The Exegesis of Leviticus 25:44–46
Slavery was very common in societies all over the ancient world. To give an example, “The oldest known slave society was the Mesopotamian and Sumerian civilizations located in the Iran/Iraq region between 6000–2000 BCE. The oldest known written reference to slavery is found in the Hammurabi Code of 1754 BCE…” (The History Press). Israel, in this sense, is no different. There are plenty of places in the Mosaic law that discuss slavery, and without engaging in apologetics or answering all the questions, we are going to specifically focus on and exegete Leviticus 25:44–46. The point of this paper is to properly understand Leviticus 25:44–46 and give application to our lives today. If you want more on biblical slavery, see this playlist.
Let us look at the background of the book for some context. It would seem that Moses is at least the source of the book of Leviticus because “…The Lord is described as “speaking to” Moses over 30 times” (Currid et al, 2008, p. 211). However, who exactly wrote the text is not known to us. It was likely written sometime between the 15th and 13th centuries BC, as this is the most likely date of the exodus (Betts, 2008). This is important because these laws are being given during a time in which slavery was all over the Ancient Near East, and as such some of the laws and ideas may be comparable to said laws (Wright, n.d).
There are different kinds of slavery in the Ancient Near East. Debt slavery is something that we see in the bible and elsewhere (Westbrook, 1995; Hess, 2017). Slaves were also acquired in a multitude of ways including “… Prisoners of war (Num. 31:7–9), purchase (Lev. 25:44), by gift (Gen. 29:24), by accepting a person in lieu of a debt (Lev 25:39)…” (Douglas & Tenney, 2011, p. 1372). We know that prisoners of war were probably the most common form of getting slaves anciently (Walton et al., 2000). However, the kind of slavery discussed here in these verses is chattel slavery. This was slavery that was mostly experienced by foreigners of a given place, as Raymond Westbrook (1995) says, “A Babylonian proverb remarks: ‘A resident alien in another city is a slave.’ Inevitably, foreign slaves were heavily represented in the category of chattel-slaves’’ (p. 1640). It is also stated by Dan and Jardim “The earliest terms for slaves in Babylon, which translate as “male of a foreign country” (nita + kur) and “female of a foreign country” (nunus + kur), attest to the enslavement of both males and females. According to the Code of Hammurabi, such persons were brought “from the four corners of the earth” (Mendelsohn, “Slavery,” 74)” (2016). Another very important point is that chattel slaves are NOT slaves because of a debt, as Dr. Joshua Bowen explains “Chattel slavery is slavery that is not contingent upon a debt” (4:40–4:45).
This kind of slavery did not just affect adults but also children. When discussing the children of slaves in Mesopotamia specifically, John Reid (2017) remarks “…children were susceptible to a number of attested fates that could result in either temporary or permanent downward movement into forms of bonded labor or slavery” (Par. 12). So the slavery described here in Leviticus 25:44–46 is characterized by a few different things. Those being foreigners, being held in perpetuity, and the absence of debt. It is also extremely common across the ancient world, with children sometimes being involved.
As we can see, there are many differences between the modern audience and the biblical audience to which this command is being written. One of the big differences, of course, is the tolerance of slavery. For the majority of people in the Western world, slavery, in any form, is an abominable practice that should be condemned. However, this has not been the case for the majority of the ancient world. I would argue that morality, as well as the idea of Messiah and many other things, is progressively revealed to humanity. Since God chooses to reveal things to humanity progressively, the Old Testament Law reflects a specific morality that, though good for the Israelites, is not perfect nor universal, which Scripture teaches (Matt 19:8, Heb 8:7).
Another point to make about the differences between the contemporary reader and ancient Israelite society relates to social distinctions. It is disingenuous to deny the fact that modern society does have distinctions between people that cause some to be lower on a hierarchy than others, but about the church specifically, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free… for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). It is seen that even some of the leaders of the early church struggled with this, but ultimately came around to the idea that the walls between Jew and Gentile have fallen elsewhere in the New Testament (Acts 10). However, this has not quite happened in Israelite society, and this verse illustrates that pretty well.
