The idea is presented that the Bible cannot represent a moral document, or be from a moral god, or be the product of, or lead to a stable, moral society because it endorses the practice of slavery.
“I can make the bible a more moral book with one simple change: Thou must not own slaves.”
As a matter of fact, this has already been done. Almost 3,000 years ago, around the time of King Hezekiah (726 BCE) slavery had been outlawed by the Sanhedrin. This became permanent binding law for all Jews.
If one asks “why did it take so long,” the answer is that 1,000 years before the abrogation of slavery by the Sanhedrin, slavery had already been reformed at Mt. Sinai. These reforms will be expressed below in the 'in detail' section, however it should be noted that even before these reforms (from nearly 4,000 years ago!!) the case studies of what is acceptable slavery and what is not acceptable all clearly delineate certain laws and restrictions designed to ensure fair wages and fair treatment of so-called slaves. In fact, by this point we are already far removed from the concept of owning a human being. Then, what is biblical slavery?
Unfortunately, it is a fact that there is a translation issue, as follows:
(tl;dr the bible was not written in English. The Hebrew word eved (bondservant) was translated in the Greek Septuagint as doulos (slave), and then into English as slave. However, the meaning of 'slave' in English has changed away from the meaning of doulos or eved. Therefore we can't just assume the bible promotes so-called 'slavery' – we need to take a deeper look.
THE WORD “SLAVE” IN THE HEBREW AND GREEK
The word translated as “servant” in the Hebrew is ‘eved (H5650), which means “a laborer; a slave, a man in bonds.” The Stone Edition of the Chumash (1994), a Mesorah Publication and one of the two editions used in mainstream Jewish synagogues, translates the term ‘eved as “bondsman” (i.e., one who is in bonds). Also, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew ‘eved is doulos [G1401], which only had one meaning in Greek in the first century, C.E., “slave.” For example, in John MacArthur’s book Slave: The Hidden Truth About Your Identity in Christ (2010), he writes,
Scripture’s prevailing description of the Christian’s relationship to Jesus Christ is the slave / master relationship. But do a casual read through your English New Testament and you won’t see it. The reason for this is as simple as it is shocking: the Greek word for slave has been covered up by being mistranslated in almost every English version – going back to the King James Version and the Geneva Bible that predated it. Though the word slave (doulos in Greek) appears 124 times in the original [Greek] text, it is correctly translated only once in the King James. Most of our modern translations do only slightly better….Instead of translating doulos as “slave,” these translations consistently substitute the word servant in its place. Ironically, the Greek language has at least half a dozen words that can mean servant. The word doulos is not one of them. Whenever it is used, both in the New Testament and in secular Greek literature, it always and only means slave. (15-16)
Obviously, the image of the slave (Heb. ‘eved; Gk. doulos) then is an important image for us to understand, not only in dealing with the story of Jacob and Laban, but also in understanding our own relationship to God and the Messiah Yeshua. In fact, each of the writers of the B’rit Chadasha (New Covenant) refer to themselves as “slaves.” For example,https://followingmessiah.org/2020/12/10/jacob-laban-and-biblical-slavery-a-question-of-ownership/
Therefore, we must examine the case studies of slavery in the bible and not rely on the modern defenition of slavery as the outright and demeaning ownership of human beings.
One of the first case examples of slavery is the story of Abraham's butler in Genesis 15:3.
Without question the relationship here is intended to be one of domestic servant – like the butler in 101 dalmatians, who will inherit the wealth of the widow – than one of modern chattal slavery.
So why is Eliezer called a slave? Because obviously, somebody made a mistake in translating the bible.
