There are three ways that I try to navigate this dilemma. First, I invite my students to think differently about their lives and to let Scripture shape their perspective. In Paul’s language, I invite them to “renew their minds.” Second, I show my students how Scripture portrays the ideal and the real. While the biblical authors outline the ideal way of life and narrate ideal human experiences with God and other humans, they’re also brutally honest about the harsh realities of life in this world. I aim to help my students live in the tension between the ideal and the real as it is presented in Scripture. Third, I encourage my students to persevere in hope. Even in a trying situation, they can be faithful to God and fruitful in the work that he has laid out for them.

Let’s take my class on the book of Genesis as a prime example of the tension between Scripture’s beautiful vision and the incarcerated experience. Unsurprisingly, I begin this course with a thorough exploration of Genesis 1–3. More than anything else, I want my students to see that Genesis 1–3 presents Israel’s God, YHWH, as the creator of a beautiful world that has been broken by human rebellion. YHWH’s creation is beautiful. YHWH’s beautiful creation has been broken. We explore these themes in Genesis 1–3 and then consider how their life stories reflect these realities. The reflection is immediate and obvious for incarcerated men. Many of them grew up in terribly broken environments. The personal and social turmoil that they experienced from birth is tragic. As they relay their stories, they quickly resonate with the theme of the brokenness of creation in Genesis 3.

However, I also want them to see that God’s creation was and is beautiful. Admittedly, this is a harder sell for many of them. My students continue to experience deep brokenness in prison. The trauma inflicted upon them from their youth along with the guilt and shame over their actions creates a mental and emotional prison in addition to the physical prison in which they live. The world is not bright and beautiful to them. It is dark and dismal. So, how do I encourage them to see the beauty of God’s creation? In three ways: by looking outside, by looking around them, and by looking in the mirror. Even in prison they can look outside and see the beauty of God’s good creation on a sunny day. Even in prison they can look around them and see a community of human beings to whom God gave the breath of life and whom God loves. Even in prison they can look in the mirror and see a man whom God loves, forgives, and is healing from his shattered past.

The Fall of Genesis 3 matches their experience, while Genesis 1–2 seems to contradict their experience. So, I invite them to see the world through the lenses of Genesis 1–2. I show them the tension between these chapters and ask them to live in the tension. I encourage them to persevere in hope. One day YHWH God will completely restore his beautiful creation.

Here’s another example of the tension between Holy Scripture and the incarcerated experience. Genesis 16 and 21 relay the story of Hagar. Hagar (lit. “the foreigner”) is a foreign slave subject to the whims of her mistress, Sarai. She produces a son for Sarai’s husband at Sarai’s demand (Genesis 16:1–4). She suffers intense abuse at the hands of Sarai due to Sarai’s jealousy such that she flees from Sarai while pregnant (Genesis 16:5–6). She returns and raises her son, Ishmael, only to be exiled by Sarah (who has been renamed by Genesis 21) because of some unacceptable interaction between Ishmael and Isaac (Genesis 21:8–14). Hagar’s story is the story of the vulnerable, oppressed foreigner. This is a story that many of my students can easily understand. Many of them grew up in vulnerable and oppressive environments. They resonate with Hagar’s suffering because they have also experienced profound suffering.

However, Hagar’s story is not simply the story of an oppressed, vulnerable woman. Ultimately, her story is the story of YHWH seeing and caring for her in her most vulnerable moments. YHWH sees Hagar in Genesis 16 (and she sees him in return!). God provides a well for Hagar and Ishmael in the wilderness in Genesis 21. The text then alludes to God’s provision for them throughout the rest of their lives when it says, “God was with the boy, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran, and his mother got a wife for him from the land of Egypt” (vv 20–21, NRSV)

God’s attention to and provision for Hagar and Ishmael challenges my students. In some ways, they struggle with this story because they doubt whether God really sees them or cares for them in prison. Due to their experience of oppression throughout their lives, many of them wonder if Hagar’s God is their God. They ask, “Does he really see and provide for me?” Again, I invite them to let the Hagar story renew their minds. Yes, God sees them. Yes, God provides for them. Yes, God will continue to see them and provide for them. I show them the tension between the ideal and the real. Though God does and will see and provide for them, sometimes (maybe even many times) they won’t feel his attention or provision. So, I encourage them to persevere in hope. One day they will perfectly experience God’s attention and provision and, like Hagar, they will even see God themselves.

