The Hebrew Bible does not merely tolerate slavery as a regrettable social institution—it provides detailed legal frameworks regulating the purchase, ownership, and treatment of enslaved people as property. While some defenders of biblical morality argue that ancient Israelite slavery differed fundamentally from the chattel slavery practiced in the Americas, the biblical text itself describes a system in which foreign slaves could be purchased, owned as permanent property, and passed as inheritance to one's children.1 This is chattel slavery by any reasonable definition, and it is explicitly permitted and regulated by laws attributed to God himself.
The law in Leviticus 25
The clearest biblical statement permitting chattel slavery appears in Leviticus 25:44-46, part of the Holiness Code. The passage reads:
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly." Leviticus 25:44-46 (English Standard Version)1
The language is explicit and unambiguous. The Hebrew word translated "property" is "achuzzah" (אֲחֻזָּה), which means possession or holding.2 The word translated "bequeath" is "nachal" (נָחַל), meaning to inherit or pass as inheritance.3 The phrase "you may make slaves of them" uses the verb "abad" (עָבַד), meaning to work, serve, or enslave.4 And the word "forever" is "olam" (עוֹלָם), meaning perpetuity, antiquity, or indefinite duration.5
This passage establishes several key principles. First, Israelites are permitted to purchase slaves from foreign nations and from foreigners living among them. Second, these slaves are property—they belong to their owners in the same way livestock or land belongs to an owner. Third, slaves can be inherited by one's children, establishing permanent, multi-generational enslavement. Fourth, while Israelites are commanded not to rule "ruthlessly" over fellow Israelites, no such restriction applies to foreign slaves, who can indeed be kept as slaves "forever."6
The two-tier system
The Mosaic law establishes fundamentally different rules for Hebrew slaves and foreign slaves, creating what scholars call a "two-tier model" of slavery.7 Hebrew slavery was temporary and subject to strict limitations. Exodus 21:2 commands that Hebrew slaves be released after six years of service.8 Leviticus 25 further requires that Hebrew slaves be released in the Year of Jubilee, which occurred every fiftieth year, and commands that fellow Israelites be treated not as slaves but as hired workers.9
Foreign slaves received no such protections. They could be kept for life, worked indefinitely, and bequeathed to one's heirs.1 The theological justification for this distinction appears in Leviticus 25:42: "For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves."10 Because God had redeemed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, they belonged to God and therefore could not become the permanent property of other Israelites. No such reasoning extends to foreigners, who could indeed "be sold as slaves" and owned permanently.6
Comparison of Hebrew and foreign slavery under Mosaic law1, 8, 11
| Aspect | Hebrew Slaves | Foreign Slaves |
|---|---|---|
| Duration | Maximum 6 years or until Jubilee | Permanent, for life |
| Inheritance | Cannot be bequeathed | Can be passed to children |
| Treatment | "Not ruthlessly" | No such restriction |
| Status | Hired worker, not property | Property, possession |
| Source | Debt or poverty | Purchase or capture |
This two-tier system bears a troubling resemblance to the distinction between white indentured servants and Black chattel slaves in colonial America.7 In both cases, one group (insiders to the community) received time-limited service with eventual freedom, while another group (outsiders) could be enslaved permanently and treated as inheritable property. Indeed, American slaveholders explicitly cited Leviticus 25:44-46 as biblical justification for race-based chattel slavery, arguing that if God permitted Israelites to permanently enslave foreigners, then Christians could permanently enslave Africans.12
The laws in Exodus 21
Exodus 21 provides additional regulations for slavery, including provisions that further establish slaves as property and permit violence against them. The chapter begins with laws governing Hebrew slavery, then addresses foreign slavery and the treatment of enslaved people.
Female slaves and sexual access
Exodus 21:7-11 addresses the sale of daughters into slavery, with provisions that implicitly assume sexual access:
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights." Exodus 21:7-9 (English Standard Version)11
This passage assumes that a man who purchases a female slave may "designate her for himself"—a euphemism for making her a concubine or secondary wife.13 If she "does not please" him, he cannot sell her to foreigners but must allow her family to redeem her. The passage grants her certain rights if he takes another wife, but the entire framework treats her as property transferred from father to master, with the master having sexual access.14 This is not indentured servitude or debt bondage in the modern sense; it is the sale of a woman for domestic and sexual service.