Hagar was Abraham's 'slave-woman', who was so loved by Abraham and his wife Sarai that Abraham had his first child through her (with his wife's blessing). Although the relationship eventually soured, this illustrates that this type of slave was essentially given a marriage contract. This is not an issue of slavery, but of concubine, and was a standard clause in near eastern marriage contracts of the day, to wit:
As for Abram and Sarai conforming to their ancient Near Eastern culture, John Walton writes:
A marriage contract from the town of Nuzi a few centuries after the patriarchal period illustrates the practice. “If Gilimninu (The Wife) bears children, Shennima (The Husband) shall not take another wife. But if Gilimninu (The Wife) fails to bear children, Gilimninu (The Wife) shall get for Shennima (The Husband) a woman from Lullu country (a slave girl) as concubine. In that case, Gilimninu (The Wife) herself shall have authority over her (The Concubine's) offspring.” An old Assyrian marriage contract closer to the times of the patriarchs reflects a similar solution to infertility. It is therefore plausible that Sarai is simply invoking the terms of their marriage contract. (NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, comment on v. 2, Zondervan, 2016) https://drjimsebt.com/2022/05/21/1-torah-and-slavery-abraham-sarah-and-hagar/
So why is Hagar called a slave? Because obviously, somebody made a mistake in translation.
The next time we encounter slavery in the bible is in the story of Jacob and Laban. Laban was Jacob's uncle – the brother of Issac (Genesis 27:43 “… Arise, flee to Laban my brother in Haran, 44 and stay with him a while,”). In fact, Laban at least initially loved Jacob (Genesis 29:13) and wanted to pay him as a result (Genesis 29:15).
So, while fleeing from his brother Esau, Jacob ended up in the land where his uncle Laban lived. He then falls in love with Laban’s daughter Rachel and agrees to work seven years for her. At the end of the seven years, Laban deceives Jacob by giving him Leah instead and he treated Jacob unfairly in other agreements that followed.
Jacob ends up marrying both of Laban’s daughters and eventually came to the point where he was ready to leave to build his own household. Laban persuades him to stay and they come to an agreement that made Jacob wealthy at Laban’s expense. In the end, Jacob leaves secretly but is pursued by Laban. Laban catches him up but didn’t do him any harm since God warned him in a dream.
This relationship is classified as slavery. This is why, in Genesis 31:28, Laban accuses Jacob of taking his sons and daughters – Laban believes that Jacob's children belong to him because he acquired them in slavery. Of course, this is another example of Laban trying to cheat Jacob, but it illustrates their relationship as slavery.
So, once again! Why is Jacob called a slave? On the surface it doesn't make sense. It seems once again someone has simply made an incorrect translation or did not explain the story properly from Hebrew into English.
If none of the above examples would be described as 'slavery' by us yet the Hebrew uses the word 'slave' to describe them, the logical conclusion is that the English word 'slave' is perhaps a bad translation.
There are many more examples. See 'Elisha and the Slaves' and 'Nehemiah's Condemnation' below, as well as other examples in the bible which may or may not be mentioned here..
Although we deal with this issue in great detail below, the nutshell argument is that, if you write out all the laws of slavery in a manner that they can be actually observed and practiced, they look a lot different than when taken out of context. Here are a few official laws from the standard 613 Jewish commandments:
If a slave must be paid and fed properly, given a house and a wife upon request, may not be worked excessively, and may choose to leave his slavery at any time, and in fact all slaves must be freed in the jubilee year, and so forth – then one cannot say that it is a form of slavery but rather a form of employment contract. In fact, the very next laws after the slavery laws (ex. law 517 and on) are in fact laws of fair wages and fair employment that are also applied to so-called slaves. See below 'paying a slave'.
To get started, as an appetizer, CARM has a few articles on this topic. While we don't agree with CARM on many issues, here is one where we find a general consensus.
This is of course a great example of the eisegesic problem. In "Slave Systems of the Old Testament and the American South: A Study in Contrasts" by Nathan Andersen, (link), published in Studio Antiqua, this issue is dealt with in a very straightforward manner;
The word “slave,” as used in Old Testament text, is a term often misunderstood by contemporary readers of the Bible be- cause contemporary readers seek to understand the biblical slave system by overlaying a modern definition upon it. One scholar has noted, “The problems attending the use of the term slavery are basic to the very nature of language. The meaning of the term ‘slavery’ is determined not only by the spoken or literary setting, but also by the effective history of a given people.”1 Modern no- tions of slavery are complicated by the fact that in many ancient societies, the term “slave” was used to refer to many different forms of servile conditions,2 not just the chattel slave familiar to modern readers of the Bible.
