OT Slavery resource

Christians who have never done a proper deep dive into the Old Testament tend to believe that there is a huge difference between between antebellum slavery and what they consider to be “indentured servitude” when it comes to biblical slavery. I have spent a lot of time debating Christian’s on this topic and the following breakdown helps to establish where these two forms of slavery overlap. Of the five categories below, born slaves, foreign slaves and war captives meet the criteria of chattel slavery.

Regarding  Old Testament Slavery:

So the OT permits slavery, but where did these slaves come from? The OT references five ways someone could become a slave.

1. Debt slaves (both israelites and foreigners- considered voluntary)

As we have seen in Leviticus 25:39-46, both Israelites and foreigners could sell themselves into slavery, usually to pay off debts. This was a financial transaction, with slaves or their families receiving a payment or forgiveness of debts. It could be voluntary or pseudo-voluntary - if you have debts and no means to settle them, you could be forced into slavery under threat of other consequences. It also wasn't always a person selling themselves into slavery - for example, fathers could sell their daughters as sex slaves (Exodus 21:7-11). Thieves were forcibly sold into slavery if they could not afford the penalty for thievery (Exodus 22:2-4), strongly implying that criminals in general who could not afford their fines were involuntarily made debt slaves. There is also strong indication that children could be forcibly taken as slaves to repay the debts of their deceased fathers (2 Kings 4:1–7).

Many apologists try to trivialize the suffering of these debt slaves, and while no doubt some were treated kindly, it is important to remember that these were still people who had their freedom stripped away at the most vulnerable points in their lives, were taken away from their homes and families for extended periods, and in the case of women were sexually exploited.

2. Born slaves

Another source of slaves were the children born to existing slaves. The OT makes it clear that children of slaves also became slaves, and had reduced rights and protections. The passage addressing this is Exodus 21:2-6:
2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
As this passage makes clear, even Hebrew servants - who must not be treated as slaves, as we have seen in Leviticus 25:39-46 - could still be slaves. Children of Hebrew servants would become permanent slaves, though it's unclear if they would become property (the word "belong" is not explicit in the Hebrew). Other verses confirm this (Exodus 23:12, Leviticus 22:11, Genesis 17:12-3). Once a child was born to a debt slave, they would be their master's slave forever, as would their children and their children's children. This is a source of slaves many apologists forget about when discussing Biblical slavery - children who, through no fault of their own, were born into lifelong slavery, never having any right to self-determination or dignity, forever at the whim of their masters physically and (for women) sexually.

In addition, this passage outlines a procedure for a Hebrew servant to voluntarily become a permanent slave, one repeated elsewhere (Deuteronomy 15:12-18). Apologists often point to this as proof of how humane OT slavery must have been - after all, why would a servant voluntarily give up their freedom if it wasn't an awesome lifestyle? But the passage itself gives the answer - getting your freedom would mean abandoning your wife and children, who would remain slaves for life. One of the greatest cruelties of slavery (which is often neglected when the OT is discussed) is the forcible separation of families. When given the choice of never seeing their families again or submitting to lifelong servitude, many male slaves understandably chose the latter, no matter how abusive their masters were. In this way, "voluntary" debt slavery could easily be made involuntary.

3. War captives.

A third source of slaves was war. Apologists often refer to these as "prisoners of war", but the more Biblically accurate term would be "spoils of war". These people were forcibly taken from cities and nations whom the Israelites had defeated in war, and the passage governing their enslavement is Deuteronomy 20:10-18. The circumstances for cities who immediately surrender are slightly more open to debate, but for those who did not, it was clear - they were plunder, property of the Israelites kept as chattel slaves. Once again, since these were foreign slaves, they were not protected as Israelites were and became slaves for life. This was how the Israelites were to treat all cities they attacked (with the exception of the few listed, which they had to massacre instead). To clear up any doubts of how these slaves were treated, Deuteronomy 21:10-14 lists the procedure for taking a woman captured in war as a sex slave; after a mourning period, the woman - her parents murdered in front of her, her home and belongings taken - becomes the wife of her captor, and remains his possession until he tires of her. This law was not merely hypothetical – Numbers 31 documents one example of the Israelites executing it under the direct orders of Moses and God himself.

These slaves were women and children who were attacked by Israelite aggressors, watched their brothers, husbands, and fathers be put to death, were stripped of all they owned and cared about, and were taken by the murderers as plunder to be physically and sexually exploited and kept as property for perpetuity. It is impossible to overemphasize how horrific, vile, and evil this law is; were it found anywhere but the Old Testament, excusing it in any way would be treated no differently than excusing the Holocaust.

4. Foreign slaves

Leviticus 25:44-46

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

This segment of scripture provides the greatest distinction regarding the indentured servitude versus chattel slavery classification. Your fellow Hebrew may go free after a set amount of time but the foreigner is akin to personal property and would be a slave their entire life.

