The Bible contains numerous laws regulating slavery, and among the most troubling is Exodus 21:20-21, which addresses what happens when a slave owner beats their slave with a rod. The law permits such beatings and specifically states that if the slave survives for a day or two after the beating, the owner faces no punishment because "the slave is his property."1 This passage reveals the legal and moral framework of biblical slavery: enslaved people were property, and owners could use violence against them with impunity as long as the slave did not die immediately.2 For those who claim the Bible provides an objective moral foundation, this law presents a significant challenge.
The text of Exodus 21:20-21
The law appears in the Book of the Covenant, the earliest legal collection in the Hebrew Bible, immediately following the Ten Commandments.3 The passage reads:
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no vengeance; for the slave is his money." Exodus 21:20-21 (English Standard Version)1
The Hebrew word translated "avenged" is "naqam" (נָקַם), which typically means to take vengeance or exact punishment.4 The word translated "rod" is "shebet" (שֵׁבֶט), which refers to a stick, staff, or rod used for striking.5 The phrase "his money" translates the Hebrew "kaspo" (כַּסְפּוֹ), which literally means "his silver" or "his money," emphasizing the slave's status as property.6 The text is unambiguous: slaves are property, owners may beat them with rods, and as long as the slave does not die immediately, the owner escapes legal consequences.
Modern translations vary in how they render the final phrase. The New International Version translates it as "the slave is their property," while the King James Version uses "he is his money."7, 8 The New Living Translation softens it to "since the slave is the owner's property."9 Despite these variations, all convey the same essential point: the slave's status as the owner's possession is the reason no punishment is imposed for non-fatal beatings.
What the law permits
The law explicitly addresses scenarios where a slave owner "strikes" their slave "with a rod."1 This is not incidental contact or accidental harm but deliberate physical violence using an implement. The Hebrew verb "nakah" (נָכָה) means to strike, smite, or beat, and appears throughout the Hebrew Bible to describe violent actions.10 The use of a rod as the instrument indicates forceful striking, not gentle correction.
The law contemplates two outcomes. If the slave dies "under his hand," meaning immediately or very soon after the beating, the owner faces punishment.1 The exact nature of this punishment is debated among scholars. Some argue the term "avenged" implies capital punishment, while others suggest it could mean lesser penalties such as fines or corporal punishment.11 The text itself does not specify, leaving the precise penalty ambiguous.
However, if the slave "survives a day or two," the owner faces no punishment at all.1 The text does not require that the slave recover fully, return to work, or even survive beyond two days. It merely requires that death not occur immediately. A slave who lingers for two days and then dies from their injuries does not trigger punishment for the owner. The law establishes a waiting period to assess whether the beating was fatal, and only immediate death brings consequences.
The rationale given for this exemption from punishment is explicit: "the slave is his money."1 The assumption is that no owner would deliberately destroy their own property, so if the slave survives even briefly, the beating must not have been intended to kill.12 The slave's status as property, not personhood, determines the legal outcome. This stands in stark contrast to laws protecting free Israelites, for whom physical assault carried penalties regardless of the victim's survival.13
Comparison to laws protecting free persons
The differential treatment of slaves and free persons in biblical law is striking. Exodus 21:12 states, "Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death."14 This law applies to free persons and makes no exception for survival time. If one person kills another through violent striking, the penalty is death. There is no provision comparable to the "survives a day or two" exception granted to slave owners.
Additionally, Exodus 21:18-19 addresses cases where two free men fight and one is injured but does not die.15 The law requires the aggressor to compensate the victim for lost time and medical expenses. Even non-fatal violence against a free person carries financial penalties. By contrast, non-fatal violence against a slave carries no penalty at all, provided the slave survives briefly.
The same chapter that permits beating slaves also provides limited protections for them in cases of permanent injury. Exodus 21:26-27 states that if an owner strikes their slave's eye and destroys it, or knocks out their tooth, the slave must be set free as compensation for the injury.16 Apologists often cite this provision as evidence of biblical humanitarianism toward slaves.17 However, this protection applies only to specific, visible, permanent injuries. A beating that leaves the slave bruised, broken-boned, internally injured, or temporarily disabled triggers no such compensation, as long as the slave survives the critical period.