Modern readers of the Old Testament may equate modern notions of slavery with the forms of slavery practiced in ancient Israel. Such modern notions of slavery are heavily influenced by the American civil rights movement, the American Civil War, and the African slave trade,4 and have recently experienced a public re- vival of sorts via dialogue regarding slave reparations. Putting the two slave systems on an equal footing, without a proper compari- son, denies modern Bible readers a full understanding of the legal and religious ramifications of slavery in the Bible.Studia Antiqua Vol.3 No.1 Winter 2003 p.48
Essentially the point is being made that the biblical form of slavery is inconsistent with the modern perception of what “slavery” means.
The problem is, “We don't believe that”. So there is a dichotomy here whereby the (atheist) is proposing the bible teaches something we do not believe. There must be an answer to this. First, there is the inherrent problem of the morals of forced slavery: As we are created in the image of God, our common perception of ex. “beating a slave” as immoral is expected to carry some sort of “legal” weight in terms of biblical law. Nowhere in the Bible is it commanded to own a slave or to beat a slave. If you do not wish to do these things, for whatever reason, you do not have to participate in doing them.
Deuteronomy 6:18, “And you shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of God.” Nahmanides and many other commentators explain this seemingly extra commandment as an injunction not to become a naval birshut ha-Torah — a degenerate with the permission of the Torah. That is, in addition to the specific commandments enumerated in the Torah, there is also a blanket rule — don’t think there are loopholes that you can exploit to be cruel. Surely today, turning our backs on slaves because the Torah allows slavery would be an act of moral degeneracy.
Above we in fact see that the institution of the nation of Israel was itself a rejection of chattal slavery:
The point being made that it would be immoral for Israel to treat slaves in the manner they themselves were treated, and this was written into the covenant of Sinai; the slave and the sojourner were all covered under these laws as well.
There are many instances where the rememberance of chattal slavery is used to promote kindness.
17 “You shall not pervert the justice due to the sojourner or to the fatherless, or take a widow's garment in pledge, 18 but you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this.
19 “When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it. It shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20 When you beat your olive trees, you shall not go over them again. It shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow. 21 When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not strip it afterward. It shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow. 22 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I command you to do this.Deuteronomy 24:17-22 (ESV)
There are laws (discussed above) which prohibit a Jewish person from owning a slave who had been kidnapped into slavery; Should such a slave make such a claim he would have to be instantly freed, thus making buying any kind of such slave a very difficult proposition.
Any slave can quit at any time and will have full protection under Torah law.
Regarding non-Jewish slaves, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, the 19th-century German scholar often identified as the father of Modern Orthodoxy, in his Torah commentary offers the following comment on the case in Deuteronomy 23:16-17 of a non-Jewish slave who flees his master:
The Israelite authorities are obligated to extend to such a slave their patronage and concern, and according to Maimonides’ system (Laws of Slaves 8:10), which is affirmed in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 167:85), they must bring about the freeing of the slave, and towards this purpose they must offer the owner these options: either he writes the slave a bill of manumission and accepts in return an IOU for the slave’s monetary worth, or if he refuses the court will annul the enslavement and the slave will go free. (Translation by Meirowitz Nelson, from Hebrew text in a 1989 publication of Hirsch’s commentary)
In other words, the slaveholder loses ownership of the slave either way; the choice he has is whether to comply with the court’s order, in which case he is compensated for the money he invested in the slave to begin with, or to resist, in which case he loses everything. Either way, Hirsch makes clear that owning slaves — even non-Jewish ones — is not acceptable.
First there are two categories of slaves: the Eved K’naani (non-Jewish slave) and the Eved Ivri (Jewish slave).
Jacob Milgrom, in “Leviticus 23-27: The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries”, writes, “For Israelites, both kinds of slavery, chattel and debt, are prohibited.” In other words, no Jew may own another person, and strict constraints limit how long a person may be held as an indentured servant before the debt is paid off. This is especially relevant today, when debt-bondage continues to be a major form of slavery.