Speaking of differences between Israel and the Church, a huge difference is how the church and Israel live with slavery. While Israel, as a theocracy, used the institution and had regulations for it, the church does not. The Church was given commands about how to live with the institution being enforced upon them (1 Cor 7, Eph 6), but they were never commanded to engage in the practice. Given the fact that being a Christian meant a status change for Philemon from slave to brother in Christ (Phil 1:16), and given the command to not be slaves (1 Cor 7:23), there is a distancing of the New Covenant people from the institution. This distancing has continued off and on to this day, where the church does not want slaves, or to be enslaved.
Now we can look at the literary context of this chapter. Firstly, as the NIVAC notes “The theme of the promised land unifies the divine speech Leviticus 25–26, which the Lord delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai…” (Walton et al., 2015). So this chapter is the beginning of a speech from God given to Moses that then runs through the next chapter. The first verse reiterates the Sabbath and its observance, which was spoken of in Exodus 20:8–11. This discussion flows into the next section which discusses the Jubilee year. This was the 50th year in which property would return to its original owners, Israelites would go free from slavery, and debt would be forgiven. The goal was to “… Rescue all his people from the bonds of debt servitude and to guarantee each family land and a fresh start every half century” (Hess, 2017). Verses 35–43 contain a discussion about Israelites who become so poor that they have to engage in debt servitude. It is interesting that, in a chapter attempting to prevent Israelites from being enslaved permanently in several cases, “They also do not account for the principal cause of slavery in Mesopotamia-warfare” (Walton et al., 2000).
There are a few different observations that we need to make. We see that there is a very strong contrast being made in this verse. We see in verse 43 that Israelites are not to be held as slaves, but foreigners can be. Israelites are not to be held in perpetuity, but foreigners are. You are not to rule over Israelites ruthlessly, and the implication, though not stated explicitly, is that foreigners can be treated ruthlessly. As one scholar notes, “Just as the Israelite slave was treated ruthlessly in Egypt, so may the foreign slave be treated ruthlessly in Israel” (Stackert, 2017, pp. 159–160). The contrast is very strong. We also see the conjunction “but” used to add to that contrast in verse forty-six.
Another observation to make is that you could enslave the children of foreigners as well, and there seems to be no limit on how many or how much. The foreigners could be living in the land, but also from the nations around them as well. Even children being involved in slavery was common in the Ancient Near East and is seen here and elsewhere (2 Kings 4:1–7).
Next, the words most important for interpreting the text must be assessed. Those key terms are harshness, slave, and property. What do these terms mean and what exactly are they referring to? As an example, It looks like this harshness could be referring to the longevity of the slavery, the work that was done in the slavery, or the way they were treated by their masters directly. A word study helps the careful reader interpret which of those options is best, which will be done similarly for each word.
When we look at the passages in Leviticus, it does not seem that the term is being used in the same way. The reason is because of verse 26. The verse tells us that a foreigner can be held in perpetuity but they cannot rule over an Israelite ruthlessly. This verse creates a contrast not between harm and non-harm, but rather perpetuity and ruthlessness. A similar statement is also made about Israelites in verses 42–43, which is right after discussing the fact that an Israelite cannot be held in perpetuity because the Lord is their master and redeemer. Jay Skylar (2014) has also noted the context, stating “But in this context, the term ruthlessly might refer specifically to extending servitude beyond the agreed time limit, the Jubilee (cf. v. 46a [of non-Israelites] with v. 46b [of Israelites]; cf. Chirichigno, 1993: 336–338)” (p. 306). Therefore, the harshness or severity, in this context, refers to the longevity of slavery, not the treatment from the masters nor the work the slaves do.
