On Slavery in the OT

So this will be a difficult post.  These sorts of topics always are.

There's been a prominent strand of Evangelical apologists that try to explain OT slavery as a sort of anti-poverty program.  Slavery in the OT allowed poor individuals a way to have housing, work, and support.  Slaves even had significant legal protections against being maimed, which was quite unique in the ANE.  Many moderns aren't going to buy this story of slavery-as-anti-poverty-program, but I think there's a piece of evidence that's often overlooked that can help sell it.  

First, the Israelites as a nation are conceived as a large family that owns the land.  Their laws forbidding the selling of the land to foreigners should thus be cast as private individuals dictating how they should manage their own private property.  If we can think of it along these lines, some of the laws against foreigners will be more easily understood.  

Second, many critics are quick to point out that there's two slave codes in the OT:  Those applying to Hebrew slaves, and those applying to foreign slaves.  This is right. There's a legal difference between these two categories of people in the OT, and many of the softer laws seem to only apply to Hebrew slaves (such as the setting free after 7 years and the Year of Jubilee release).  

But there's one often overlooked law that does not seem to be regulated just to the Hebrews, that seems to apply to both classes.  And it's a fundamental law that should thoroughly reshape the way we understand slavery in ancient Israel.  The relevant passage is Deuteronomy 23:15-16:

If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master.  Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.

This is an immensely important passage.  It looks as if slaves that fled their masters were *required* to be given legal protection preserving their freedom.  And it doesn't look like this is one of the laws that apply only to Hebrews.  What sort of slavery is it that provides legal protections to runaway slaves, requiring that they not be returned?  It doesn't seem like it's much of a slavery at all.  The slaves could just leave, and by leaving incur a legal right to freedom.  Contrast this with ante-bellum American slave laws like the Fugitive Slave Act, in which people were penalized for not returning runaway slaves.

We should not seek to define ANE institutions for them, using our preconceived understanding of how we think these institutions work.  We need evidence from their culture to understand their exact nature, and then to form our opinions of it in light of that evidence.

I'm not saying that this post solves all the problems related to ANE slavery and difficult OT verses.  It doesn't.  But it is an important piece of the puzzle.  

We could also just take the quicker route and say that the institution of slavery was a just punishment for the sins of the conquered people, and Israel was acting as God's agent in enslaving the various peoples.  This is a difficult saying.