This analysis is from Leviticus 25:42 where God says, “For they are My servants, whom I freed from the land of Egypt; they may not give themselves over into servitude.” Jewish law states thus, slaves always have the right to quit—i.e., they cannot be forced to work beyond the span they wish to (Bava Metzia 77a).
With today’s ethical sensibilities, it is easy to argue that we must extend the protections mandated for Jews to include all of humanity, as Rabbi Jill Jacobs does in “There Shall Be No Needy: Pursuing Social Justice Through Jewish Law and Tradition.”
As a matter of fact, we see in the Torah a push to, in general, convert all slaves (and thus, have one law for both the foreigner and the native in the land). This makes owning non-jewish slaves problematic.
Given that slavery was not commanded, it may be prohibited.
Thus later rabbis eliminated the category of the Eved Ivri. Rabbi Shimon ben Tzemach Duran, the 14th-15th century Spanish and North African authority known as the Tashbetz, ruled that this legal category ceased to exist after the exile of the 10 northern tribes of Israel. This is because the Jubilee year was no longer in effect and thus it was no longer possible to free a slave in the jubilee year, and therefore it would be illegal to accept someone into slavery; People may owe money but not their bodies (Tashbetz 2:27).
All children of Israel follow Nahmanides’ reading of Deuteronomy 6:18, “And you shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of God.” Nahmanides reads this seemingly extra commandment as an injunction not to become a naval birshut ha-Torah — a degenerate with the permission of the Torah. That is, in addition to the specific commandments enumerated in the Torah, there is also a blanket rule — don’t think there are loopholes that you can exploit to be cruel. Surely today, turning our backs on slaves because the Torah allows slavery would be an act of moral degeneracy.
Although we don't hold the New Testament theology it is interesting that they witness to the understanding of Slave Laws in the old testament.
Here, a story in John expresses the common knowledge that slaves are released after their service is over (in the 7th year, or by agreement of their term; ex. Jacob served two terms).
It must be understood that nowhere in the bible does it command people to keep slaves or to mistreat their slaves. Therefore the argument that the bible condones slavery is really the argument that there is a loophole in the biblical slavery code which allows people to mistreat their slaves:
The loophole argument is that there is some sort of loophole in the morality of the Bible which allows people to break the inherent morality problem and thus, ex. own kidnapped slaves, beat a slave nearly to death, institute slavery for life, etc. The loophole argument essentially tries to find a loophole in biblical law which allows for the admission of the original eisegesic problem, that biblical slavery is comparable to chattel slavery.
20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.Exodus 21:20-21 (ESV)
This is often used to justify the idea that a slave-owner was allowed to beat his slaves, perhaps even to within an inch of their lives. However it does not take into account the following:
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm,[d] then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
26 “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.Exodus 21:22-27 (ESV)
So if bodily harm was caused; eye, tooth, hand, food, burn, wound or stripe, the slave would have to be compensated, and possibly even set free.
Sometimes when you give a response like this peole will claim that there were two sets of rules, one for hebrew slaves and one for foreigners:
One misunderstanding arises from the mis-perception that there is a difference between Hebrew and foreign slaves. This mis-perception arises out of the verses below:
1 “Now these are the rules that you shall set before them.
2 When you buy a Hebrew slave,[a] he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing.
3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone.
5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’
6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.Exodus 21:1-6 (ESV)
From the above we see that at the time of purchase there is a difference between Hebrew and Foreign slaves. Also, it is within the purview of the slave to extend his term should he love his treatment – this is not at all the sort of “sold unwillingly into slavery” stuff that people usually try to claim is being said. In fact nothing of the sort has been said. Consider the following parallel passage:
12 “If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold[b] to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. 14 You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today. 16 But if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he is well-off with you, 17 then you shall take an awl, and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your slave[c] forever. And to your female slave[d] you shall do the same. 18 It shall not seem hard to you when you let him go free from you, for at half the cost of a hired worker he has served you six years. So the Lord your God will bless you in all that you do.Deuteronomy 15:12-18 (ESV)
This makes it abundantly clear that under “one law” the idea of slavery for life here is more akin to marrying into a family; it is the free-will of a slave, if he so chooses, out of a love for his master and his family.