What if this did refer to the treatment the slaves received from their masters? Or the labor that they did? Does the contrast of the verse imply that Israel could treat foreigners in slavery-like they were treated in Egypt? Not necessarily. As Coleman (2021) notes, “The larger context of Leviticus 25:44–46 (i.e Leviticus 17–26) demonstrates that the Israelites were forbidden from abusing their chattel slaves” (Par. 9). For example Leviticus 19:33–34 (NIV) reads, “When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” As we can see here, they were told to love foreigners and take care of them because they were foreigners in Egypt, the same place that ruled over them with harshness. Even if they only referred to free foreigners and not enslaved ones, Milgrom observes that what is “implied is that the alien slave may be treated harshly, but according to Job 31:13, 15, such treatment is not acceptable to YHWH” (Jacob Milgrom, 2001, p. 2232). There are some other things that we have to keep in mind as well. As noted by Louis Goldberg (1989) “Only non-Israelites could be treated as slaves, although the Law forbade harsh treatment” (p. 83). Furthermore, the later portion of this chapter envisions a situation where an alien can have status and power (Lev 25:47). We also have the fact that Israel was a “mixed multitude” (Ex 12:38) and Gentiles could live among them and have a nice life (Ruth for example). So while they could be in chattel slavery, that was not needed, and the abuse of the person is forbidden amid the practice, which is not normally true of chattel slavery (Coleman, 2021).
Next, we should look at the word “slave” used in the text. There is a lot of discussion about how this term is used throughout the text of scripture. For this study, the term “slave” will be defined as “The institution whereby one person can hold ownership rights over another” (Dandamayev, 1992, p. 58). The term we translate as “slave” in this passage in Hebrew is “eved” or “עֶבֶד” and appears 807 times in the Old Testament (E.Ved, n.d). An important point to note about this word is that “A frequent term for slave in Hebrew is derived from the verb “to work” or “to serve.” This term does not seem to convey the negative and derogatory association that it does in Greek usage outside the Bible” (Nässelqvist and Jardim, 2016). This passage also uses the Hebrew term amah which can refer to female slaves. This term only appears 56 times in the Old Testament. Without going into every single instance of the two terms, it is plain in the text that there is a distinction between a hired worker and a slave.
This passage seems to be using the term slave differently than Exodus 21. Part of the reasoning for this is that it appears on the surface that the two texts contradict each other. The Exodus passage says you can have Hebrew slaves, but the Leviticus passage says they are not slaves but hired workers. However, a contextual look at Leviticus shows that, while both chapters use the same Hebrew terms, they are not using them in the same way. Leviticus is thinking about slavery as being permanent which we see in verses 39 and 40: “If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee.” So when the author of Leviticus 25 is discussing slavery, he is thinking of permanent labor or chattel slavery, which he does not want for Israelites. However, the author of Exodus 21 uses the same Hebrew terms to denote debt servitude or hired work. By comparing these two, we can resolve the tension between the passages by arguing that they are just using the same Hebrew terms in different ways, and it gives us a contextual study of the Hebrew words for proper exegesis of Leviticus 25:44–46.
Finally, we should discuss the term property, which, in Hebrew, is “ achuzzah”. This term can mean land, possession, or property. This term is used for possessing the land (Lev 25:24), a portion of a place (23:4), inheritance (Eze 46:16), and so on. This word occurs in 66 places (A. Chuz. Zah, n.d). Given how the word is used in this context, possession or property seems to be a good fit. The reason is that the foreign slave is the owned possession of his master that can be passed down just like any other “achuzzah” -could be (Deut 21:15–17).
The main theological principle of the text is that God’s people are not to be enslaved. As one commentary notes “A theological reason underlies this discrimination: God redeemed his people from Egyptian slavery, to become his slaves (vv. 42, 55). It is unfitting, therefore, that an Israelite should be resold into slavery, especially to a foreigner (cf. Rom. 6:15–22; Gal. 4:8–9; 5:1)” (Wenham, 1979). We see this clearly in verse 43. The idea is that because His people were freed by God from slavery, they ideally should not be put back into slavery. As John Hartley (1992) writes, “The theological basis for these laws regarding debt is that Yahweh had delivered Israel from Egyptian bondage. Now all of them were his servants. That is, all members of the covenant were on equal footing as Yahweh’s redeemed slaves” (p. 444). Ideally, God’s people are not to be enslaved. This is why the prior verses discuss the Jubilee year which was “… marked by a general release from debt, servitude and a return of all land that had been mortgaged or sold to the rightful owner” (Walton et al., 2000). Yet People still fell into debt (Exodus 21), and if slavery in this passage of Leviticus only refers to chattel slavery (permanent servitude), then this too could occur for an Israelite, if he wanted, according to Exodus 21:5–6. However, the ideal was to have freedom. This is why the entire chapter is devoted to discussing freedom and redemption for God’s people (Walton et al., 2015).
