The Law is Just (Pt. 2): Does Exodus 21:7-11 Promote Selling One's Daughter into Sex Slavery?

In my previous post I presented a general introduction to the Mosaic institution of slavery. Specifically, I dealt with the issue on whether or not slavery was viewed as more important than marriage, in ancient Israel, and also whether or not Moses advocates for the breaking up of slave marriages. As I demonstrated, if we keep in mind the high view of justice and restitution that revolved around the institution of slavery, and the voluntarism that was implicit in it, most of the claims made about the "horrors" of the Bible, as it pertains to slavery, dissipates. In fact, the Mosaic codes protect against abuses. When we approach our text today, a similar point will be made, but as it pertains to daughters who were sold into slavery/servant hood with the expectation that they will be married into the household. So what does the text say?

“And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money." (Exodus 21:7-11 NKJV)

If one is unfamiliar with ancient near-eastern culture, it is somewhat understandable as to why they would assume that this is talking about "sex slavery." In fact, there are plenty of Facebook memes out there making arguments to that effect. However, this is simply a case of not understanding, or not being willing to understand, time and place. There are three principles through which to view this verse and the culture that it made sense in. The first principle is a repeat from my previous post.

1) Slavery in the Old Testament is a form of civil restitution. It is commonly referred to as "debt-bondage" slavery. If someone had gone into debt, they could pay off their debt by going into slavery for a time (or if they were not able, to sell their son or daughter). In fact, the verses immediately prior to our text state, "Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them: If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him" (Exodus 21:1,2 NKJV). If slaves were injured by their Master they were to be set free, and paid restitution" (Ex. 21:26,27). Slaves were not to be treated as sub-human, however, their rights were somewhat limited. For example, while an injured slave was to be set free, if they were killed, the text says that their master was just to be "punished," without specifying the death penalty which is the normal penalty for murder (Ex. 21:20). Slavery was a regulated institution, and slaves had a certain amount of rights, but it in no way was meant to be a desirable institution. God did not want to make it look like an easy way out. God's people were to avoid debt (Prov. 11:51; 17:18; 22:7; 22:26,27; 27:13)

2) Families who were in debt, where the parents were not able to work, could knock out two birds with one stone by selling their daughter into slavery with the intention that she would marry into that family, who obviously were in a better financial position. This would bind the family who is in debt to a family who is more successful, and thus provide them with obvious social advantage. They would also be assured that their daughter would end up in a better situation. The daughter would first prove herself by being a faithful debt-bondage servant in the household for the time period allotted.

3) Women in the ancient near east do not necessarily have the same expectations of romance and relationships that women in our day do. Initially the principles above may seem harsh, legalistic, and purely economical. However, women back then would not necessarily view it that way. Even in our day where romance and personal choice are everything in relationships, people still pursue spouses for economic and social reasons one way or another. Furthermore, in the biblical worldview, love is not something that "happens," it is something that is developed and grows in the context of a binding social contract. In that, everything from a voluntary choice in marriage to arranged marriages are considered "biblical." The key issue in the biblical scheme is parental approval.

In light of those three principles, the nature of verses 7-11 become clear. This is not a verse about "sex slavery." The word "sex slave" is never used in the text, it is simply read into the context by those who are openly antagonistic to Scripture. A sexual slave would be antithetical to the ethics of the Mosaic law, as only sex within marriage is permitted and encouraged. Furthermore, the wisdom literature of Israel also strongly condemns fornication and prostitution. In light of principle 1) this was a move a family would make to better their situation and their daughter's situation, while also getting out of debt as principle 2) makes clear. If you look back at the law, it actually provides legal and economic protection for such a potential bride. If the the master who was engaged to her did not like her, he could not just sell her to foreigners to become a lifelong slave. She was to be sent back, or "redeemed." If he married her to his sons, and they left her, she was still to be treated as a daughter, not a slave. This verse protects women from abuse in its ancient near-eastern context. The Law is Just.