Treatment of violence under Exodus 211, 14, 15, 16
| Victim | Severity | Penalty for Aggressor |
|---|---|---|
| Free person | Death | Death penalty |
| Free person | Injury, no death | Compensation for time and healing |
| Slave | Death (immediate) | Avenged (punishment unspecified) |
| Slave | Death after 1-2 days | No penalty (slave is owner's property) |
| Slave | Loss of eye or tooth | Slave goes free |
| Slave | Beaten with rod, survives | No penalty (slave is owner's property) |
Context in the ancient Near East
Defenders of biblical slavery laws frequently argue that they were progressive for their time, offering greater protections to slaves than the surrounding cultures provided.18 To evaluate this claim, comparison with other ancient Near Eastern law codes is necessary.
The Code of Hammurabi, promulgated in Babylon around 1750 BCE, predates the biblical laws and provides a useful point of comparison.19 Hammurabi's code distinguished between free persons, commoners, and slaves, with different penalties for crimes depending on the victim's status.20 For example, if a man struck the daughter of a free man and caused her to lose her unborn child, he paid a fine; if the woman died, the man's daughter was killed in retaliation. But if the victim was a slave woman, the penalties were reduced to monetary fines.20
Biblical scholars have noted that the author of Exodus appears to have known Hammurabi's laws and revised them to fit Israelite legal and ethical conceptions.21 Both codes address similar topics, slavery, personal injury, property damage, and both use casuistic legal forms stating "if such-and-such occurs, then such-and-such penalty applies."22 The biblical laws sometimes soften Hammurabi's harsher provisions; for instance, the lex talionis principle of "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" in Exodus limits retaliation to proportional punishment, whereas Hammurabi's code sometimes imposed disproportionate penalties based on class status.23
However, the protections offered to slaves in biblical law should not be overstated. While some scholars claim that "biblical law protecting slaves from maltreatment by their masters is found nowhere else in the entire existing corpus of ancient Near Eastern legislation," this claim applies primarily to the eye-and-tooth provision for permanent injuries, not to beatings that do not cause such damage.24 The permission to beat slaves with rods as long as they survive is not a protection; it is a license for violence.
Hebrew versus foreign slaves
Biblical law distinguished between Hebrew slaves and foreign slaves, applying different rules to each category.25 Leviticus 25:39-46 instructs Israelites that fellow Hebrews who fall into slavery due to poverty must be treated as hired workers and released in the Jubilee year, while foreign slaves purchased from surrounding nations can be held as permanent property and passed down as inheritance.26
The text explicitly states regarding foreign slaves: "You may make them an inheritance for your children after you to inherit as a possession; they may be your slaves forever."26 This is chattel slavery, the legal reduction of human beings to property that can be bought, sold, and bequeathed.27 Hebrew slaves, by contrast, were to be treated more leniently, serving for a maximum of six years unless they voluntarily chose to remain in servitude.28
The law in Exodus 21:20-21 does not specify whether it applies to Hebrew slaves, foreign slaves, or both.1 The text says "his male or female slave" without ethnic qualification. Given that the broader legal context distinguishes between Hebrew and foreign slaves in other provisions, the silence here is notable. Most interpreters assume the law applies to all slaves, though some suggest it may have been intended primarily for foreign slaves, who had fewer protections overall.29 Either way, the law sanctions violence against enslaved people on the basis of their status as property.
The property rationale
The logic underlying Exodus 21:21 is economic, not humanitarian. The text explains that the owner is not punished for a beating that does not cause immediate death "because the slave is his money."1 This rationale assumes that owners have a financial interest in their slaves' survival and would not deliberately harm their own economic assets.12
This reasoning appears elsewhere in ancient legal thinking. Roman law similarly assumed that masters would not wantonly destroy their own property, and thus granted owners broad discretion in disciplining slaves.30 The assumption is that economic self-interest provides a natural check on excessive violence. If a slave dies or is permanently disabled, the owner suffers financial loss, which serves as its own punishment.
However, this logic fails to protect slaves from significant harm. A beating that leaves a slave incapacitated for weeks, suffering from broken bones, internal injuries, or other serious trauma does not necessarily destroy the owner's investment. As long as the slave eventually recovers enough to work, or at least survives the critical two-day period, the owner's economic interest is preserved and no legal penalty applies. The law prioritizes the owner's property rights over the slave's bodily integrity and well-being.2
Moreover, the assumption that economic interest prevents abuse has been repeatedly disproven by historical evidence from slave societies. In the antebellum American South, where slaves were valuable property, brutal beatings and other forms of violence were commonplace despite the financial incentive to keep slaves healthy and productive.31 Anger, desire for control, and the dynamics of absolute power override economic rationality. The biblical law's reliance on property interest as a safeguard is inadequate.
Apologetic responses
Christian and Jewish apologists have developed various arguments to defend or contextualize Exodus 21:20-21. These responses merit examination.
