How Were Foriegn Slaves Treated in the Old Testament? (Leviticus

[@fishon9stoffal938]

Thank you for this amazing video! I thought I was trapped by a witty atheist, but this video helped me defend the faith🙏. Have a good day, and God bless!

[@shemskillman3721]

Thank you sir for your explanation it really cleared things up for me - I hope this gets more views! May God bless you brother

[@chapter404th]

Thank you. This should have more views!

[@angelmirmartinez9096]

Hi, I think there is an error on the interpretation of Leviticus 25:49. It is not talking about a foreign slave who can redeem himself but an Israelite servant who works for a foreign boss... Pay attention to verse 47 where it Clearly states it is an Israelite bought by a foreigner. As stated in the text of the chapter the foreigner couldn't redeem himself, but... It is interesting to notice that the context implies that even a foreign "slave" could prosper in that way that he might buy his own servant. It differs a lot with modern slavery. It is also very important to note that even in the cases of foreigners, they entered in the work relationship with their bosses willingly. It was volitional. It implies that something very important that is missing in the text is happening so that it is still appealing for foreigners to enter in a permanent work relationship.

[@Allothersweretakenn]

Correct

[@ufpride83]

The best part about being a Zoroastrian is you never have to defend slavery because Ahura Mazda and his prophet Zarathustra proclaimed slavery and bondage as evil thousands of years before any of the Abrahmic religions could figure it out 😅😅😅

[@PastorMarc]

I am curious if you actually watched the video? I only ask because it seems odd that, given what was discussed in it, you would frame the issue as "defending slavery". If you did not watch it, I would recommend that you do. If you did watch, I would ask, what problem you find with it. As I point out, backed up with Scripture, is that what we typically mean by "slavery" is indeed forbidden under OT Law.

[@ufpride83]

@@PastorMarcall forms of slavery are evil. No matter how you slice it slavery is evil including the slavery practiced and condoned in the Bible. Like i said, the whole exercise where you’re performing mental gymnastics as to how this slavery is different from that slavery is completely non existent in the Zoroastrian religion because Ahura Mazda is unequivocally clear that ALL slavery is evil. There is no such proclamation in the Bible which is why you’re here doing this exercise where you put lipstick on your biblical slavery pig. Maybe one day the abrahmic religions will figure out what Zarathustra figured out thousands of years ago, all slavery and bondage is evil. But sadly in 2023 y’all are still hopelessly lost on the topic because you’re too busy trying to make your Iron Age mentality correct

[@masayaskitchens3542]

That intro caught me off guard

[@PastorMarc]

Ha, yeah. It's a play on my last name, Lambert. There's an old cartoon about a lion named Lambert who thought he was a sheep until one day a wolf attacked the flock. I thought it was fun, but it seemed kinda goofy, so I stopped using it.

[@joshridinger3407]

