Some skeptics think that God, as described in the Hebrew Scriptures, supported slavery. They believe that God allowed treating people like property and even approved of beating slaves.

Claims that the Bible approves of slavery are often based on passages taken out of context, like those from the Levitical Law. It’s important to consider the historical background and the time in which these texts were written, as well as the context and meaning of each passage.

Here is an example of such:

“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. If a stranger or sojourner with you becomes rich, and your brother beside him becomes poor and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner with you or to a member of the stranger’s clan” (Leviticus 25:45-47 ESV)

Earlier in Leviticus (25:36-39), we find verses that discuss indentured servants among the children of Israel. But this text clearly discusses “the stranger or sojourner with you or a member of the stranger’s clan” and not fellow Israelites.

Let’s consider a few things from the context of the whole passage – for the Israelites, loans were given to fellow Israelites at no cost, but non-Israelites had to pay back the loans with interest. This is important because this is the context of Leviticus 25. A Jew who sold himself as a slave to another Israelite had to be treated like a brother or a hired hand (Leviticus 25: 38-41). However, it is true that non-Israelites who sold themselves to pay back a debt did not have the same rule. These individuals had to pay back their loans with interest. Regardless, these “slaves” were paid, otherwise it would have been impossible to pay anything back. Payment for labor was afforded to both Israelites and non-Israelites (the strangers and sojourners.)

This passage clearly is not discussing antebellum-type slavery where humans were treated like chattel based on race with no payment and no rights. All “slavery” in world history is not the same. Among the Hebrews, it was more like indentured servitude in order to pay back debts or to prevent individuals from starvation. Antebellum slavery offered no rights, while Hebrew slavery provided various rights, protection, and eventual freedom. This in itself set Israel apart from other nations of that day where slavery in those nations was common, and where slaves had no rights at all.

Some of the slaves in Israel were POWs. After a battle or war, some foreigners were assimilated into Jewish society. Scholars have noted that servanthood of those foreigners were kept as a matter of national security (see Richard Bauckham, The Bible in Politics: How to Read the Bible Politically, p. 108).

Israel couldn’t oppress or exploit foreigners. And, according to Dr. Paul Copan, “Deuteronomy 23 shows concern for desperate, threatened foreign slaves, and this text sheds light on—or even improves on—previous legislation in Leviticus 25” (Is God A Moral Monster, p. 395.) Some of the foreigners who become servants, therefore, were simply POWs with rights (Exodus 21:20-27).

Kidnapping and open slave trading were prohibited by the Mosaic Law. But foreigners as POWs who were made servants/slaves were able to save money and even become wealthy (Leviticus 25:45, 47). Prisoners of war (like all individuals in servitude Israel) could be released, but criminals could not.(Walter C. Kaiser, “A Principalizing Model,” in Four Views of Moving beyond the Bible to Theology, p. 40.)

Copan also notes, “. . . in some cases, foreign servants could become elevated and apparently fully equal to Israelite citizens. For instance, a descendant of Caleb ended up marrying an Egyptian servant. . . Not only do we have marriage between a foreign servant and an established free person with quite a pedigree, but the key implication is that inheritance rights would fall to the servant’s offspring.”

The Mosaic Law stated that foreign runaway slaves were given protection within Israel’s borders and were not returned to their harsh masters (Deuteronomy 23:15–16). Kidnapping slaves was prohibited (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7). Israelite households were to be a safe haven for any foreigner (including runaway servants). Israelite slavery was not to be an oppressive institution but instead was given to provide economic and social stability for all.

Let’s continue, Leviticus 25 makes it clear that a foreigner could potentially work himself out of debt and become a person of means in Israel: “if the means of a stranger or of a sojourner with you becomes sufficient” (v. 47 LSB) they were set free. This is another indication that a slave was not stuck in lifelong servitude.

These passages show us that while not the same as American indentured servitude, it was also not the same as American slavery. I note this because we tend to see slavery in light of the 1800s, and not in light of the culture and setting of the Old Testament.

Since the Old Testament was written in Hebrew for the Hebrews, let’s look at a couple of Hebrew words in the text.

