Slavery in the Bible

Hi all.

I just recently started reading the bible and I'm still figuring things out. And there's one verse that's been bugging me. It's this one:


Exodus 21:20-21
New International Version
“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.

How would you explain this? The slave died, does it matter if it's a day later?
Please be respectful in the comments. I came here to learn.

Welcome to CC!

In general, God was not condoning slavery, but rather was setting limits on the treatment of slaves because He knew the corruption of human hearts. To the specifics of your question, if the slave died from his wounds a day or two later, it would still be "as a direct result".

Hi and welcome to CC. This passage about slavery is exactly what it says; no vague or ambiguous language is used here.

If the slave dies the slave owner is to be punished; if the slave lives then there’s no punishment for the slave owner.

What specifically about this passage stands out as unclear to you? Maybe I can try to be clearer if I didn’t answer your question.

Thank you so much for taking the time to reply. I agree, god knows the corruption of human hearts. So why doesn't he order the punishment for all of those who kill their slaves? Why wouldn't that aweful human being be punished if the slave survives a day or two? This is what's confusing me. The result is the same in both cases, which is the death of the slave, but the punishment is different. Why that? Why aren't they both punished equally for committing the same crime?

Yea a little common sense from trolls might help.

God made Laws for His people regarding men who sold themselves into Slavery so those who did would be killed without recourse. Another Law says no Israelite could lay in wait and trap a man from anywhere, so enslaving a man was illegal, but a man selling himself into Slavery was Servitude, some men had to do this to provide for their family, Jacob sold himself for 7 years to win Rachels hand in Marriage, her father betrayed him and gave him Leah so he sold himself for 7 more years. Its not really slavers, its servitude, after 7 years every "Slave" had to be freed and given a percentage of MONEY, and Animals etc. etc. So, basically, if you bothered reading it would have been cleared up, and then maybe these other Laws that sounded way over Israel head at that time would be seen in the light that they are in also. Like, why did God order any man touching a dead man to have to quarantine for 7 days, and wash in the river every day? Why did Gid make Israel bury their dung/crap when Europe in the 1300s brought the Bubonic Plague about by having their dung travel in open ditches which killed 100's of millions of people?

Because God understood a little thing called GERMS. over 3000 years ago.

God foreknows all, He thus knew men would sell themselves into slavery so He tried to make those slave owners act with responsibility. He had already made another Law that said laying in wait and enslaving a man by force is ILLEGAL. Now, ask why Slavery was legal fir 5000 years under the god of this world, Satan. The answer is because Satan is a liar, a thief, an a murderer.

And a backbiting troll unto God.

Spells God..........god. Dead giveaway.

Thank you so much for taking the time to reply. The verse is clear, which is why I'm confused. It clearly states that a murderer should not be punished if the victim survives a day or two. I am heartbroken as I feel I'm questioning what I should not question but this doesn't seem just to me. Why are two murderers not being punished equally for committing the same crime? It's as if the real crime is to live a day or two and then die, as this gives freedom to your murderer. You have to die at the spot or else Justice won't be served? How would you explain this in a way that gives me confidence and peace?

You just spelled God as "Gid"....sorry I refuse to speak to the devil.

In the text, a different consequence is administered if the slave dies than if the slave recovers. Perhaps you misread it?

How? As far as I understand, the text only talks about if the slave dies. Now there's two possibilities: if they die right away, the murderer will be punished. If they stay alive a day or two and then they die, no punishment. I don't know what happens if the slave totally recovers though. If you know any other texts that could explain this, please share and please correct me if I misread anything. And thank you again for your time, I really appreciate it.

I understand your perspective I think.

In scenario 1, the slave is beaten, dies, and the slave owner is punished.
In scenario 2, the slave is beaten, then recovers, does not die, and the slave owner is not punished.

I found an answer that seems to answer your question so I'm just going to copy/paste it here.

In Exodus 21, the author is not dealing with the issue of slavery or assault. He is dealing with the issue of murder vs manslaughter. And he points to an example of how the law had been applied in the past. A man beat a servant, and the servant died several days later. The court decided that this is not a murder because the owner stopped the beating before the servant was killed. He had no INTEND of killing the person. Thus he should not be charged with murder. Nothing in the passage that he can says he could not be charged with manslaughter, assault are anything else.

In every state in the US there are laws identical to this one. If someone injures a person and then do not die from those injuries with a certain length of time (in many states 1 year) then the person can not be charged with murder. They still could be charged with other crimes.

It is a misreading of the text to think that this passage supports either slave ownership or the beating of slaves. It is about how to distinguish between murder and manslaughter or other crimes.

I hope this helps.

With respect, it appears to me that you're misreading the text.

It does not say anything about "if the slave dies a day or two later". Rather, it says "if the slave recovers..." In other words, the slave does not die from the beating.

It appears to me that you read "if the slave recovers after a day or two" as "if the slave dies after a day or two". As I stated in my first response, a slave dying a day or two later from his wounds is still dying "as a direct result" of the beating, and the slave owner would rightfully be punished.