Beating slaves with a rod
Perhaps the most morally troubling passage appears in Exodus 21:20-21:
"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished, for the slave is his money." Exodus 21:20-21 (English Standard Version)15
This law establishes several principles. First, it permits beating slaves with a rod—a practice that is assumed and regulated but not prohibited. Second, it treats the death of a slave differently from the death of a free person. If a slave dies immediately under the beating, the owner "shall be avenged" (the Hebrew "naqam" suggests punishment or retribution), though notably it does not say he shall be put to death as would be required for murdering a free person.16 Third, if the slave survives for a day or two but then dies, the owner receives no punishment at all, because "the slave is his money."15
The phrase "the slave is his money" (Hebrew: "kaspo hu" - כַּסְפּוֹ הוּא) is explicit about the slave's status as property.17 The word "kesef" (כֶּסֶף) means silver or money.17 The logic is straightforward: if an owner beats his slave and the slave dies after a day or two, the owner has already suffered the financial loss of losing his property, and therefore no additional punishment is warranted. The slave's death is treated as a property loss, not as a human being's death requiring justice.18
Permanent injury and compensation
Exodus 21:26-27 provides limited protection for slaves who suffer permanent injury:
"When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth." Exodus 21:26-27 (English Standard Version)19
This provision grants freedom to slaves who lose an eye or tooth due to their master's violence. At first glance, this might seem like a protection for slaves, but it reveals the law's priorities. The penalty for permanently maiming a slave is not punishment of the owner but merely loss of the slave's service. The owner who beats his slave, destroying an eye or tooth, suffers only the economic consequence of losing his property. He is not fined, imprisoned, or otherwise punished for the violent assault. The slave gains freedom but has lost an eye or tooth in the process.20
Additional laws in Deuteronomy
Deuteronomy provides additional slavery regulations, some of which appear more humane than those in Exodus and Leviticus, though they do not eliminate the fundamental institution.
Fugitive slave law
Deuteronomy 23:15-16 contains a striking provision regarding escaped slaves:
"You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him." Deuteronomy 23:15-16 (English Standard Version)21
This law prohibits returning escaped slaves to their masters and commands that they be allowed to live freely wherever they choose. Scholars debate its scope and application. Some argue it applies only to foreign slaves escaping from foreign masters who seek refuge in Israel, not to Israelite slaves escaping Israelite masters.22 Others suggest it applies to all escaped slaves within Israel's borders. If the latter interpretation is correct, it represents a significant protection, essentially establishing Israel as a place of refuge for escaped slaves. However, this would directly contradict Leviticus 25:44-46, which permits permanent enslavement of foreigners, and the law's precise application remains disputed among biblical scholars.23
Release of Hebrew slaves
Deuteronomy 15:12-18 reiterates the requirement to release Hebrew slaves after six years and adds provisions for supplying them generously upon release:24
"And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the LORD your God has blessed you, you shall give to him." Deuteronomy 15:13-14 (English Standard Version)24
This provision applies only to Hebrew slaves, not foreign slaves who could be kept permanently under Leviticus 25:44-46. It demonstrates that the biblical authors were capable of commanding compassionate treatment and generous provision—but chose to extend these protections only to fellow Israelites, not to foreign slaves who remained property.25
Historical and cultural context
Defenders of biblical morality often argue that ancient Israelite slavery must be understood in its historical context, suggesting it was more humane than slavery in surrounding nations or that it provided social safety nets for the poor. While context is always important for historical understanding, it does not resolve the fundamental moral question: should a perfectly good and timeless God have commanded laws permitting the purchase, ownership, and violent treatment of human beings as property?
Ancient Near Eastern slavery
Slavery was indeed widespread in the ancient Near East. Mesopotamian law codes such as the Code of Hammurabi (circa 1750 BCE) contain detailed slavery regulations, and slavery existed in Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and other neighboring cultures.26 Israelite slavery laws share some features with these other ancient codes, including distinguishing between native and foreign slaves and regulating—rather than prohibiting—the institution.27
However, the existence of slavery in surrounding cultures does not make it morally acceptable, particularly if the biblical laws are understood as divinely revealed rather than merely human cultural products. Ancient Near Eastern cultures also practiced child sacrifice, temple prostitution, and other practices that the Bible condemns.28 The biblical authors were clearly capable of rejecting cultural norms when they believed God demanded it. They could have rejected slavery as well but chose instead to regulate it.
