Marriage Myths, Part 6 - Slave Love

To this day, use of the word 'slavery' immediately evokes controversy and intense, raw negative emotion. The thought of practices related to chattel slavery of the 19th century questions the very notions we hold dear about man's ability to treat others peacefully. The events of the recent past in America have, no doubt, forever changed the way modern people perceive slavery. It is for this reason that the appearance or mention of slaves in the Bible will always be a “hot-button” issue for skeptics.

For instance, recently in Harrisburg (of which I live within 30 miles) an atheist group sponsored a billboard attacking the state legislature's declaration of 2012 as the “Year of the Bible”. [1] On the billboard was included an image of a slave, and a select quote from the Bible referencing a command given to slaves. The intention was clear – to evoke strong, negative emotion against considering the Bible as a standard for making law. After all, it has been used to make laws such as slavery legal. Within a day, of course, the billboard was vandalized and replaced, stirring up an overwhelmingly negative reaction in the nearby black community.

To all individuals, then, this is clearly an important topic to deal with it. With most people's understanding of slavery, to just consider the Bible discusses the practice is difficult to deal with. It is not uncommon for it to be forgiven as something that was merely practiced and accepted in ancient culture. In this sense, God is seen as merely overlooking the issue to handle it at an appropriate time. Still, others defend the Bible itself by mentioning the high standards set on the practice, and language in the New Testament that states freedom and equal treatment for all, master and slave (Gal 3:28, Col 3:11). All sides of the issue, unfortunately, only hit on parts of the problem. Like many other things discussed in this series so far, few people ever really perceive the reality of the situation. [2]

With complexities involved in discussing the Bible's use of slavery, then, it is little surprise it shows up in our skeptical author's graphic. This post, of course, will focus less on the issue of slavery itself (that would require a separate discussion). Instead, this is a series on marriage and we will look closer at the challenges our graphic appears to present. What should we make of God requiring slaves to be married? It is as objectionable as our skeptic would likely agree? Get ready to 'take every thought captive' with me as we delve into this issue!

The first graphic above portrays a typical married couple, with one person added to their side – a female slave. The only appeal made that supposedly proves this to be a Biblical form of marriage is to the text of Genesis 16. For those of you who don't know, this is the story of Sarah and Hagar, her servant (KJV handmaid, Strong's 8198). In it, Sarah has been unable to have children for more than 10 years. Frustrated and hopeless, she does the only thing she can imagine to ensure Abraham will have a descandant. She presents Hagar to Abraham as a bride, so he can then father children to be legitimate descendants. It is a lame attempt for Abraham and Sarah to have a hand in trying to move along God's promise to Abraham of fathering a nation.

As has been the case other times we've looked at ancient marriage, what this really ends up being is nothing but an example of surrogate motherhood. Children were the primary purpose for marriage and this would help ensure men would be able to have descendants. Intercourse was taboo unless done within a marriage (for purposes of proving inheritance, etc.)  So marriage to a woman whose birthing system is working is the legal, honorable way to proceed in this case.

What is unclear is exactly what the objection is here. The graphic mentions that a man could take his wife's property, but this is not really what is portrayed here. The property is offered by the wife, and for good reason. Is it somehow perceived that forcing a slave to marry someone interferes with their personal desires to choose a mate? That too would be misplaced, since all marriages were arranged in those days. To take a moral high ground against that is to impose modern standards on ancient people (to judge them by your own standards).

The reality of the situation is twofold. First, for Hagar to be a servant is not to imply the same thing as saying she was a chattel slave (as was practiced in the 1800's). There is no indication in the text here that she receives any poor treatment. A servant, or “slave” in those days was merely a hired hand – much like I am for the company that fills my paychecks. Similar to employment, this was also an agreement entered into by the servant. It was not forced upon someone, but would actually be requested by them!

Secondly, consider that Hagar was offered full marriage. This implies that Abraham would be required to treat her no differently than Sarah. She would have all the same privileges and would receive equal respect in the household. This would, in a sense, be a huge promotion from being a servant. It is extremely difficult to find anything negative in this as an example for modern times. Not only was Hagar not a slave in the sense we think of, she was placed in a very generous position (perhaps more than she was comfortable with, as the story plays out in Gen 16:4).

Moving along, the 2^nd graphic presents a scenario from Exodus 21:4. Amongst some guidelines being given to the Israelites during their desert wanderings, God tells Moses that if a servant is given a wife by his master, the wife and her children belong to the master when the servant is freed. One wonders why our graphic's creator has a larger problem with the first half of this stipulation, as opposed to the latter half. But the point is moot - all marriages in the ancient world were arranged – whether slave or not.

In some sense, that the master would choose to give a wife to his servant (“slave”) indicates tremendous generosity. A servant that would be granted the privilege of marriage (likely to someone in the master's family) is a sign that the servant has earned major respect with the master. He has proven trustworthy in his stewardship, and a close bond has formed between master and servant.

The passage further stipulates that if the servant desired to keep the marriage, he could enter a lifetime of service with the patron. This would only be fathomable if the relationship between the two was extremely beneficial to both parties. This further shows the arrangement in view is not a barbaric or oppressive one, as one might picture when they hear the word “slave”. As we have seen time over in this series, this form of marriage instead is a tremendous honor for all parties involved.

Finally, as we have seen before, the graphic's author seems to enjoy the copy/paste feature of his editor. Once again he has put in an objection regarding “sexual submission”, but it appears to have no basis in the Biblical narrative. This should not be surprising - there is no evidence in the Bible that sexual submission was a requirement of marriage. Sex may not have primarily served  mutual enjoyment, and in a sense it was an expectation for the evening whether a wife desired it or not. But this is not "submission"; it is hardly even different than what is seen in many modern marriages. Were it even a valid argument, would it really be something to cringe at?

In the end, no matter how offensive the word of slavery is to many sensitive Westerners, the appearance of servants and slaves in the Bible is not only justifiable, but uniquely different from what modern people oppose. High standards were set in those days on how people were treated, and clearly marriage in either of these cases was not anything degrading or abusive. It was more a legal formality of sorts, and I don't see skeptics protesting people who follow the law.


For more on the topic of slavery itself (which may become a blog topic in the future), see http://www.christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Below are the TektonTV videos on this subject

[1] WGAL.com. "Atheist Billboard Offends Some African-Americans." Msnbc.com. Msnbc Digital Network, 08 Mar. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2012. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46649444/ns/local_news-lancaster_pa/t/atheist-billboard-offends-some-african-americans/>.

[2] In the English language, the use of the word slavery itself changed after the practice of the 1800's. What was historically called slavery, and what was practiced by ancient people, was very different from chattel slavery of the 1800's. In fact, for this reason, historians often refer to the ancient practice as 'indentured servitude' – a fancy word that implies something closer to modern employment than to the propagation of abuse towards a cheap labor force.