5. Kidnapping victims.

The fifth and final source of slaves was kidnapping. The Old Testament directly addresses kidnapping, or man-stealing, exactly twice. The verse most apologists point to is Exodus 21:16:

16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.

This verse prohibits kidnapping of people (the Hebrew word used is גֹנֵ֨ב, or "steal"). What most apologists don't reference is the second verse about kidnapping, Deuteronomy 24:7:

7 If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.

This verse restricts the law to only the kidnapping of Israelites, not people in general. It's for this reason that Talmudic law has always interpreted the prohibition on kidnapping to only apply to the kidnapping of Israelites (source). As such, kidnapping of foreigners in order to enslave them was probably not a capital crime, and may have even been permitted in some cases. Regardless, even if we are overly charitable to the text here and assume it prohibits all kidnapping, we must still note a few things. Firstly, this is kidnapping by an individual; as we have seen, victims taken in war did not fall under this category. Secondly, the punishment here is only for the kidnapper, not for the buyer; Israelites were allowed to purchase slaves from foreign nations (Leviticus 25:39-46), where it was potentially impossible to tell if they or their ancestors had been kidnapped.**
Protections for Israelite Slaves

A common apologetic is that OT slavery was not as bad as the slavery we usually think of. That it was a Slavery Lite™ of sorts, with ample protection for the slaves - as if the owning and exploitation of human beings would be a righteous practice if only the slaves got vacation days and dental. So let us turn to the laws regarding the treatment of slaves.

As we have seen, there is a sharp delineation in OT law between Israelite slaves and foreign slaves. Israelite slaves in fact received a wealth of protections and benefits (although this does not make their enslavement OK). Here is a comprehensive list of all protections that applied only to Israelite slaves:

Israelite debt slaves were not to be made to work as slaves, and were to be treated as hired workers instead (Leviticus 25:39-46).

Israelite debt slaves were not to be ruled over ruthlessly by Israelite owners (Leviticus 25:39-46) or by foreign owners that resided among the Israelites (Leviticus 25:47-55).

Israelite debt slaves were not to be sold as slaves (Leviticus 25:39-46).

Israelite debt slaves were to be released after 6 years of service unless they chose to stay permanently (Exodus 21:2-6, Deuteronomy 15:12-18, Jeremiah 34:8-22). They were to be given a generous severance when leaving (Deuteronomy 15:12-18).
Female slaves who had been matched with male slaves and gave birth, as well as their children, did not have this protection (Exodus 21:2-6).

Female sex slaves also did not have this protection (Exodus 21:7-11).

Once every 49-50 years, during the Year of Jubilee, Israelite debt slaves were to be freed whether owned by Israelites (Leviticus 25:39-46) or foreign residents (Leviticus 25:47-55).

Israelite debt slaves sold to foreigners living among the Israelites could be "redeemed", or have their freedom bought back (Leviticus 25:47-55). They could do this themselves or have a relative do it for them.

This implies Israelite slaves could own property, which is supported by other verses.

The price was computed by counting the number of years until the next Year of Jubilee, and calculating how much total wage would normally be paid to a hired worker working until then (Leviticus 25:47-55). This means the price could range up to 50 years' worth of wages.

A female sex slave did not have this protection unless her master broke his betrothal with her (Exodus 21:7-11).

A female Israelite sex slave married off to her master's son was given the rights of a daughter (Exodus 21:7-11).

A female Israelite sex slave betrothed to her master was to be granted food, clothing, and marital rights, and went free if she did not receive them (Exodus 21:7-11).
Note that the majority of these protections apply only to debt slaves, not to children born as slaves or female sex slaves. Most protections probably applied only to slaves under Israelite owners; for example, the wage calculation for redemption under a foreign owner in Leviticus 25:47-55 strongly implies the law did not require foreign owners to release their Israelite debt slaves after 6 years. It is also questionable how many of these were implemented in practice; the Old Testament itself tells us that at least one major law - the freeing of slaves after 6 years - was not followed in practice (Jeremiah 34:8-22).

Protections for Foreign Slaves

All of the aforementioned protections were for Israelite slaves only, and did not apply to foreign slaves, who had vastly reduced protections. Let's examine those now.

First, we have Exodus 21:20-21:

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

This verse offers a bare minimum of protection to slaves - owners are not permitted to kill slaves. The NIV translation here takes some serious liberties, but the Hebrew says that the slave must be "avenged" (נָקֹ֖ם יִנָּקֵֽם). Jewish interpreters have read this as meaning a death penalty (source), but some modern scholars have argued it was a lesser penalty
However, this verse also explicitly allows cruel and severe beating of slaves as punishment, setting the standard that a beating is not to be punished if the slave can stand after two days (again, the Hebrew specifies standing [יַעֲמֹ֑ד] as the standard while the NIV generalizes to recovery). This is put into context by the previous verse, Exodus 21:18-19, which makes clear the 'standing' criterion, and shows that for free people there is actual recompense required in this scenario (but of course, not for slaves).

