Slave versus Servant in the OT

[RUmike]

When I tried to convince my mother that God (at least at one time) expressly upheld human slavery (she didn't believe me), I showed her some passages from Exodus 21. However, the term "servant" is used here, and many other places throughout the bible, but to me it is quite clear that this essentially means "slave," since the "servant" is clearly property of another human being. But some friends have argued to me that since the term servant is used, that it implies a worker choosing to work under a contract as opposed to involuntary servitude. I'm quite certain they're incorrect, especially since the term slave is used explicity later in the same chapter (Exodus 21:20,21): "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." Can anyone confirm that when "servant" is used throughout the bible as a person which is the property of another, this is essentially a slave as we know it, and the choice between slave and servant is merely diction?

[RUmike]

Reading it over again, I think now I realize that servant probably refers to Hebrews, which may have been more of a legal contract and not quite like slavery, and slaves were only to be foreigners. Right?

[Doctor X]

At least in the NT it is ALWAYS "slave" which English translators fudge to "servant." There are two separate Greek words and the one used in the NT cases is "slave." I have not researched the problem in the Hebrew texts, but I suspect it is the same thing.

A good example of theology driving translation.

--J.D.

[boneyard bill]

I can't offer any insights into Biblical translations, but there is a difference between a slave and a servant even in ancient times. That difference, however, was not as dramatic as it is in modern times where contratual thinking is second nature to us.

A servant was free to leave to leave his master, however, there were very few opportunities available if he did. A servant who left his master would not be regarded as a very reliable servant for any other master so he would pretty much have to leave the servant profession.

He could become a day laborer. But in ancient times that was the lowest of all possiblities. Lower even than a slave. At least a slave had a home an security. The day laborer had none of these. Wages weren't very high in ancient times. The prodigal son, remember, got a job as a swineherd. He got to eat what the swine left when they were finished. He returned home to plead with his father to allow him to become one of his servants.

The best option for someone wanting to leave his master was to go to war. The wages for a soldier were good by ancient standards. He got fed and had a home. He also got a share of the spoils if the army was victorious. I think some slaves even won their freedom by serving in the military.

For women, of course, about the only option available if they left service, was prostitution.

[Lanakila]

The book of Philemon is a letter of Paul to this slaveholder named Philemon. Paul doesn't condemn the slaver, nor does God in that book. In fact Philemon is asked to take back Onesimus (runaway slave) as a brother since Onesimus has now converted to Christianity as well. This story highlights that the Bible was written when slavery was not only common but part of the culture. The new religion of Christianity didn't change this part of the culture, except to tell the slaveholders to treat their slaves fairly, and the slaves to work as if they are working for God himself, and not strive to change their circumstances.

I never quite understood the civil rights movement using the Bible to promote their agenda. Not that their agenda isn't right, but that the Bible doesn't promote it. BTW they mostly used the OT passages with Moses and Pharoah.

[boneyard bill]

Lanakila writes:

The book of Philemon is a letter of Paul to this slaveholder named Philemon. Paul doesn't condemn the slaver, nor does God in that book. In fact Philemon is asked to take back Onesimus (runaway slave) as a brother since Onesimus has now converted to Christianity as well. This story highlights that the Bible was written when slavery was not only common but part of the culture. The new religion of Christianity didn't change this part of the culture, except to tell the slaveholders to treat their slaves fairly, and the slaves to work as if they are working for God himself, and not strive to change their circumstances.

But asking an owner to treat a slave as a "brother" was a pretty radical idea in Paul's time. And note that Paul asks Philemon to take Onesimus back. Being a runaway slave was a perilous situation. Not from the fear of being caught, but from the difficulty of mere survival. From the tone of the letter is sounds as if Onesimus asked Paul to intercede so the Onesimus could be allowed to return. Philemon may not have wanted him after he had shown what, by the standards of that day, would have been considered disloyalty.

Ending slavery would not have been a Christian priority in Paul's time because Christ was due to arrive very soon and change everything.

[queue]

RUmike,

I am not a biblical scholar so I cannot say whether the word "servant" was used to replace the word "slave" in any translations. I would recommend that you take a look at Leviticus chapter 25. It might have some information that you would want to know.