Liberation Thematic Study #9 Deuteronomy 15:12-18

Historical-cultural Context

Social Order, Uniqueness and Pierced Ears

Those, such as liberationist Pixley, that see the Exodus as ultimately a class struggle and a promotion of a classless society would struggle with passages such as Deuteronomy 15:12-18 (Levenson, 129). As Levenson argues, the Book of the Covenant makes it clear that the Israelite’s freedom from slavery did not result in a society free from social order. Although not at all a basis for enforced slavery and most certainly advocating the protection of the vulnerable, the community described in the Pentateuch was made up of all stations of society, including masters and indentured servants described in the aforementioned passage. Those using the liberation of the Jews from Egypt as a basis for a ‘classless and primitive communism as an...ideal’ must consider the whole of the Hebrew Bible to complete a fuller and arguably more accurate picture of liberation (133).

Waltke argues that the Laws of Worship/Consecration (Deut 12:1-16:17) which promote observing civil and humanitarian commands maintain, “Israel’s integrity and coherence as a national community and keeps them distinct from other nations.” (490) If this were the case with the laws concerning the freedom and generosity towards indentured slaves, then one would expect primary evidence to show that other ancient Near Eastern communities did not treat servants (or indeed slaves) in like manner.

However, it seems that the evidence points towards reasonable treatment of indentured slaves in other non-Israelite nations. Demotic papyri indicates that the practice of debtors selling themselves into slavery was carried out in Ancient Egypt (Dunn, para 11). These slaves were, according to sources, entitled to a certain amount of legal rights such as property owning, protection of slave children and equal standing in court proceedings. (paras 18-20).  Although certainly at the bottom of the social order, reasonable treatment of servants/slaves was expected, as detailed in The Declaration of Innocence from Book of the Dead:

“I have not made it to be the first [consideration daily that unnecessary] work should be done for me... 

I have not domineered over slaves... I have not defrauded the humble man of his property... 
I have not vilified a slave to his master. 
I have not inflicted pain.” (translated by E.A. Wallis Budge)

 

Moreover, in ancient Mesopotamian, debt slavery was also well established and servants also held a certain amount of legal rights (Nemet-Nejat, 118). The Hammurabi law code contains five laws detailing aspects of the practice (Nemet-Nejat, 117). This includes, by contrast the time given in the Mosaic law, freeing debt servants after three years:

“If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and sell himself, his wife, his son, and daughter for money or give them away to forced labor: they shall work for three years in the house of the man who bought them, or the proprietor, and in the fourth year they shall be set free.” (Hammurabi Codex, Law 117)

 

It seems that caring for one’s servants/slaves was not necessarily unique in the ancient Near Eastern world. This is perhaps not surprising. For example, in our modern society ideas of justice are not limited solely to Christians. Protecting the rights of the poor and caring for the needy in society is considered the normal expectation of human beings, with exceptions commonly causing outrage. It would indeed be surprising if only the ancient Jewish nation showed care towards their workers.

However, it could be argued that the unique factor in the treatment of debt slaves in ancient Israel was the motivation for this care. The command may not be particular to the Israelites, but the reasoning was. In Exodus 15:15, it is made clear that the expectation of obedience comes from the redemption of Israel from their previous slavery. The nation knew extensively of oppressive slavery and had been rescued from this. The understanding and gratitude for this leads to acts of generosity and care. This empathy in action could well be classified as compassion. The Israelites were liberated to have a relationship with Yahweh and this leads to a new consideration of treatment of others. As redeemed people, they could not be excused from acting on behalf of others but rather were now expected, all the more, to model Yahweh’s love and generosity towards others.

It is also interesting to note that, in a similar way that the redemption of Israel led to a long-lasting covenantal relationship, the freeing of a servant could also lead to a similar state. In freely choosing to stay with a beloved family, a servant was, by having their ear pierced, signifying their desire to serve their family for a lifetime. There are interesting parallels of the kindness of the master leading to a service of gratitude from the servant. The ancient audience, living in this type of relationship with Yahweh, would surely not have missed this significance?