeemer of mankind gave for the government of his kingdom, were those of universal justice and benevolence, and as such were subversive of every system of tyranny and oppression. To suppose, therefore, as has been rashly asserted, that Jesus or his Apostles gave their sanction to the existing systems of slavery among the Greeks and Romans, is to dishonor them. That the reciprocal duties of masters and servants were inculcated, admits, indeed, of no doubt (;;;; ). But the performance of these duties on the part of the masters, supposing them to have been slave-masters, would have been tantamount to the utter subversion of the relation. There can be no doubt either that 'servants under the yoke,' or the slaves of heathens, are exhorted to yield obedience to their masters (). But this argues no approval of the relation; for, 1. Jesus, in an analogous case, appeals to the paramount law of nature as superseding such temporary regulations as the 'hardness of men's hearts' had rendered necessary; and, 2. St. Paul, while counseling the duties of contentment and submission under inevitable bondage, inculcates at the same time on the slave the duty of adopting all legitimate means of obtaining his freedom ().
5. Roman Slavery.—Our limits will not allow us to enter into detail on the only kind of slavery referred to in the New Testament, for there is no indication that the Jews possessed any slaves in the time of Christ. Suffice it therefore to say, that, in addition to the fact that Roman slavery was perpetual and hereditary, the slave had no protection whatever against the avarice, rage, or lust of his master. The bondsman was viewed less as a human being, subject to arbitrary dominion, than as an inferior animal, dependent wholly on the will of his owner. The master possessed the uncontrolled power of life and death over his slave—a power which continued at least to the time of the emperor Hadrian. He might, and frequently did, kill, mutilate, and torture his slaves, for any or for no offence; so that slaves were sometimes crucified from mere caprice. He might force them to become prostitutes or gladiators; and, instead of the perpetual obligation of the marriage tie, their temporary unions were formed and dissolved at his command, families and friends were separated, and no obligation existed to provide for their wants in sickness or in health. But, notwithstanding all the barbarous cruelties of Roman slavery, it had one decided advantage over that which was introduced in modern times into European colonies, both law and custom being decidedly favorable to the freedom of the slave. The Muhammadan law also, in this respect, contrasts favorably with those of the European settlements.
Although the condition of the Roman slaves was no doubt improved under the emperors, the early effects of Christian principles were manifest in mitigating the horrors, and bringing about the gradual abolition of slavery. 'It is not,' says Robertson, 'the authority of any single detached precept in the Gospel, but the spirit and genius of the Christian religion, more powerful than any particular command, which has abolished the practice of slavery throughout the world.' Although, even in the most corrupt times of the church, the operation of Christian principles tended to this benevolent object, they unfortunately did not prevent the revival of slavery in the European settlements in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, together with that nefarious traffic, the suppression of which has rendered the name of Wilberforce forever illustrious. Modern servitude had all the characteristic evils of the Roman, except, perhaps, the uncontrolled power of life and death, while it was destitute of that redeeming quality to which we have referred, its tendency being to perpetuate the condition of slavery. It has also been supposed to have introduced the unfortunate prejudice of color, which was unknown to the ancients. It was the benevolent wish of the philosophic Herder that the time might come 'when we shall look back with as much compassion on our inhuman traffic in negroes, as on the ancient Roman slavery or Spartan helots.' This is now no longer a hope, so far as England is concerned, as she not only set the example of abolishing the traffic, but evinced the soundness of her Christian principles by the greatest national act of justice which history has yet recorded, in the total abolition of slavery throughout all her dependencies.
Public Domain.
Kitto, John, ed. Entry for 'Slave'. "Kitto's Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature". https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/kbe/s/slave.html.
