God set a price for a father to sell his daughter

The Book of Exodus contains what scholars call the "Book of the Covenant," a collection of laws attributed to God and given to Moses at Mount Sinai.¹ Immediately following the Ten Commandments, these laws address a wide range of social issues, beginning with slavery.² Among these regulations is a set of laws concerning what happens when a man sells his daughter. The existence of such laws assumes that fathers selling their daughters was a normal practice requiring legal regulation rather than a practice to be condemned or forbidden.³

The biblical text

Exodus 21:7-11 appears in the section on slavery laws, immediately following the rules for male Hebrew slaves. The passage reads:

"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. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money." Exodus 21:7-11 (English Standard Version)²

The Hebrew word for the female servant in verse 7 is "amah" (אָמָה), which can be translated as "maidservant," "female servant," or "handmaid."⁴ The word appears throughout the Hebrew Bible to designate a female domestic servant, and in this context refers specifically to a woman sold by her father.⁴

Legal and social context

The law assumes a situation of economic hardship. In ancient Israel's agrarian economy, a family facing poverty or debt might have few options for survival.⁵ Male family members could sell themselves into debt servitude, working for another household for a period of time to pay off obligations.⁶ The same economic pressures could lead a father to sell his daughter.³

According to Jewish interpretive tradition, poverty was the sole legitimate justification for this practice. The Talmudic sages taught that only a man who was so destitute that he literally could not feed his family was permitted to sell his minor daughter, and only she could be sold—not adult daughters or sons.⁷ The transaction was understood to include both compensation for her labor and the bride price (mohar) that would normally be paid for a wife.³

In the ancient Near East, marriage transactions typically involved the groom or his family paying a bride price to the bride's father.⁸ This payment, called mohar in Hebrew, was originally understood as compensation to the father for the loss of his daughter's labor and her role in his household.⁸ Over time, it evolved to become more of a gift to the bride herself or her relatives, but in early biblical times it functioned as payment to the father.⁸ The sale of a daughter as described in Exodus 21 combined this bride price with the price of a servant, representing her transfer from her father's household to another man's household as a subordinate wife or concubine.³

The purpose of the transaction

Exodus 21:7-11 is not about selling a daughter into ordinary slavery but about a specific arrangement where she would become a wife or concubine in the purchasing household.⁹ Verse 8 refers to the master who "has designated her for himself," using language of betrothal. Verse 9 addresses the alternative where he designates her for his son, requiring that she be treated "as with a daughter." Verse 10 assumes she becomes a wife, establishing her rights if her husband takes an additional wife.²

The trajectory of the law makes the intention clear: the woman sold by her father is destined for marriage within the household that purchases her, either to the master himself or to his son.⁹ This distinguishes her situation from that of male Hebrew slaves, who served for six years and were then released, and from foreign slaves, who remained in permanent servitude.¹⁰ She occupied a unique legal category—neither temporary servant nor permanent slave, but a woman purchased to become a wife.³

Different from male slaves

Exodus 21 begins with laws about male Hebrew slaves. Verses 2-6 establish that a Hebrew man sold into servitude serves for six years and goes free in the seventh year.¹¹ The law provides detailed rules about his release, including provisions for his wife and children.¹¹

Verse 7 marks a sharp contrast: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do."² The woman sold by her father does not have the same right to freedom after six years. Instead, her fate depends on whether she pleases her master, whether she is designated for his son, and whether her husband fulfills his obligations to provide food, clothing, and marital rights.²

Comparison of male and female Hebrew servants in Exodus 21^{2, 11}

This difference reflects the patriarchal structure of ancient Israelite society, where women moved from their father's authority to their husband's authority, rarely achieving the independent status that a freed male slave could attain.¹² A woman freed without a household to protect her would be vulnerable in a society where women's economic and social security depended on attachment to a male-headed household.¹³ The law assumes that a woman's proper destination is marriage, not independent freedom.³

Protections for the sold daughter

Exodus 21:8-11 establishes several protections for the woman sold by her father. If she "does not please" her master—the one who designated her for himself—he must allow her to be redeemed, presumably by her father or other family members.² The text says he "has broken faith with her," using language that appears elsewhere for covenant unfaithfulness and marital betrayal.¹⁴ He is explicitly forbidden from selling her to foreigners, which would remove her from her kinship network entirely.²

If the master designates her for his son, she must be treated "as with a daughter"—accorded the rights and dignity of a daughter-in-law in the household.² If the master or his son takes another wife, he must not diminish the first woman's food, clothing, or marital rights.¹⁵ This provision in verse 10 establishes three fundamental obligations a husband owes his wife: sustenance, clothing, and conjugal relations.¹⁵ If he fails to provide these three things, she goes free "without payment of money"—she is released from the arrangement without her family needing to buy her back.²

These protections are real and represent genuine concern for the woman's welfare within the system. The law prevents her master from treating her as disposable property, reselling her arbitrarily, or neglecting her basic needs.¹⁶ Compared to some ancient Near Eastern law codes, the Israelite provisions show notable concern for the rights and dignity of female servants.¹⁷

