Why does the Bible allow slave owners to beat their slaves?

This is intimated in verse 26. If a man blinded the eye of his slave, he must let him go free for his eye's sake, and similarly, if he knocked out his tooth (v. 27).

An ox that gored anyone to death was to be stoned to death, and the meat of the ox not eaten. The owner of the ox would not be held responsible unless he had been warned that his ox was dangerous. In this case, if he had not kept the ox penned in and the ox killed anyone, the owner as well as the ox was to be put to death (v. 29). This penalty could however be relaxed if the nearest relative of the victim would agree to accept ransom money instead (vv. 30-31). If it were a matter of the ox only pushing a servant, the owner of the ox must pay thirty shekels of silver to the owner, and the ox must be stoned.

The law's exactions were most stern, as verse 15 shows. The death penalty was to be pronounced against one who struck his father or his mother. This is solemn guilt in the eyes of God. A kidnapper also was to be put to death, whether he had sold his victim or whether he held him as a captive (v. 16). Again, death was the penalty for one who cursed his father or his mother (v. 17). This of course is a great contrast to honoring one's parents.

Verses 18 and 19 deal with the question of a physical quarrel and one striking another with his fist or other weapon, so that he is injured. If death did not ensue, then there was not a death penalty, but the injurer must pay for the loss of time suffered by the injured party and also any medical expenses that might arise from this, till the person was fully healed.

One striking his servant and causing death would incur the death penalty himself, yet if the servant continued even only a day or two before dying, the penalty would not be effective. The only explanation given for this is, “for he is his money” (v. 21).

If through physical striving a woman is caused an abortion, the person responsible must pay some recompense, as the woman's husband demands, or as was to be determined by a judge. If however there were bad results for the woman, the guilty party would be held responsible for this, and the judgment would be commensurate with the injury, — “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (vv. 24-25). Of course, to literally pluck out one's eye because he had blinded another's eye, would not help the injured party. But he is entitled to a fair recompense.

Verses 7-11 deal with the case of the woman who becomes a bondservant. As the weaker party she might become the victim of wrongful treatment, so her rights are clearly defined. We may remark that under the law things were permitted that would not be tolerated by Christians today. That this was so is shown by the Lord's own words recorded in Matthew 19:7-8. We must ever bear in mind that, "the law made nothing perfect" (Heb. 7:19), since it set forth the minimum of God's demands, so that all, who in any way or at any time fell short of it, came under the sentence of death. The maximum of all God's thoughts and desires are realized and set forth in Christ.

Israel was never to make slaves of their own people, yet if one became so poor as to sell himself to another, he would thus become a hired servant. He was not to be oppressed as though he was merely the property of a master. In the year of Jubilee he was set free to return to his original property, which was also released at the time. This applied also to his family (v. 41). For Israel must remember that all Israelites were God's servants whom He had redeemed from Egypt. They were never to be sold as slaves, though they could become hired servants. This was virtually a leasing agreement, as was true of the sale of land also. No harsh treatment was allowed (v. 43).

However, Israel was allowed to buy Gentile slaves and keep them permanently, whether from the nations around or from those Gentiles who settled in the land (vv. 44-46). It is not said here that they were not to rule over such slaves with rigor, but in Exodus 22:21 it is insisted, “You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

In the case of a foreigner dwelling or sojourning in the land of Israel, if he were to buy an Israelite, the Israelite was not his permanent property, but could be redeemed at any time by any near relative (vv. 47-49). In the year of Jubilee he was to be set free without charge. So that the price of redemption would become lower as the day of Jubilee became closer. Thus the same principles applied to an Israelite serving a Gentile as would apply if he were sold to another Israelite. He would be a hired servant, not a slave. For in a particular way the children of Israel were God's servants (v. 55). Believers today too are permanently God's servants.

Israel was never to make slaves of their own people, yet if one became so poor as to sell himself to another, he would thus become a hired servant. He was not to be oppressed as though he was merely the property of a master. In the year of Jubilee he was set free to return to his original property, which was also released at the time. This applied also to his family (v. 41). For Israel must remember that all Israelites were God's servants whom He had redeemed from Egypt. They were never to be sold as slaves, though they could become hired servants. This was virtually a leasing agreement, as was true of the sale of land also. No harsh treatment was allowed (v. 43).

