Deuteronomy 23:15-16—Does the Mosaic Law Forbid the Return of Runaway Slaves?

Possible Positions

1. This law applies to foreign slaves who have fled to Israel (Gill, Craigie; Merrill; McConville; Block).
a. The statement in verse 17 that indicate that the escaped slave “shall dwell with you, in your midst,” indicates that a foreign slave who has come to Israel is in view (Cragie 300; McConville, 351; cf. Poole, 381).
b. ANE treaties exist which speak of repatriating slaves; in not permitting this Israel’s law is distinctive (Merrill 312; McConville; 351; Block 544).
c. “The word [עֶבֶד] is avoided in the Deuteronomic law of slave release up to the point at which the debt slave voluntarily accepts permanent slave status (15:17). For this reason the refugee is more likely to be a foreigner than an Israelite” (McConville 351).
d. The previous context dealt with “the topic of military campaigns” and “the plight of foreign slaves may have arisen in the light of this context more than at any other period” (Woods, 245).
e. This is how the ancient Jewish writers understood it (Gill, 100)

2. This law applies to perpetual slaves within Israel (foreigners enslaved within Israel and Israelites who had agreed to permanent servitude) (Matthews, Chavalas, Walton)
a. Debt slaves served for a term of six years (and presumably did not, therefore, have a reason to run away) (Matthews, Chavalas, Walton, s.v. Dt. 23:15-16).

3. This law applies to all slaves who have escaped from their masters (Poole; Wright)
a. The text itself does not limit the law to foreign slaves (Wright, 249).
b. The option to choose any place in Israel does not necessitate that a foreign slave is in view. Rather, a benefit is being extended “on behalf of the poor and the weak” (Wright, 250).
c. The existence of this law would testify that slavery in Israel was to be of such a nature that no slave would want to run away and (as other passages indicate) that some would desire to remain in that condition (Wright, 250).

Rejected Positions

1. This law applies to foreign slaves who have fled to Israel.
a. Argument 1c is the strongest argument in favor of position 1. However, an Israelite-born escaped slave would have also needed a guarantee of a place to live. Given his socially weak condition, the protections of this law make good sense for Israelite-born slaves as well.
b. McConville and Block cite not only treaties that deal with this issue but also laws; this law could deal with both situations (McConville, 351; Block, 543-44). This point therefore actually supports view 3.
c. I don’t understand McConville’s reasoning in point 1.c. above.
d. The contextual connection is not clear. These verses could just as likely be connected with what follows.
e. The testimony of ancient Jewish writers gives weight to position 1, but it cannot be decisive.

2. This law applies to perpetual slaves within Israel (foreigners enslaved within Israel and Israelites who had agreed to permanent servitude)
a. There is no exclusion in the text of debt slaves, and six years with a cruel and wicked master would have been a long time.

Accepted Position

3. This law applies to all slaves who have escaped from their masters (Poole; Wright)
a. The decisive factor in favor of position 3 is that the law itself does not specify that it is limited to foreign slaves
b. This law would put pressure on the system of slavery in Israel to be of such a nature that it would be beneficial to the slave. Though it could be abused, it would place strong pressure on Israelite society for justice in this area.
c. McConville (who takes position 1) notes that the oppression forbidden in v. 17 “is like the oppression of the weak Israelites by the rich and powerful (all its uses, except one, Is. 49:26, relate to oppression of Israelites by Israelites…).” This does not prove that Israelite slaves are in view, but it testifies to the likelihood of this possibility.
d. The fact that ANE cultures had both treaties that dealt with foreign runaway slaves and laws that dealt with internal runaway slaves may favor seeing this law as dealing with both.

Bibliography: Block, NIVAC; Cragie, NICOT; Gill, An Exposition of the Old Testament, vol. 2; Matthews, Chavalas, and Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary; McConville, AOTC; Merrill, NAC; Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible, vol. 1; Woods, TOTC; Wright, NIBC.