Ancient Near Eastern parallels

Slavery and debt servitude were widespread throughout the ancient Near East, and several law codes from neighboring cultures contain provisions similar to Exodus 21.¹⁸ The Code of Hammurabi, dating to approximately 1750 BCE in Babylon, included numerous laws regulating slavery.¹⁹

Hammurabi's law 117 addresses debt slavery: "If an obligation came due against a man and he sold the services of his wife, his son, or his daughter, they shall work in the house of their buyer for three years; their freedom shall be reestablished in the fourth year."¹⁹ This Babylonian provision mandates release after three years, whereas Exodus provides six years for male Hebrew slaves—but establishes no fixed term for daughters sold as servant-wives.^{2, 11}

Other ancient Near Eastern law collections also regulated the status of female servants who became wives or concubines, including the Laws of Eshnunna (laws 31 and 34), Hittite laws (tablet 1, laws 30-33), the Laws of Lipit-Ishtar (laws 25-26), and Middle Assyrian laws.²⁰ These parallels demonstrate that the practice of selling daughters into servitude with the expectation of marriage was widespread in the ancient Near East, not unique to Israel.¹⁸

Women in the ancient Near East generally had limited legal rights, and their status was largely determined by their relationships to men—as daughters, wives, or widows.²¹ Marriages were typically arranged between families with little input from the woman herself, and she was transferred from her father's authority to her husband's authority as part of an economic transaction.¹² The biblical laws regulating the sale of daughters reflect this broader cultural pattern.³

Later biblical reforms

The book of Deuteronomy, written later than Exodus according to most biblical scholars, contains revised laws on slavery that appear to address some of the inequities in Exodus 21.²² Deuteronomy 15:12-18 states:

"If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you." Deuteronomy 15:12 (English Standard Version)²³

This law explicitly includes both Hebrew men and Hebrew women, stating that female Hebrew servants have the same right to freedom after six years as male servants.²³ The text goes out of its way to emphasize gender equality, using the somewhat awkward phrasing "a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman" and later emphasizing "even for your female slave, too, you must do likewise."²⁴

Deuteronomy makes no mention of the father selling his daughter, no mention of betrothal or marriage expectations, and no separate category for female servants destined to become wives.²³ The law treats male and female Hebrew servants identically, both serving six years and going free in the seventh year with generous provisions from their master's flock, threshing floor, and winepress.²³ Scholars interpret this as a deliberate reform, with the Deuteronomic law abolishing the practice described in Exodus 21:7-11 and granting women equal status with men in debt servitude.²²

The differences between Exodus and Deuteronomy reveal an evolution in biblical law. Exodus 21 assumes and regulates the sale of daughters for marriage purposes, treating it as a legitimate practice needing proper safeguards. Deuteronomy 15 reforms this system, granting female servants the same rights as male servants and removing the special category that treated daughters as marriage prospects to be sold by their fathers.²²

Common apologetic defenses

Defenders of the biblical text offer several arguments to explain or mitigate the troubling implications of Exodus 21:7-11.

The "this protected vulnerable women" defense

Some argue that the law was actually protective, ensuring that a daughter from an impoverished family would be cared for and gain security through marriage into a household that could support her.¹⁶ On this view, the father's ability to sell his daughter provided an escape from starvation, and the regulations ensured she would be treated with dignity rather than exploited.¹⁶

This defense is partially accurate—the protections in verses 8-11 do provide genuine safeguards, and the system may have been better than the alternatives available to destitute families in the ancient world.¹⁷ However, the argument fails to grapple with the fundamental issue: the law assumes it is morally acceptable for fathers to sell their daughters as property, and for men to purchase women for marriage. The presence of regulations does not negate the commodification of women that the system embodies. A law that regulates slavery humanely is still a law that permits slavery.²⁵

The "it was a different culture" defense

Another common response is that we cannot judge ancient practices by modern standards, that the biblical laws must be understood in their cultural context, and that they actually represented progress compared to surrounding nations.¹⁷

This argument raises important methodological questions about how we evaluate historical texts. It is true that biblical slavery laws contained some protections not found in other ancient Near Eastern codes.¹⁷ However, this defense becomes problematic when the text is claimed to represent divine revelation. If these laws come from God—an eternal, unchanging, perfectly moral being—then the question is not whether they were better than Hammurabi's Code, but whether they reflect moral perfection.²⁶ A God who could command "you shall not murder" and "you shall not steal" could also have commanded "you shall not sell your daughter" or "you shall not purchase women as wives." The fact that the law regulates rather than prohibits the practice suggests it accepts the commodification of women as morally permissible.³

The "this was marriage, not slavery" defense

Some interpreters emphasize that the woman was being sold for marriage, not for slavery in the sense of forced labor, and that the arrangement was ultimately about securing her a husband and household.⁹