However, Israel was allowed to buy Gentile slaves and keep them permanently, whether from the nations around or from those Gentiles who settled in the land (vv. 44-46). It is not said here that they were not to rule over such slaves with rigor, but in Exodus 22:21 it is insisted, "You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."

In the case of a foreigner dwelling or sojourning in the land of Israel, if he were to buy an Israelite, the Israelite was not his permanent property, but could be redeemed at any time by any near relative (vv. 47-49). In the year of Jubilee he was to be set free without charge. So that the price of redemption would become lower as the day of Jubilee became closer. Thus the same principles applied to an Israelite serving a Gentile as would apply if he were sold to another Israelite. He would be a hired servant, not a slave. For in a particular way the children of Israel were God's servants (v. 55). Believers today too are permanently God's servants.

111 Dr. C. does not like to believe in judgment. Be it so. But that is no way of judging of history. As to God's revelation of Himself, it is objected that the Old Testament character of God cannot be that of the true God. He did not reveal Himself in Judaism, He gave laws and promises; but He dwelt in thick darkness — was avowedly hid behind the veil. The way into the holiest was not made manifest. He was patient in goodness and grace, but the system was one of public moral government. The sins of the fathers could be visited on their children, as we see still in providential government. There was a code of national laws of which Christ could say, "Moses for the hardness of your hearts gave you this commandment." In the national laws he did not set aside slavery. The law made nothing perfect. God took, as a people in the world, the people where they were; put checks on will; softened in many respects the manners of the age by His authority; and, what was an immense point, suffered nothing to be done without it — an immense point, because arbitrary will was arrested.

Some have found fault with the exhortations of verses 5-8, saying that they sanction or encourage slavery. The objection is groundless. God does not sanction such a principle; but it has come in among men, as many other things, as a result of sin; and while not interfering at all with the framework of society (which awaits its rectification till Christ comes), He legislates for His own saints, who may find themselves in these relationships.

Moses is now given an expanded view of the law in chapters 21-23. Special duties of masters are first considered. They may think they have full authority over their slaves, but they must first remember God's authority over themselves. For God decidedly limits their authority over slaves. It was permissible to buy a Hebrew slave. Sometimes one would become so poor as to sell himself to another (Lev. 25:39), but his master was to strictly observe God's orders in this matter. After six years the slave was to be fully freed, and the master was required to “furnish him liberally out of the flock” and out of all the provisions he had (Dt. 15:14). This was a gracious provision of God so that people would not just be driven out on the street when they became poor.

If he was alone in becoming a slave, he should be freed alone: it his wife was with him, then both should be freed (v. 3). However, if the master had given him a wife, then both the wife and any children she bore would still belong to the master, while he could be freed alone. This does not correspond to the grace of God today, but it illustrates the hardness of law alone.

It might be that a Hebrew became so poor as to sell himself as a slave to his countryman. If so, after six years of service his master was required to set him free (v.12). Yet more than this, he was to supply his slave liberally with produce that would enable him to live in some comfort (vs.13-14). This was a remarkable provision made by God, so that no one would be so reduced as to become homeless, as many are today in the U.S.A. So long as one was willing to work, he would thus find means of support.

The responsibility to care for slaves in this way was impressed on Israel with the reminder that Israel had been in slavery in Egypt and that the Lord had redeemed them from such bondage. Let them have the same attitude toward slaves as the Lord had shown toward them.

The words ebed and δοῦλος (those most commonly used for 'servant') convey the idea of bondmen or slaves. Some were bought with money and some were taken in war: cf. also Ex. 22:3. Such a servant, if circumcised, might among the Israelites eat of the Passover — as bought he belonged to the family; but a hired servant might not. Ex. 12:44-45: cf. Lev. 22:11. (So Gentiles, though aliens, bought with the blood of Christ, have all the privilege of grace.) Children born of these would also be the property of the master. Ex. 21:4. This form of servitude, though a result of sin, was recognised by the Mosaic law, and rules were given respecting it, and for the protection of the slaves.