The "servitude, not slavery" argument
One common defense is that the Hebrew term "eved" (עֶבֶד) should be translated as "servant" or "bondservant" rather than "slave," and that biblical slavery was actually indentured servitude, a voluntary, temporary arrangement for debt relief.32 On this view, "slaves" in the Bible were more like employees or contracted workers, and the system was fundamentally different from chattel slavery.
This argument encounters several problems. First, the term "eved" does mean slave in many biblical contexts, not merely servant.33 The word is used for Joseph when he was sold into slavery in Egypt, for the Israelites enslaved by Pharaoh, and for slaves bought and sold in commercial transactions.34 Context determines the appropriate translation, and in Exodus 21, the context is clearly slavery: people who are owned as property, bought and sold, and can be beaten with rods.
Second, even if Hebrew debt-servitude was a milder institution, Leviticus 25 explicitly permits Israelites to purchase foreign slaves as permanent chattel property, distinct from the temporary servitude of fellow Hebrews.26 The Bible thus endorses both temporary servitude and permanent chattel slavery, depending on the ethnicity of the enslaved person. The attempt to redefine all biblical slavery as mere servitude ignores these distinctions.
Third, the fact that Exodus 21:21 refers to the slave as "his money" directly contradicts the claim that this was not a property relationship.1 Employees are not their employer's money. The language is that of ownership, not employment.
The "this law protected slaves" argument
Some apologists argue that Exodus 21:20 actually protected slaves by imposing punishment on masters who killed them, which was a progressive reform for the ancient world.18 In surrounding cultures, they claim, slaves had no legal protections, and masters could kill them with impunity. By requiring punishment for killing a slave, biblical law granted slaves a measure of human dignity.
This argument is true in a limited sense. The requirement that a master be "avenged" if a slave dies immediately from a beating does provide more protection than existed in some ancient societies.24 However, describing this as "protection" obscures what the law actually permits. The law does not forbid beating slaves; it regulates the severity. It does not prohibit violence; it establishes a threshold of harm beyond which punishment applies.
Moreover, the protection is minimal. If the slave survives even one or two days, no punishment occurs.1 This creates a perverse incentive: an owner who beats a slave severely need only ensure the slave does not die immediately to escape legal consequences. The law offers no remedy for slaves who are beaten regularly but survive, who suffer injuries short of eye or tooth loss, or who die after the critical waiting period. Calling this "protection" sets an extremely low bar for moral evaluation.
The "loss of property is punishment enough" argument
Another defense asserts that if a slave dies even after a day or two, the owner suffers financial loss, which serves as a natural punishment.12 Since the slave is the owner's money, losing that investment is itself a significant penalty. Thus, the law does not truly leave the owner unpunished; it simply recognizes that economic consequences replace legal penalties.
This argument is morally troubling because it evaluates punishment entirely from the owner's perspective, ignoring the slave's suffering and death. In essence, it says that the owner is punished by losing property, not by facing legal consequences for killing a human being. The slave's life is valued only insofar as it represents economic loss to the owner.
Furthermore, the argument assumes that financial loss is equivalent to legal accountability. If a free person killed another free person and suffered financial setbacks as a result (legal fees, loss of income, social stigma), we would not consider those consequences an adequate substitute for criminal penalties. The law imposes penalties for killing free persons regardless of any incidental losses the killer might suffer. The differential treatment of slaves reveals that they are not regarded as persons with the same moral status as free individuals.
The "judge by ancient standards" argument
Some defenders argue that it is unfair to judge ancient laws by modern moral standards.35 Slavery was ubiquitous in the ancient world, and the biblical laws represented an improvement over contemporary practices. To condemn these laws as immoral is to impose anachronistic expectations on a text written in a vastly different cultural context.
This argument is partially valid as a historical observation. It is true that slavery was widespread in antiquity, and it is true that biblical laws in some respects were less harsh than those of neighboring societies. However, the argument fails as a theological defense if one claims the Bible represents timeless, divinely revealed morality.