While the distinction between marriage and slavery is important, it does not fully resolve the moral problem. The woman had no choice in the transaction—her father sold her, and she became part of a household as a subordinate wife.³ The terminology of the text is telling: verse 7 uses the word "slave" (amah), verse 8 speaks of her "master," and the passage appears in the section on slavery law immediately following the rules for male slaves.² The text itself frames this as a form of servitude, even if the intended outcome was marriage. Moreover, that she was sold for marriage rather than labor does not make the commodification less troubling—it simply specifies what she was being purchased for.²⁵

Daughters as property

The underlying assumption of Exodus 21:7-11 is that a father has the right to sell his daughter. She is, in effect, his property to transfer to another man. This reflects the patriarchal structure of ancient Israelite society, where women were under the legal authority of their fathers and then their husbands, with limited rights to make decisions about their own lives.¹²

Throughout the Hebrew Bible, marriage transactions are described in economic terms. Genesis 29 describes Jacob working seven years for Laban to "pay" for Rachel as his wife.²⁷ Genesis 34:12 has Shechem offer to pay "whatever bride price and gift" for Dinah.²⁷ Exodus 22:16-17 mandates that a man who seduces a virgin must pay the bride price to her father and marry her, and even if the father refuses the marriage, the man must still pay "money equal to the bride price for virgins."²⁸ These passages consistently present women as transferred from father to husband through economic transactions, with the father receiving payment and the woman moving from one man's household to another's.⁸

Exodus 21:7-11 takes this system and applies it to a situation of poverty. The father's authority to arrange his daughter's marriage for a bride price becomes the authority to sell her into servitude-marriage. The law regulates how this must be done—ensuring she is designated for marriage, protecting her from resale to foreigners, guaranteeing her basic marital rights—but it does not question the fundamental premise that a daughter is her father's to sell.³

The theological problem

For those who believe the Bible represents God's revealed will, Exodus 21:7-11 presents a difficult question: why would a perfectly moral God establish laws that permit fathers to sell their daughters as property?²⁶

The text does not present these laws as a temporary accommodation to human sinfulness or as a concession to cultural limitations. The chapter begins, "Now these are the rules that you shall set before them," introducing the laws as divine commandments given by God through Moses.¹ The Book of Exodus repeatedly emphasizes that these are God's laws, not merely human customs that God tolerated.¹

Some theological traditions distinguish between God's "perfect will" and his "permissive will," arguing that certain biblical laws represent concessions to human hardness of heart rather than God's ideal.²⁹ Jesus makes a similar argument about divorce in Matthew 19:8, saying Moses permitted divorce "because of your hardness of heart, but from the beginning it was not so."³⁰ One could argue that God permitted the selling of daughters in a fallen world where poverty made it economically necessary, while still preferring a world where such sales never occurred.²⁹

However, this interpretation faces challenges. Exodus 21 does not frame the law as a reluctant concession but as part of God's covenant law for Israel, alongside prohibitions on murder, theft, and oppression of the vulnerable.¹ If God could command absolute prohibitions in some areas, why not here? The law could have read, "You shall not sell your daughter," just as other laws read, "You shall not steal" and "You shall not murder." Instead, it reads, "When a man sells his daughter..."—assuming the practice and proceeding to regulate it.²

Implications for biblical authority

Passages like Exodus 21:7-11 raise fundamental questions about the nature of biblical ethics and divine revelation. If the Bible contains laws from God that permit treating daughters as property that fathers can sell, what does this reveal about the moral character of the biblical God? Several possible responses exist, each with different implications.

One response is to affirm that the laws reflect God's perfect wisdom for that time and culture, that the sale of daughters in ancient Israel was morally acceptable because God permitted it, and that objective morality is determined solely by God's commands.³¹ This divine command theory approach maintains biblical authority at the cost of accepting that practices we now consider deeply wrong—commodifying women, selling children—were once morally permissible because God said so.³¹

Another response is to view the biblical laws as human attempts to order society in accordance with limited ancient understanding, acknowledging that the Bible's authors were shaped by patriarchal cultures and that their laws reflect this cultural conditioning rather than timeless divine moral truth.²⁶ This approach preserves moral intuitions that selling daughters is wrong but requires giving up the claim that these biblical laws represent direct divine revelation of God's moral will.²⁶

A third approach seeks a middle position, arguing that God accommodated revelation to the cultural limitations of the ancient audience, working within their patriarchal framework to introduce reforms and protections that moved incrementally toward better treatment of women, even while not fully abolishing practices we now recognize as wrong.²⁹ On this view, Deuteronomy's reform represents progression within the biblical text itself, and the trajectory should continue beyond the biblical period toward full gender equality.²²

Each interpretive strategy has costs and benefits. What remains clear is that the text of Exodus 21:7-11 assumes fathers can sell their daughters, establishes rules for how such sales should be conducted, and attributes these rules to God. Readers must reckon with what this means for their understanding of biblical morality, divine character, and the authority of Scripture.²⁶