One final example: Genesis 39 narrates Joseph’s experience in an Egyptian prison for a crime that he did not commit. Two themes dominate this narrative: YHWH was with Joseph and YHWH gave Joseph success in everything he did (even while he was in prison!). The relevance of Genesis 39 to my students is immediately obvious. After we study the literary shape and theological message of Genesis 39, I always leave time for the following question: Has this been your experience in prison? The answers are somewhat diverse, but the general sentiment goes something like this, “We know the Lord is with us. We can relate to Joseph in that way. But we have not experienced success like Joseph did.” I try to respond with a listening and sympathetic ear. The challenges of life in prison are many. I don’t wish to undermine this fact at all. At the same time, I want my students to consider their present situation. They are studying to receive a Bachelor of Arts in Pastoral Ministry which will equip them to become field ministers in prisons throughout the state of North Carolina. Upon graduation and deployment, they will have a massive influence on the lives of incarcerated men throughout the state. Because they are themselves incarcerated, they will be able to relate and minister to other incarcerated men in a way that no one else can.

Do you see what I’ve done there? I invited them to reconceptualize their experience. Perhaps their experience is more like Joseph’s than they initially thought. I showed them the tension between the ideal and the real. There’s no doubt that differences exist between Joseph’s experience in prison and their own. Nevertheless, there are tangible similarities that could function as a source of strength for them. I encouraged them to persevere in hope. God will use them in prison and God will one day release them from prison (in this life or the next) to rule and reign over the nations with Christ just as Joseph ruled over Egypt.

Everyone has experiences that seem to contradict biblical claims, and incarcerated people feel this tension acutely. The advice that I give my students is relevant for anyone struggling with the tension between Scripture’s beautiful vision and our broken experience. A faithful and receptive reading of Scripture will renew the human mind, teaching us to live between the ideal and the real and to persevere in hope that this beautiful vision will be fully realized in the eschatological age. Or in the words of a contemporary hymn, “Speak, O Lord, and renew our minds; Help us grasp the heights of your plans for us. . . . Speak, O Lord, till your church is built and the earth is filled with your glory.”

Most strikingly, a reader might wonder if this text allowed the ancient Israelites to abuse their foreign chattel slaves. Leviticus 25:44–46 states,

As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves.You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness. (NIV)

Jeffrey Stackert makes the following comment about this text, “Just as the Israelite slave was treated ruthlessly in Egypt, so may the foreign slave be treated ruthlessly in Israel.”³ But is Stackert correct? Did this ancient Israelite slave law permit the Israelites to mistreat and oppress their foreign chattel slaves? Equally problematic is the mere permission of chattel slavery in this text. Why was chattel slavery permitted in ancient Israel? In this article, I attempt to answer these two questions first, by acclimating the reader to Leviticus 25:39–55 and second, by reading Leviticus 25:39–55 within the larger moral framework of Leviticus 17–26.

The Israelite Slave Laws in Leviticus 25:39–55

The Israelite slave laws in Leviticus 25:39–55 neatly divide into three sections. Leviticus 25:39–43 prohibited the Israelites from enslaving one another because the Lord delivered them from Egyptian slavery. They belonged to him alone as his slaves (25:42). This section ends with a prohibition of abuse: “You shall not rule over them [fellow Israelites] with harshness, but shall fear your God” (25:43).⁴

Leviticus 25:44–46 permitted the Israelites to purchase and own foreigners and resident aliens as chattel slaves because of their ethnic and social status (i.e., they were not redeemed Israelites) and because they (often) did not own land. This section also ends with a prohibition of abuse of one’s fellow Israelite (but no such prohibition regarding the treatment of the foreigner!): “but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness” (25:46).⁵

Leviticus 25:47–55 allows an impoverished Israelite to sell himself (and his family) to a land-owning foreigner. Unlike the case of the foreign chattel slave in Leviticus 25:44–46, a family member can redeem the indebted Israelite by paying off their debt. In the worst-case scenario, they may be released in the Jubilee Year (every 50 years). Near the end of this section (25:53) we encounter the now-familiar prohibition of abuse one more time: “who shall not, however, rule with harshness over them [i.e., one’s fellow Israelite] in your sight.”⁶

Leviticus 25:39–55 is a collection of three (related) slave laws. These slave laws contain one overarching message: don’t abuse your (Israelite) neighbor. This prohibition of abuse is the glue that holds these three laws together. It shows up at the two major turning points in this text (25:43 and 25:46) and again towards the end of the text (25:53). Before moving from one law to the next, the author reminds the audience that they are absolutely forbidden from abusing their (Israelite) neighbor: “You shall not rule over them with harshness.”