These two principles fit nicely with the rest of Scripture as well. We will first explore all of the Old Testament connections, then we will look at the New Testament. In the book of First Kings, it is written: “Solomon conscripted the descendants of all these peoples remaining in the land-whom the Israelites could not exterminate to serve as slave labor, as it is to this day. But Solomon did not make slaves of any of the Israelites; they were his fighting men, his government officials, his officers, his captains, and the commanders of his chariots and charioteers,” (1 Kings 9:20–23)
As we can see here, Solomon is following the law by only using foreigners for labor. However, he also makes Israelites his top armed forces and important people in government. One can infer based on this text the distinction between Jew and Gentile, the idea that foreigners can be enslaved, and the idea that God’s people are not to be enslaved ideally. All of those ideas are also reflected in the Leviticus passage.
Another passage of Scripture we can look at is 2 Kings 4:1–7. In this story, Elisha has become the new prophet, succeeding Elijah who was taken by God (2 Kings 2:1–12), after which, numerous events happen to prove that Elisha is the new prophet approved by God and this story is one of them. In this story, Elisha saves the children of this woman from being enslaved by helping her with the debt. This was debt servitude, so it was legal according to the Mosaic Law, yet Elisha still saved her children. Once again, the courteous reader sees the idea that the covenant people are not to be enslaved ideally.
One of the most important passages for this is Jeremiah 34. In this text, the King of Judea had proclaimed freedom to all Hebrew servants because it was the seventh year. Here, he is rightly following the Mosaic Law (Exodus 21, Leviticus 25); however, he changes his mind and enslaves them again. This makes God bring judgment upon the king and the people who enslaved their fellow man again. This act would, in effect, say that a person can abuse the system and the people to make his people permanent slaves against their will. Once more, only foreigners are allowed to be enslaved in perpetuity unless the Hebrew servant wants it (Ex 21:4–6). He does not treat the poor and Hebrews with love and mercy, but instead oppresses them. So God, through Jeremiah, steps in to judge this terrible act. Moving into the New Testament, we see that this same idea applies, but for a different reason and context. It is written, “You were bought with a price. Do not become slaves of men’’ (1 Cor 7:23). Furthermore, “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life” (Rom 6:22). The huge redemptive event in the Old Testament is freedom from the oppression of Egypt. They were now to be slaves of God, not of man, and these two theological ideas are the foundation for this slave law in Leviticus. However, this changes in the New Testament because the big redemptive act in the New Covenant is the death and resurrection of Christ. With that said Paul is using the Exodus background, as stated by the Pillar New Testament Commentary, “As noted in the comments on 6:19–20, the Jewish background to “being bought with a price” antecedent to the Christ event in 7:23a “you were bought with a price” is the exodus” (Ciampa & Rosner, 2020). So the reason why God’s people are not to be slaves of men is not because we were freed from psychical oppression, but because we were bought by our slave master Christ through his death (1 Peter 1:19) which garners our freedom from the spiritual slavery of sin. This picture of sin being the slavery we are freed from is made clear in Romans 6, “When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness… But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life” (Romans 6:20–23). So, while the idea that God’s people should not be enslaved is consistent across both testaments, the reasoning and context are different.