Debt slavery and economic protection
Some defenders argue that much biblical slavery was "debt slavery"—a system in which people voluntarily sold themselves or their family members into temporary servitude to pay debts, functioning as a social safety net for the poor.29 This argument has merit for Hebrew slavery, which was often triggered by poverty and was time-limited. Leviticus 25:39-43 explicitly addresses Israelites who "become poor" and sell themselves for service, commanding that they be treated as hired workers rather than slaves.9
However, this defense does not apply to foreign slavery. Leviticus 25:44-46 permits purchasing foreign slaves, not merely accepting people in temporary debt service. These slaves are explicitly property, can be kept forever, and can be bequeathed to children.1 This is not debt relief; it is chattel slavery. Moreover, even Hebrew debt slavery could involve selling one's daughter with the expectation of sexual service (Exodus 21:7-11), which extends far beyond economic protection.11
Common apologetic responses
Christian apologists have developed various strategies to defend or minimize biblical slavery. Each deserves examination.
The "biblical slavery was different" argument
Perhaps the most common defense is that biblical slavery was fundamentally different from the chattel slavery practiced in the Americas and therefore should not be judged by the same standards. Apologists argue that biblical slaves had legal rights, could own property, could marry, and were protected by law, unlike American slaves who were treated purely as property with no legal personhood.30
This argument conflates Hebrew slavery with foreign slavery. Hebrew slaves did have certain protections—they were released after six years, could not be treated "ruthlessly," and were to be provided for upon release.8, 24 Foreign slaves had no such guarantees. They could be kept permanently, passed as inheritance, and beaten with rods as long as they didn't die immediately.1, 15 Leviticus explicitly calls them "property" and "possession."1 This is chattel slavery by definition: human beings owned as property, held permanently, and transferred as inheritance.7
Moreover, even if biblical slavery were somewhat "better" than American slavery, that sets an extraordinarily low moral bar. The question is not whether biblical slavery was worse than one of history's most brutal systems, but whether an all-good, all-knowing God should have permitted any form of slavery at all, particularly the permanent enslavement of foreigners as inheritable property.
The "regulation versus endorsement" argument
Some apologists argue that the biblical laws regulate slavery without endorsing it, suggesting that God accommodated existing social structures while gradually moving toward their abolition.31 On this view, the slavery laws represent a concession to hard-hearted people, similar to how Jesus explained that Moses permitted divorce because of the people's hard hearts (Matthew 19:8).
This argument faces several problems. First, the laws do not merely tolerate slavery reluctantly—they actively instruct Israelites where and how to purchase slaves. Leviticus 25:44 says "you may buy" slaves from the nations around you, using permissive language that authorizes the practice.1 Second, if these laws were temporary accommodations meant to gradually reduce slavery, we would expect to see movement toward abolition over time. Instead, the New Testament continues to regulate slavery without condemning it, with Paul commanding slaves to obey their masters and returning an escaped slave to his owner.32, 33 Third, God elsewhere commands radical breaks from cultural norms—prohibiting tattoos, mixed fabrics, and numerous other practices—so the claim that he could not prohibit slavery due to cultural accommodation is unconvincing.
The "servant not slave" argument
Some English translations render the Hebrew word "ebed" (עֶבֶד) as "servant" rather than "slave," leading some readers to believe the Bible discusses voluntary employment rather than slavery. This is a translation choice that obscures the reality described in the text.34
The Hebrew word "ebed" can mean either servant or slave depending on context, but in Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21, the context is unambiguous: these are people who are purchased, owned as property, beaten with rods, and bequeathed as inheritance.1, 15 These are not employees who can quit their jobs. Translating "ebed" as "servant" in these contexts is misleading and appears designed to make the text more palatable to modern readers rather than to accurately represent the Hebrew meaning.35
The "Bible inspired abolition" argument
Some apologists point to the role of Christian abolitionists in ending slavery, arguing that biblical principles ultimately led to slavery's abolition. While it is true that many abolitionists were Christians who cited biblical principles such as universal human dignity and the Golden Rule, it is equally true that slaveholders were Christians who cited explicit biblical texts permitting slavery.36
The biblical texts on slavery are clear: the Old Testament permits and regulates chattel slavery, and the New Testament continues to regulate it without condemning it. Christian abolitionists succeeded not by following the Bible's explicit instructions on slavery but by appealing to broader biblical themes while rejecting the specific slavery laws. Meanwhile, defenders of slavery had the straightforward reading of texts like Leviticus 25:44-46 on their side.12 If the Bible had clearly prohibited slavery rather than regulating it, there would have been no biblical debate among Christians about slavery's permissibility.
Moral implications
The biblical slavery laws raise profound questions for those who believe the Bible represents the perfect, unchanging moral standards of an all-good God.
Human beings as property
The fundamental moral problem is that the biblical laws treat human beings as property. Leviticus 25:45-46 uses the same Hebrew word for slaves ("achuzzah" - possession) that is used elsewhere for land and livestock.2 Exodus 21:21 explicitly states "the slave is his money."15 The premise that one human being can own another human being as property—can buy them, sell them, will them to children, and control their labor, movement, and bodies—contradicts the principle that all humans have inherent dignity and worth.