The three slave laws and their relationship with one another may be graphically represented as follows:

Leviticus 25:39–42: Israelites, do not enslave one another.
—> Leviticus 25:43: Israelites, do not oppress one another.

Leviticus 25:44–46a: Israelites, you may have foreign chattel slaves.
—> Leviticus 25:46b: Israelites, do not oppress one another.

Leviticus 25:47–52, 54–55: Impoverished Israelites may sell themselves to foreigners, but they may be redeemed or, at least, be released in the Jubilee year.
—> Leviticus 25:53: Israelites, do not oppress one another.

Did Leviticus 25:44–46 Permit the Abuse of Israel’s Chattel Slaves?

The answer is no. However, Stackert answers this question in the affirmative because of the strong contrast between Leviticus 25:44–46b and Leviticus 25:46c. Notice the contrast between these verses.

Leviticus 25:44–46b:

As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves.

Leviticus 25:46c:

But as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness. (NIV)

The contrast is indeed stark. The Israelites are permitted to purchase, own, and bequeath foreigners and resident aliens as permanent chattel slaves. Moreover, they are only explicitly forbidden from mistreating their fellow Israelite. In Stackert’s view, the contrast in these verses intentionally allowed the Israelites to abuse their chattel slaves as a form of repayment for the abuse that the Israelites experienced in Egypt (Exodus 1:13–14). In his view, the Israelites can, in some sense, avenge themselves for the wrong done to them by the Egyptians by oppressing the foreigners in Israel.

Stackert, however, has taken a wrong turn. The larger context of Leviticus 25:44–46 (i.e., Leviticus 17–26) demonstrates that the Israelites were forbidden from abusing their chattel slaves. Leviticus 19:33–34 reads, “When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” (NIV) Leviticus 19:33–34 forbids the Israelites from mistreating foreigners based on their sojourn in the land of Egypt. Since the same author wrote both texts,⁷ it is highly unlikely that he would forbid the Israelites from abusing foreigners based on their Egyptian sojourn in one text (19:33–34) and then permit them to abuse foreigners based on their Egyptian sojourn in another text (25:44–46). Leviticus 19:33–34 informs our interpretation of Leviticus 25:44–46: the Israelites were not permitted to abuse their foreign chattel slaves.

Leviticus 25:44–46 must also be read in its immediate literary context. Leviticus 25:47–55 envisions a situation in which a foreigner or resident alien obtains wealth, climbs to the top of the social ladder, and becomes the creditor to an Israelite debtor. Although foreigners and resident aliens could be subjected to permanent chattel slavery, they did not have to be subjected to this status. Although the foreigner and resident alien did not inherently belong to YHWH as his slaves (Lev 25:42, 55), chattel slavery was not necessarily their lot in life.

Of course, one could contend that chattel slavery is inherently abusive and, therefore, Leviticus 25:44–46 necessarily permitted abuse in Israel. By modern standards, this assertion may be true. However, Leviticus 25:44–46 is an ancient text that reflects an ancient social institution. This social institution normally allowed for the abuse of chattel slaves, but Leviticus 25:44–46 (and its larger literary context) forbade such abuse.

Although limited space prevents a thorough exploration of this text, an earlier Israelite slave law in the Pentateuch (Exodus 21:23–27) also supports my interpretation of Leviticus 25:44–46. Exodus 21:23–27 forbid the Israelites from abusing their slaves. If an Israelite master chose to abuse his slave, then the slave was automatically freed. It seems that Leviticus 25:44–46 builds on the already-existing law and coheres with its prohibition of abuse.

This article does not come close to solving all the problems with the presence of chattel slavery in the Bible (or even all the problems in this text).⁸ Nevertheless, as I mentioned in the introduction, the best way to tackle this problem is one text at a time. I have attempted to tackle some of the problems in and around Leviticus 25:39–55. In the end, I believe that this text permitted chattel slavery in ancient Israel, but it did not permit the abuse, mistreatment, or oppression of chattel slaves.

Footnotes