How is the modern believer supposed to live something like this out? The biblical text deals with Ancient Near East or Roman practices of slavery and the Western context significantly differs. So what is one to do? As it is written in Romans 6:18, “You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness”. One of the first ways that we can apply this theological notion to our lives is how Paul does so in Romans which is spiritual. We, individually, no longer are slaves to sin or vice, but instead to righteousness and virtue. We now have to live in such a way as to demonstrate the right, good, and holy way of doing things. That means demonstrating faith, hope, and love (1 Cor 13:13) among many other things. The person and the church can do this by growing in godliness, removing unrighteousness and addiction from your life, and helping others. As it is written “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27).
The people of God are not to be enslaved by anyone or anything ideally. Yet, time and time again, sin has gotten in the way. Whether it was a hard-hearted people God was accommodating in a certain time; the Roman Empire, where His people were also slaves to the Romans at times; or a struggle with sin, the ideal has not yet been realized. Nevertheless, the ideal will one day be realized in the future where all humanity will be free from sin and human bondage, such that we will be incorruptible (1 Cor 15:53) and judge angels (1 Cor 6:3). In the meantime, let the body of believers help each other in the world by living out and applying the freedom that is found in the message of the Gospel (Luke 4:16–19).
Originally published at https://www.followersoftheshepherd.org.
(My Linktree)-https://linktr.ee/ThatChristianNerd
A. Chuz. Zah in step bible with Greek and Hebrew helps | ESV. (n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2023, from https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=ESV|strong=H0272&options=NHVUG&qFilter=H0272
Betts, T.J. (2008). Dating the Exodus. Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. https://sbts-wordpress-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/equip/uploads/2015/10/Betts-SBJT-Fall-08-3.pdf
Centeradmin. (2021, May 26). Does Leviticus permit the abuse of slaves? | the biblical mind. The Center for Hebraic Thought. https://hebraicthought.org/examining-ancient-israelite-slave-law-leviticus/
Currid, J., Kiuchi, N., Sklar, J. (2012). Notes on the book of Leviticus. In ESV Study Bible. Crossway
Dan and Jardim. (2016). Slavery. In John D. Barry et al (Ed.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Lexham Press.
Dandamayev, A. Muhammed. (1992). Slavery. In David Noel Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday.
Douglas & Tenney. (2011). Slavery. In Moisés Silva (Ed.), Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Zondervan.
Dr. Josh Bowen explains what chattel slavery is. (n.d.). Retrieved November 27, 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNzp-E7-mUA
E. Veda. Vad in step bible with Greek and Hebrew helps | esv. (n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2023, from https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=ESV|srchJoin=(1o2)|strong=H5650|strong=H5649&options=NHVUG
First clement: Clement of Rome. (n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2023, from https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html
Hartley, E. John. (1992). Word Bible Commentary: Leviticus. Word books.
Hess, Richard. (2017). The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Leviticus. Zondervan.
How Exodus revises the laws of Hammurabi — Thetorah. com. (n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2023, from https://www.thetorah.com/article/how-exodus-revises-the-laws-of-hammurabi
Milgrom, Jacob. (1971). Anchor Bible commentary: Leviticus. Doubleday.
Pe. Rekh in step bible with Greek and Hebrew helps | esv. (n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2023, from https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=ESV|strong=H6531&options=NHVUG&qFilter=H6531&sort=false
Reid, J. N. (2017). The children of slaves in early Mesopotamian laws and edicts. Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale, 111(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.3917/assy.111.0009
Stackert, Jeffrey. (2007). Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Skylar, Jay. (2014). Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary: IVP Academic.
The history press | slavery in history. (n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2023, from https://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/articles/slavery-in-history/
Walton H. John, Gane Roy, Block I. Daniel. (2015). The NIV Application Commentary: Leviticus. Zondervan.
Walton H. John, Matthews H. Victor, Chavals W. Mark. (2000). The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Leviticus. Intervarsity press.
Wenham, J. Gordon. (1979). New International Commentary on the Old Testament: Leviticus. Eerdmans.
Westbrook, Raymond. (1995). Slave and Master in Ancient Near Eastern Law. Chicago- Kent Law Review. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol70/iss4/12