If human beings are made in God's image (Genesis 1:27), as the Bible claims, how can God permit some image-bearers to own other image-bearers as property?37 The slavery laws create a moral contradiction at the heart of biblical ethics: humans are both infinitely valuable image-bearers and purchasable property, depending on their ethnicity and social status.
Sanctioned violence
The permission to beat slaves with rods (Exodus 21:20-21) is particularly disturbing. This is not a prohibition against beating slaves—it is a regulation of how severely one may beat them. As long as the slave survives a day or two, no punishment applies. The master's right to violently discipline his property is assumed and protected.15
Defenders sometimes note that the law provides some protection by punishing owners whose slaves die immediately, but this misses the point. The law permits beating slaves with rods in the first place and punishes the slave's death only as a property crime, not as murder. A moral code that permits intentionally beating human beings with wooden rods, causing injury and potentially death, cannot plausibly be defended as reflecting perfect divine morality.
Ethnic and tribal discrimination
The two-tier system explicitly discriminates based on ethnicity. Israelites receive protection, limited terms of service, and eventual freedom. Foreigners can be enslaved permanently and treated as inheritable property. This is tribalism codified into law, granting superior rights and protections to insiders while permitting the brutal treatment of outsiders.7
This ethnic discrimination directly contradicts moral principles that most people today—including most Christians—recognize as fundamental: that all human beings have equal moral worth regardless of their nationality, ethnicity, or tribe. The biblical laws deny this equality, establishing a legal framework in which a person's rights depend on whether they are Israelite or foreign.
The New Testament and slavery
Some defenders suggest that Jesus and the New Testament authors transcended the Old Testament's acceptance of slavery, but the textual evidence does not support this claim. Jesus never condemned slavery. Paul's letters repeatedly command slaves to obey their masters and masters to treat slaves justly, but never call for slavery's abolition.32
In Ephesians 6:5, Paul commands: "Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ."32 In Colossians 4:1, he instructs masters: "Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."38 These instructions assume the continuation of slavery and seek to regulate the relationship between masters and slaves, not to abolish it.
Most strikingly, Paul's letter to Philemon concerns Onesimus, a slave who had run away from his master Philemon and encountered Paul. Rather than helping Onesimus secure his freedom or condemning Philemon for owning another human being, Paul sends Onesimus back to Philemon, asking Philemon to receive him kindly and hinting that he might free him, but never commanding it.33 If slavery were incompatible with Christian ethics, this would have been the perfect opportunity to say so clearly. Instead, Paul returns an escaped slave to his master.
The New Testament's approach to slavery is consistent with the Old Testament: regulate it, make it less harsh, but do not abolish it. The biblical trajectory on slavery is not toward freedom but toward kinder slavery—a perpetually deferred liberation that never arrives in the actual text.
Implications for biblical authority
The biblical slavery laws present a serious challenge to the claim that the Bible represents God's perfect, timeless moral revelation. If Leviticus 25:44-46 truly represents God's moral instruction—if God actually told the Israelites they could purchase foreigners, own them as property, and bequeath them to their children—then either God's morality differs radically from what most modern people (including most Christians) recognize as just and good, or these laws reflect ancient human cultural norms rather than divine moral truth.
Defenders must choose between several uncomfortable options. They can accept that God did permit chattel slavery and argue that this was morally acceptable in that cultural context, which commits them to moral relativism and suggests that owning people as property was once morally good but is now morally evil. They can argue that these laws do not really permit chattel slavery, despite the text's explicit language about buying people, owning them permanently, and passing them as inheritance—a reading that requires significant interpretive gymnastics. Or they can acknowledge that these laws reflect ancient human institutions rather than timeless divine commands, which undermines claims of plenary biblical authority.
What the text does not support is the claim that biblical morality clearly and consistently affirms the equal dignity and freedom of all human beings. The slavery laws permitted the purchase of human beings, authorized their ownership as property, sanctioned their violent treatment, and allowed their permanent bondage and transfer as inheritance. These are not the laws of a God who values universal human dignity and freedom. They are the laws of an ancient society that, like most ancient societies, accepted slavery as normal and sought to regulate rather than abolish it.
For those who believe the Bible is the inspired, authoritative word of a perfectly good God, the slavery laws remain one of the most difficult moral challenges in the text. For those who read it as an ancient human document reflecting the values and assumptions of its time, the slavery laws are exactly what one would expect: ancient people regulating an institution they accepted, never imagining that future generations would find it morally abhorrent.