Were Foreign Slaves Treated Worse in Leviticus 25? A Closer Look
One of the passages most often brought up in debates about biblical slavery is Leviticus 25:44–46. On the surface, the text seems to say that while Israelite servants were released in the Year of Jubilee, foreigners could be kept permanently. Critics sometimes claim this made foreign slaves worse off than even those in the antebellum South.
But is that really what the text teaches? A closer reading in context, alongside the rest of Scripture, tells a very different story.
1. Investigating Leviticus 25:44–46
Leviticus 25:44–46 reads:
“As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you… 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.” (ESV)
At first glance, this looks like foreigners were excluded from protections. But when read in light of the broader Torah, several points come into focus:
Equal protection under the law: Exodus 12:49 and Leviticus 24:22 both declare, “There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.” Foreigners were not outside God’s covenant justice.
Limits on treatment: Exodus 21:20–21 prohibits the abuse or murder of servants, and Exodus 21:26–27 even grants freedom to a servant permanently injured by a master.
Motive of Jubilee: The distinction in Leviticus 25 is less about cruelty and more about land inheritance and types of allowable service. Israelite servants were tied to family land that would return to them in the Jubilee as well as restricted from certain labor tasks, whereas foreigners had no tribal allotment and no restrictions on tasks. The law reflects land and theology and work ethic, not dehumanization.
When compared with the antebellum South—where slavery was racial, hereditary, and defined by systemic dehumanization—the biblical model is categorically different.
2. Foundational Laws and Clarifying Laws
To grasp biblical law, we must distinguish between foundational laws and clarifying laws.
Foundational laws express God’s moral will in universal terms. For example: “You shall not murder” (Exod. 20:13).
Clarifying laws expand and apply these principles to specific circumstances. For example: Exodus 21:28–29 applies the prohibition on murder to situations involving an ox that gores someone.
Slavery laws in Leviticus 25 are clarifying laws. They operate within, not apart from, the foundational commands regarding justice, human dignity, and care for the vulnerable (cf. Lev. 19:33–34, where Israel is explicitly commanded to love the foreigner as themselves).
Thus, no clarifying law can be read as permitting what the foundational law prohibits. The whole system is interconnected, pointing back to God’s character.
3. The Importance of Context: The Home Invader Analogy
Context is crucial when interpreting law. Consider this analogy:
Foundational law: “Do not kill.”
Clarifying law: “If a thief is found breaking in at night and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him” (Exod. 22:2).
If read in isolation, the clarifying law might seem to contradict the foundational law. One says murder is forbidden, the other says it’s allowed. But when read together, we see that self-defense is an application of the principle and clarifies the foundational law without dismissing it. It also does not supersede the original, foundational law but rather complements it.
Leviticus 25 functions the same way. Without considering the broader framework, one might think it opens the door to abuse. But within context, it is a specific application that still rests on God’s foundational demand for justice.
4. Comparison with the Code of Hammurabi
To see just how different Israel’s laws were, it helps to compare them with another famous ancient law code: the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BC, Babylon).
Basis of slavery: Hammurabi’s code allowed debtors, war captives, and even criminals to be sold into slavery, where they could be branded and treated as permanent property (Laws 15–20, 117). Mosaic law, by contrast, limited Israelite servitude to poverty and debt, with release in the Jubilee (Lev. 25:39–41).
Protection of life: Hammurabi permitted harsh punishments, including mutilation, with little recourse. For instance, Law 282 states: “If a slave says to his master, ‘You are not my master,’ they shall cut off his ear.” In the Torah, however, if a master permanently injured a servant (eye or tooth), the servant was to be freed (Exod. 21:26–27).
Runaways: Hammurabi demanded runaway slaves be returned under penalty (Laws 16–19). The Torah, in contrast, forbade returning escaped slaves (Deut. 23:15–16), granting them the right to settle freely in Israel.
Hope of release: In Hammurabi’s world, slavery was lifelong and often hereditary. In Israel, servitude was bounded by redemption, release, and restoration through the Jubilee (Lev. 25:10, 47–49).
The contrast is stark: while Hammurabi institutionalized slavery as a brutal, permanent hierarchy, the Mosaic law placed boundaries, protections, and even hope of restoration within God’s covenant justice.
Conclusion
Leviticus 25:44–46 does not endorse cruelty toward foreign slaves, nor does it establish a system comparable to the racial slavery of the American South. When we account for the broader covenant framework, the distinction between foundational and clarifying laws, and the historical context of ancient law codes, the picture becomes clear:
Foreigners were under the same moral protections as Israelites.
Clarifying laws functioned within God’s foundational principles, never apart from them.
Compared to Hammurabi’s code, Israel’s laws uniquely protected servant dignity and built in limits and hope.
Far from undermining God’s character, Leviticus 25—when read properly—reinforces that His concern for justice and human dignity applies to all people, not just Israel.
References
The Holy Bible, ESV.
Roth, Martha T. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. 2nd ed. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997).
Wright, Christopher J.H. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004).
Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006).