If the laws in Exodus are merely human laws reflecting the limited moral understanding of ancient Israelites, then they carry no binding authority today and provide no basis for claiming the Bible as a source of objective morality. If, on the other hand, these laws are divinely inspired commands from a perfectly good God, then they should reflect timeless moral truth, not the cultural biases of one ancient society. The apologist cannot have it both ways: either the Bible is a culturally conditioned human document with no special moral authority, or it is divine revelation that must be held to a higher standard than "better than Hammurabi."36
Moral evaluation
Exodus 21:20-21 permits slave owners to beat their slaves with rods, imposes no penalty if the slave survives for a day or two, and justifies this policy on the grounds that the slave is the owner's property. From a modern moral perspective grounded in human rights, bodily autonomy, and the equal dignity of all persons, this law is indefensible.37
The law treats human beings as property and allows violence against them based on that status. It creates a legal double standard where the same act of violence that would be punished if committed against a free person goes unpunished if committed against a slave. It values the owner's economic interest more highly than the slave's physical well-being. And it offers no remedy for slaves subjected to regular, brutal beatings as long as those beatings do not result in immediate death or specific permanent injuries.
For those who believe in universal human rights, these features are morally unacceptable. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, proclaims that "no one shall be held in slavery or servitude" and that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."38 Exodus 21:20-21 violates both principles. It permits slavery and permits cruel treatment of enslaved people.
Some may respond that the ancient Israelites did not have the concept of universal human rights and cannot be faulted for failing to live up to standards that did not yet exist. Again, this is a valid historical observation. But it raises a critical question: if God inspired or commanded these laws, why did He not prohibit slavery entirely and establish the principle of universal human dignity? An omniscient, perfectly good deity would not be limited by the moral horizons of ancient Near Eastern culture.39
The existence of Exodus 21:20-21 in the biblical canon poses a dilemma. Either the law reflects God's moral will, in which case God permits slavery and violence against slaves, or the law reflects human cultural practices wrongly attributed to God. The first option is theologically and morally troubling for anyone who believes God is perfectly good. The second option undermines the authority of the Bible as divine revelation. The passage does not allow for an easy reconciliation between biblical ethics and modern human rights principles.40
Implications for biblical authority
The debate over Exodus 21:20-21 is not merely historical or academic. It has direct implications for how the Bible is understood and used today. If the Bible is held up as the foundation of objective morality and the infallible word of God, then passages like this one must be reckoned with honestly.
Throughout history, this and similar passages were used to justify slavery. Slaveholders in the antebellum American South cited biblical slavery laws to argue that the institution was divinely ordained and morally legitimate.41 Abolitionists countered with other biblical principles such as the equality of all people in Christ, but the fact remains that the Bible provided textual support for defenders of slavery.42
Today, few Christians or Jews would defend chattel slavery or the right to beat enslaved people. Modern interpreters typically regard these laws as culturally conditioned, no longer binding, or superseded by later ethical developments within the biblical tradition itself. But this raises the question: if these laws can be set aside as culturally outdated, what prevents other biblical laws and teachings from being similarly relativized? The text itself provides no clear principle for distinguishing which laws are timeless and which are temporary.
Some argue that the trajectory of biblical ethics moves toward greater justice and equality, and that later biblical and post-biblical developments fulfill the implicit moral logic of earlier texts.43 On this view, the New Testament's affirmation that in Christ "there is neither slave nor free" points toward the abolition of slavery, even if the text does not explicitly command it.44 This interpretive approach allows modern readers to reject slavery while still affirming the Bible's overall moral authority.
However, this trajectory argument depends on reading later ideas back into earlier texts and claiming they were implicit all along. It requires acknowledging that the explicit content of passages like Exodus 21:20-21 is morally problematic and must be overcome by subsequent ethical progress. This is a far cry from claiming that the Bible clearly and consistently teaches timeless moral truth.
Conclusion
Exodus 21:20-21 is a difficult passage for anyone who wants to claim that the Bible provides a clear and consistent foundation for morality. The law explicitly permits slave owners to beat their slaves with rods, imposes no penalty if the slave survives for a day or two, and justifies this by stating that the slave is the owner's property. No amount of historical contextualization can erase the fact that this law treats human beings as property and sanctions violence against them.
Apologists attempt to soften the passage by arguing that it provided more protection than other ancient cultures, or that biblical slavery was different from later forms of chattel slavery, or that we should not judge ancient texts by modern standards. These arguments have some historical merit but fail to resolve the theological problem: if this law comes from God, it reveals a God who permits and regulates slavery, who allows violence against enslaved people, and who values property rights over human dignity.45
For those who reject slavery and physical violence as morally wrong in all contexts, Exodus 21:20-21 stands as evidence that the Bible is not a reliable guide to morality. It reflects the values of its time, values that permitted the ownership and abuse of human beings. Recognizing this does not require condemning the ancient Israelites for failing to transcend their culture. But it does require reconsidering claims that the Bible is the eternal, unchanging word of a perfectly good God.