42 For they are my servants,[e] whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. 43 You shall not rule over him ruthlessly but shall fear your God. 44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.Leviticus 25:42-46 (ESV)
Even the passage above just talks about how slaves may be acquired; it says nothing about how they are to be treated. The “big deal” here is that Israel was commanded to convert it's slaves:
Also see the inherrent morality problem; as all humans were created in the image of God, there can be no “lower class” human beings in the way that critics propose Israel considered foreign slaves. However, we do not even need to derive this teaching; it is written directly into the law: All slaves had to be converted upon purchase and were then bound by all the laws of Israel:
43 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the statute of the Passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, 44 but every slave[b] that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. 45 No foreigner or hired worker may eat of it. 46 It shall be eaten in one house; you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house, and you shall not break any of its bones. 47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. 49 There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”Exodus 12:43-49 (ESV)
The above is absolutely vital for understanding how slaves were treated under Israelite law.
Also, for female slaves, the 'selling' was considered on par with a marriage contract ex. “or her marital rights…” which means she had a marriage contract, at minimum would be guaranteed social assistance. Also if she became married to his son she must be treated as a daughter. In any case she would be converted:
7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her[b] for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.Exodus 21:7-11 (ESV)
These laws go all the way back to Abraham:
9 And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”Genesis 17:9-14 (ESV)
22 When he had finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham. 23 Then Abraham took Ishmael his son and all those born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him. 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 26 That very day Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised. 27 And all the men of his house, those born in the house and those bought with money from a foreigner, were circumcised with him.Genesis 17:22-27 (ESV)
So we see even from the time of Abraham, the social contract of the nation of Israel was extended to slaves; therefore there was no such thing as a foreign slave for life. Any male born into slavery in Israel would be circumcised, considered under the covenant, and freed at the jubilee year (as I speculate, by the age of 7).
Therefore all of the claims that arise out of the notion of dual-class slavery are shown to be false; all claims of forced slavery and lifetime slavery are shown to be false understandings of what is taught in the bible.
Even if a slave is adopted into the house of Levi, he becomes able to partake of the Levitical inheritance:
In this way the slave is essentially adopted into the house of Levi when he is converted in this way.
Slaves were treated very well, actually and considered a part of the nation even for genealogical purposes; in addition to the case with Abraham and Hagar, we see this in 1 Chronicles:
So it was permissable and in fact normal to give male slaves one of your own daughters, and the sons and daughters of their union would be considered your descendants within Israel. This confirms and verifies nicely the conversion of slaves; no slave was born into permanent slavery but would have been considered of the nation of Israel at birth.
Isaiah prophesies that people will join the nation of Israel, whom he then depicts as slaves; this is obviously a willing agreement of conversion, suggesting that full conversion would take seven years. It is more a guarantee to the convert of social assistance given their desire to join Israel than anything else.
The context does not only extend to verses 26 to 28, but back to verse 18 (and even as far as v.12). There is a literary figure called chiasma between verses 20/21 and verses 18/19 such that 20/21 ought to be understood in terms of 18/19. The juridical purpose of the passage is that it authorizes slaves to be under the same legal protections as non-slaves. We know this not only from the echo of the verse but because it is also explicitly stated elsewhere ('The same law for the native born and for the foreigner among you.').
So, v.19 mentions “if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff” and verse 21 mentions “if the slave gets up after a day or two”. This is the chiasmic link. The legal stipulation implied by the chiasmic link is indicated by the latter half of verse 19: “must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed.” In the case of the non-slave, the aggressor is 'punished' by compensating the victim for his/her lost economic time and medical expenses. For the slave, there is no punishment from the courts/judges because the master has already received the consequences of what was a punishment in the case of the non-slave: the loss of economic time resulted from the lost productivity and medical expenses that are owed to the wounded servant. Therefore, from a legal perspective, the slave in verses 20 and 21 is treated in the same exact way as the non-slave in verses 18 and 19. The excessive master is given the same consequences as the non-slave aggressor.
In conclusion, it is not just that:
but
In addition to the direct prohibitions of slavery against Israelites, all slaves had other powerful rights which were assigned to the class of slave in general and not specicifically to israelites.