It also makes it clear once again that the slaves being discussed are property, and that this treatment is justified because they are to be treated as property. This is not Slavery Lite™, it's not an apprenticeship - it's cruel and inhumane abuse. Note also that there is no reason required for these beatings, and a master who beats his foreign slaves at his own whim is acting perfectly within the law; it is explicitly forbidden to punish him, because he is rightfully exercising his right to do as he pleases with his property.

Just a few verses down, we have our second major protection for foreign slaves, Exodus 21:26-27:

26 “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. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.
This law protects slaves from major physical injury. The verse lists only eyes and teeth, but of course this is a modification of the famous "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth", and so applies more generally; Jewish law has held that any injury which causes permanent disfigurement counts (source). Note, however, that unlike the normal "eye for an eye", there is no punishment at all for the master. The slave is let free, and the master goes about his business – his eye and tooth are not taken in return, he does not have to provide any recompense to the slave beyond his freedom, and the slave is left to deal with his injury and destitution on his own. This is reinforced by Exodus 21:20-21, which as we've seen protects the master from any punishment if the slave survives.
Also note that this only applies to disfiguring injuries, and leaves cruel torture via non-disfiguring means completely legal and protected as a master's right. Apologists often say that this would rule out any cruel treatment, since any cruel punishment would surely be disfiguring. To anyone who says this, I challenge you to undergo some non-disfiguring torture yourself – such as being beaten unconscious with a rod, being starved or denied water to the edge of death, being made to hold heavy weight for hours, and more - and tell me how non-cruel it is.

And... that's it. As far as protections for foreign slaves, those are the only two. Don't murder them, and free them if you disfigure them - anything else is not just fair game but legally protected and justified as a property right. There are a few other minor details - for example, circumcised slaves are allowed to eat of the Passover feast (Exodus 12:43-45) - but no other real protections. Oh, that reminds me - foreign slaves, even the adults, must be circumcised (Genesis 17:12–13). Imagine being purchased as property, separated from your spouse and children, hauled off to a distant land, beaten harshly with a rod for no reason at all, and then having your foreskin mutilated with no anesthetic in accordance with the barbaric customs of your new owners. Slavery Lite™ indeed.
A final verse to consider is Exodus 21:28-32, which illuminates the general treatment of slaves and their worth in the eyes of the law. This verse lays out what to do when a rowdy bull kills a person through the negligence of their owner. If the bull kills a man or woman, son or daughter, then the punishment for an irresponsible owner is death (though the family may demand payment instead). However, if the bull kills a slave, the owner of the bull need only pay thirty shekels of silver to the owner of the slave (a price comparable to the purchase price of slaves, see Genesis 37:28). There is no restitution to the slave or his wife and children, there is no punishment for the negligent owner - only financial compensation for property lost. One man's property damaging another's. This immediately refutes any attempt to depict OT slaves as sons of the household; it is clear that sons are valued human beings whose lives must be avenged with blood even when negligently killed (involuntary manslaughter), but that slaves are less than human and are only worth the price it would take to replace them.

Regarding the claim that God did the best he could for a barbaric nation

This defense claims that God gave the best law he could, but that he could not uproot the social institution of slavery that was present at the time. God gave the best law he could, the defense goes, but if he gave any better law the Israelites would not be able to follow it. Usually, those who offer this defense claim that God desired better and better law to be used as it became practically possible, with Christians saying the New Testament improved upon the Old, and Jews saying God knew we would eventually give up slavery on our own. They also point out that slavery was commonplace in cultures at the time, and say that OT law was better than the surrounding law.

The problem with this defense is that God didn't do the best he could have. As we have seen, there is a massive gap in the law between Israelite and foreign slaves, with foreign slaves receiving only the barest minimum of protection. It was clearly possible to protect foreign slaves much more, by simply giving them the same protections as Israelites - for example by forbidding ruling over them ruthlessly. The fact God did not do this is indefensible.

Furthermore, God has never shied away from giving the Israelites difficult-to-follow laws. In fact, the OT itself reports that some laws protecting slaves in the OT were not followed (Jeremiah 34:8-22), probably because there was no punishment specified for disobeying them. God gave this law multiple times across multiple books of the Old Testament (Exodus 21:2-6, Deuteronomy 15:12-18, Jeremiah 34:8-22), all the while knowing it would almost never be followed; given this, the defense crumbles, and there is no excuse for God not to also give other laws he knew would be difficult to enforce, for example making the protections equal for foreign and Israelite slaves, or forbidding slave-beatings done without good reason