The Hebrew word slave is ebed and used in Leviticus 25:44. Any Hebrew dictionary will tell you, ebed means servant, slave, minister, adviser, or official. Hebrew scholar Dr. Kyle Bair states, “The better translation, therefore, is ‘servant,’ or in modern-day lingo, ‘worker’ or ‘employee.’”

The Hebrew word qnh can mean buy, acquire, create or hire. Since the passage in Leviticus 25 later states that a servant can become self sufficient (wealthy) they were paid (hired). Exodus 21:16 (and context) forbids selling people. So who is receiving the money in Leviticus 25:44? There’s only one possibility: the workers themselves.

That brings us to the Hebrew word for property which can literally mean money. The word for inherit, nahal, can indeed mean “give as an inheritance.” Yet it can also mean the far more boring “assign.” Then there is the word “forever” which some translations have as “for life.” This would work considering . Leviticus 25:46 refer to these servants who have chosen to serve perpetually. A master can assign these servants to his children, to work for them. Leviticus 25:46 clarifies Exodus 21:5–6, showing that the service is to the family, not simply to the person.

In Deuteronomy 23:15–16, these verses declare that any servant could choose to go free at any time – even those who had previously decided to serve perpetually – by fleeing to another Hebrew home. There are no qualifications in these verses. Any servant can go free at any time. Thus, if a master assigns a servant to work for his son, but the son begins mistreating the servant, that servant does not have to stay. They could leave whenever they wanted, even if they had previously decided to serve that family perpetually.

Bair states, “Leviticus 25:44–46 only seems to support slavery if you rip it out of its context in the rest of the Law. But when you let the entire Law inform the situation, any hint of slavery disappears. When you let the foundation of Exodus 21 and the clarification of Deuteronomy 23 speak, you end up with a perfectly moral code of employment for foreigners: ‘As for your male and female servants whom you may have: you may hire male and female servants from among the nations that are around you. You may also hire 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 workers. You may assign them to your sons after you to receive as a servants who have chosen to serve you perpetually. You may hire them as servants, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.’ (Leviticus 25:44–46, ESV adjusted).”

I may not go as far as Bair does, but it is clear that slavery and slaves had a different context than what we afford the meaning of those words. In a world where slavery was common place in every other nation, these differences are important to note because of their uniqueness to and by Israel (and thus from God).

One can argue that all slavery of any kind in any way, including indentured servants, is immoral – but on what would that be based? It can equally be argued that permitting individuals to starve to death because they could not feed themselves is immoral. In ancient Israel one cure for hunger was servitude. Not paying one’s debts is also immoral. Again, servitude permits those who loaned the money payment while providing dignity for those who owed the debt.

Like so many things, slavery or indentured servitude is not always black and white. But treating others justly is, which is why the Old Testament Law provided rights in an age where rights were not common place.

One final note. While many skeptics find fault with the Biblical system and laws regarding slavery, little is said about modern day slavery which is far more common than most realize. According to the latest global estimates, there are currently 49.6 million people living in slavery. About 1/4 of these are children. Many of these are sex slaves. (See Anti-Slavery.org). Perhaps it would be better to focus on what is actual regarding slavery than to focus on misapplications of Scripture in order to support anti-theism biases.

For more see:

Kyle Bair, Rejecting the Ridiculous Idea that the Bible Ever Allowed Slavery.

Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God

Paul Copan, Is God a Vindictive Bully?: Reconciling Portrayals of God in the Old and New Testaments

David W. Galenson, “Indentured Servitude,” in The Oxford Companion to American History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 368–69. 

John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Life, vol. 3 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009), 460. 

Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, New American Commentary 2 (Nashville: B & H Publishing, 2008), 474–75. 

Tikva Frymer-Kenski, “Anatolia and the Levant: Israel,” in A History of Ancient Near East Law, vol. 2, ed. Raymond Westbrook (Leiden: Brill, 2003). 

Walter C. Kaiser, “A Principalizing Model,” in Four Views of Moving beyond the Bible to Theology, p. 40

Gregory C. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East, JSOT Supplement Series 141 (Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 1993), 351–54.”