Please see A Slave who Seeks Refuge by Dr. David Elgavish:
The command, “You shall not turn over to his master a slave who seeks refuge” (Deut. 23:16), marks a departure from the laws of the ancient Near East. In that culture, a fugitive slave was defenseless. His owners had the right to appeal to the ruling authorities for help in capturing him, and the authorities obliged; also, anyone could capture and interrogate a fugitive slave. [1] Ancient Near Eastern law codes established procedures in this regard: a person who returned a fugitive slave would receive payment from the slave’s owners; [2] a person who harbored a fugitive slave had to give payment of a slave in exchange for the slave who had fled; [3] the death sentence was imposed on any person who enabled a slave of the royal palace to flee through the city gates and on any person who harbored a fugitive slave from the palace or stole a fugitive slave. [4] However Hittite law also stipulated that if a slave fled to an enemy land, his owners lost their rights to him and any person could then appropriate the slave to himself. [5]
The biblical law set forth in this week’s reading deviates not only from Mesopotamian law but also from the norm in the Bible itself. It is unparalleled in the slave laws set forth in the Torah and also does not fit in with the practices in ancient Israel: the angel of the Lord said to Hagar, “Go back to your mistress, and submit to her harsh treatment” (Gen. 16:9); Nabal protested: “There are many slaves nowadays who run away from their masters” (I Sam. 25:10); an Egyptian slave asked David to swear to him that he would not turn him over to his master (I Sam. 30:15); Shimei’s slaves ran away to Gath, and Shimei went after them to King Achish of Gath to ask for their return (I Kings 2:40). Shimei’s appeal to the king of Gath indicates that there may have been an extradition treaty between the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Gath.–A Slave who Seeks Refuge by Dr. David Elgavish
The passage in question is Deuteronomy 23:15-16:
This powerful passage explains that if a slave wanted to leave his master he had a right to do so and his master would not be able to pursue him.
also,
The more general 21:16 – especially in light of the previous allowal of a slave to flee if he wishes, shows that if a slave was purchased from a foreigner, and he claimed to have been kidnapped, he would have to be freed or allowed to go free.
In no case would someone be able to force someone to remain their slave if they wished to be free.
There is a story from Kings in which Elisha causes a miracle in order to save a woman's sons from being kidnapped into slavery:
1 Now the wife of one of the sons of the prophets cried to Elisha, “Your servant my husband is dead, and you know that your servant feared the Lord, but the creditor has come to take my two children to be his slaves.” 2 And Elisha said to her, “What shall I do for you? Tell me; what have you in the house?” And she said, “Your servant has nothing in the house except a jar of oil.” 3 Then he said, “Go outside, borrow vessels from all your neighbors, empty vessels and not too few. 4 Then go in and shut the door behind yourself and your sons and pour into all these vessels. And when one is full, set it aside.” 5 So she went from him and shut the door behind herself and her sons. And as she poured they brought the vessels to her. 6 When the vessels were full, she said to her son, “Bring me another vessel.” And he said to her, “There is not another.” Then the oil stopped flowing. 7 She came and told the man of God, and he said, “Go, sell the oil and pay your debts, and you and your sons can live on the rest.”2 Kings 4:1-7
This shows it is not God's will at all that people be kidnapped or forced into slavery.
The prophet Nehemiah warned against these practices:
1 Now there arose a great outcry of the people and of their wives against their Jewish brothers. … Yet we are forcing our sons and our daughters to be slaves, and some of our daughters have already been enslaved, but it is not in our power to help it, for other men have our fields and our vineyards.” 6 I was very angry when I heard their outcry and these words.Nehemiah 5:1-6 (ESV)
also,
It's clear that Nehemiah's statement is that forced slavery is an offense.
Foreigners in the land are also bound by Israel's slavery laws when they purchase slaves:
35 “If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you. 36 Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you. 37 You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit. 38 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God.
39 “If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: 40 he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. 41 Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and go back to his own clan and return to the possession of his fathers. 42 For they are my servants,[e] whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. 43 You shall not rule over him ruthlessly but shall fear your God. 44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.Leviticus 25:35-46 (ESV)