Slave isn't translated or defined as a modern slave with no rights. A slave was considered a bondservant. You will see some translations use this word. A bondservant is different than a modern slave. It was a volunteer servitude for a period of time. One example was


Genesis 29:18
New International Version
18 Jacob was in love with Rachel and said, “I’ll work for you seven years in return for your younger daughter Rachel.”


Genesis 47:21
New International Version
21 and Joseph reduced the people to servitude, from one end of Egypt to the other.

I'll work for you in Genesis 29:18 and servitude 29:18 is the word
5647. abad: to work, serve

become slaves (1), been slaves (1), bondage (2), burdened (2), cultivate (7), cultivated (2), cultivates (1), do (6), do the work (1), enslaved (3), given (1), holding in bondage (1), imposed (1), keep (2), labor (3), laborers* (2), make servant (1), make slaves (2), manufacturers (1), observe (1), perform (9), performed (2), plowed (1), rendered (1), serve (141), served (52), serves (2), serving (5), slave (1), slaves (1), subject (1), till (1), tiller (1), tiller* (1), tills (2), use as slaves (1), used (1), uses services (1), work (7), worked (2), workers (2), working (1), worship (7), worshipers (6).

Context usually explains how the word is used. Even Paul calls himself a slave or bond servant for Christ.

So make sure to research and define the word. Typically in all or most cases in my research the Mosiac laws support a bond servant method to help people pay off debts, help people not starve, gives some children a home, etc. As to why there are laws against what the slave owner can and cannot do. Including death if they discipline too harshly.

People gave themselves into bondage for many different reasons but typically it was a way to help people get back on their feet. There was a law that if one servant wanted to stay permanently, they would get their ear pierced.

The Rod was known for the use of Shepherds who would steer the sheep away from danger. Much how good discipline protects kids.

Proverbs 13:24
New International Version
24 Whoever spares the rod hates their children,
but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.

Also remember the Israelites as slave owners had to also abide by the Mosiac law in total. So it was a way different environment that American, Europe, China, Native American, Africa, Muslim, etc. slave trades.

Exodus 21:20-21
New International Version
“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.

It says "if the slave recovers after a day or two," not if the slave dies. "If the slave dies as a direct result" it is illegal, no matter when the slave dies.

And roughsoul is right, they were indentured servants, also called bondservants, not slaves.

1) Take care of that "unsure" part concerning your salvation FIRST

2) Then you can begin to learn from and understand Scripture. The"unsure" of the world have no insight into the true meaning of Scripture, because to them it is hidden.

3) Your comment above makes no sense

First off slavery is caused by sin, and created from fallen man. God allowed slvery as he has alllowed all types of sin to a point.
In addtion the context of the verse is not an endorcement of slavery but living in a time when slavery was done by those who were sinners. Just as nations over took other nations this happen because of sin. Slavery was a normal practice and christians were slaves and had slaves. So, treating slave properly was the right thimg to do. As time moved we today do not allow slavery or practice it, yet it is still very much used in other places like Africa which is done by tribes.

the concept is that if the slave recovers and doesn’t die from the beating v if he does die

if he dies they were to be punished if he recovered and doesn’t die he wasn’t because in the corrupt earth ruled by mankind slaves were the property of the owner

those laws are for these people

“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭1:9-10‬ ‭KJV‬‬

it’s not that the slave dies in both cases of he recovered or if he died was the difference

“And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭21:20-21‬ ‭KJV‬‬

One way to make Christians squirm is to mention the morality of the Old Testament, always works

Don't believe this "God allowed it in that time" answer. Its a complete cop out, God gave very specific laws, even down to how you dress and what foods to eat, yet he forgot to mention don't have slaves because "it was common in that time"? God forbids lots of things that were common in those times, so that is not the reason. God could have easily forbid slavery.

The real reason is that Israel was the apple of God's eye, and that is why for example, israelites couldn't eat meat from a dead animal, but they could sell it to the nations:

Deuteronomy 14:12 You are not to eat any carcass; you may give it to the foreigner residing within your gates, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner.

And as many Jewish authorities interpret the verses you mentioned, they say these slaves are primarily from the nations within Israel or outside of Israel:

Leviticus 25:45-46
“’Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
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.

This sort of discrimination is not a one off in the hebrew scriptures, people who were uncircumcised, lame etc. were also excluded from God's temple, uncircumcised people could not partake of Passover and on and on.

For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose … –Leviticus 21:17

But here is the good news, Jesus welcomes the lame and the blind:

Matthew 21:14
Then the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them.

The tanakh says eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, Jesus said nope.

What am I getting at? Different covenant, that is the reason for it, why was the covenant with Israel so brutal from our perspective? Because this was a covenant Israel wanted, they said WHATEVER YOU ASK, we will do, God said ok do this and that and its not hard, these commandments are not far from you, yet they continued to disobey. The law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.

TL;DR Israel was the top dog, the Bible isn't an american 21st century book with our conceptions of morality. It is an ancient hebrew one.

There is a difference between a typo and and intended sleight, just asking this question was an intended dig at Christians and God, lets not play pretend.