there are three different law codes dealing with slavery in the bible, in leviticus, exodus, and deuteronomy. they contradict each other pretty explicitly (this alone is proof that the pentateuch was not all written by moses, with a direct line from god). in fact, between exodus and deuteronomy, one is pretty obviously a direct revision of the other. while apologists sometimes do just flat out lie, they get most of their mileage by cherry picking, by equivocating between & conflating the least bad-looking parts of each law code. but when correcting apologists, one should take care to note that these law codes probably did not apply to the same communities all at the same time (if they even applied in practice; they possibly only represented the wishful ideals of some school of scribes). in the leviticus law code, israelites can not be enslaved at all. if they fall into debt to fellow israelites, they must be treated as hired laborers, and their debt is forgiven on the year of jubilee. the year of jubilee happens every 50th year, so your term of debt can be anywhere from 1 to 49 years. israelites who fall into debt with a wealthy resident foreigner can be redeemed, but if their family can’t afford to redeem them, they also go free on the year of jubilee. none of this applies to non-israelites, who can without exception be enslaved as chattel for life, bought and sold, etc. israelites are not to be treated "harshly" or "ruthlessly" (whatever that means). but by contrast israelites are implicitly allowed to treat non-israelite slaves "harshly" or "ruthlessly". note: this doesn’t mean that all foreigners or resident aliens are treated harshly in israel, only that they can be treated so if they are slaves. in the exodus law code, israelites can be enslaved. however, adult male (and only adult male) israelite slaves are limited to a term of 6 years. they are set free on the 7th, but walk away with nothing. female israelite slaves, and any children they bear to an enslaved husband, are explicitly chattel slaves for life. there are regulations on how harshly slaves can be treated - if you maim them, they must be set free. if you beat them so badly they die within 2 days, you are to be 'punished' - possibly this involves execution, but likely, since 'eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth' doesn't apply, neither does 'life for a life'. if however they take more than a couple days to die from the beating, or if they survive (obviously) there's no punishment. normally, battery or manslaughter would be settled with monetary restitution, but in this case, the offender is also the owner of the victim's body, hence "he is his silver." it is also possible these regulations on beatings apply only to israelite slaves, but the text doesn't specifically say so. the deuteronomy law code mirrors the exodus law code, with the exceptions that female israelite slaves go free as the israelite males do on their 7th year, and israelite slaves are given provisions after their service term ends. clearly someone in ancient judah felt that the exodus law code was not quite the perfect word of a morally perfect god. both the exodus and deuteronomy codes include a bondsman oath: an israelite could, instead of going free after their term, swear that he loves his master, and be marked as permanent property of his master by being pierced through the ear with an awl. however the exodus law code lays the exploitative roots of this practice bare. firstly, israelite slaves “go free with nothing”, perpetuating a cycle of poverty that would inevitably bring them right back into debt slavery. secondly, recall that under the exodus law code, female israelites do not go free as the males do (this is stated explicitly). If a master gives one of his female slaves to a male slave as a wife, that woman, and any children born to the couple, remain his property after the male slave goes free. the bondsman oath is given - explicitly, mind, this doesn’t have to be read into the text - as a way for an impoverished man to stay and live with his wife and children. the deuteronomy law code retains the bondsman oath, though removes the more exploitative reasons one might make take such an oath. it's also worth noting that the book of judges tells us that the israelites enslaved many of the "canaanites" instead of exterminating them, and then we have the genesis geneiologies and other etiological stories like the 'curse of ham'. now we know from archeology, genetic testing, textual analysis, linguistics, etc. that 'israelites' in fact emerged from 'canaanites' in some way (even if the exodus story is true, all it really means is that they migrated to egypt for a while before coming back and fighting against their cousins). what all this seems to indicate is that israel had something of an underclass, subject to, if not chattel slavery, then some kind of corvee labor*, based on ancestry. but because these people were essentially israelites themselves, the 'people of the land' of the later post-exilic period, their enslavement had to be rationalized by othering them. hence they were identified as 'canaanites', and given a geneology that splits them off from israel all the way back to noah's sons. a people who were, according to judges, lucky that their masters hadn't simply exterminated them as yahweh had originally commanded, and could be safely blamed for anything and everything that ever went wrong for the country. lastly, the prohibition of kidnapping almost certainly does not apply to raiding foreign communities for slaves (as we see in numbers and judges, this was sometimes practiced, and the only problem yahweh seemed to have with it is that it lead the "israelites" to adopt "idolatry" from the "canaanites"). therefore it would not have applied in any capacity against, say, the trans atlantic slave trade. *(i would argue corvee labor is not really inherently less evil than slavery. king leopold would boast that he was a holy crusader against slavery due to his wars with arab slavers, while his enforcers butchered peasants in his congo free state who didn't meet the rubber quota. such is the wages of legal reductionism - those peasants weren't technically property, after all.)

[@festeringboils3205]

Well done 👍

[@lugialover09]

I won't argue that the slavery in Israelite culture was the same as our modern understanding of slavery as practiced in the South. Because it wasn't. However, it's STILL slavery. Buying and permanent ownership of human beings. There is no debt to work off here. These people are kept indefinitely. Is that okay? Is that something that God should have allowed? Shouldn't God have forbidden that? Why didn't he? You ironically left out the context of Leviticus 25:49. It is referring ONLY to Israelite slaves working under a foreigner, not foreign slaves which is what the verses 44-46 are referring to. The forbidding of kidnapping has no bearing on the legality of slavery. It merely stops a certain method of obtaining slaves. Once again, this has no relevance to 25:44-46. Foreign slave traders can go kidnap people wherever and bring them to market in the Israelite camp. The slaves are then bought and kept indefinitely. And the Israelite has done absolutely nothing wrong in the eyes of the judges or God.

[@PastorMarc]

As was pointed out in the video, taking everything into context, what you are describing about ownership of human beings and slave markets is not condoned or justifiable under the Mosaic Law. Even if that were what was taking place in Israel, it is in clear violation of what God had stated should be the case. Indeed, later prophets point to Israel's mistreatment of foreigners as one of the reasons they come under God's judgment.

[@lugialover09]

@@PastorMarc Leviticus is a component of Mosaic Law. Leviticus 25:44-46 refers to the purchase and ownership of human beings. I never argue that slavery as a concept is explicitly celebrated or praised in Mosaic Law. However, as it is a practice that is allowed (otherwise, it would have been openly condemned), it obviously IS justifiable. I would also argue that even though it is not openly encouraged, the mere allowance of it implicitly condones it. Later prophets' opinions have no impact on what was allowed at the time. Clearly, if God did not want them practicing slavery, a commandment forbidding slavery of any kind would have been present in the law. So you have roughly two options: 1. The Mosaic Law did not originate with God and was created by man though the Bible states the law did come from God. 2. God did give the Mosaic Law and therefore permitted the Israelites to own other human beings indefinitely (among other concerning acts). This would seem to be in contrast with God's apparent all-loving and unchanging nature because, from what I know, Christians don't consider much of the Mosaic Law to apply anymore.

[@PastorMarc]

@@lugialover09 Or option 3, you're misunderstanding what the Law is saying regarding "slavery", and ot does not in fact mean people can be owned as property. Tyler Vela has done considerable work on this issue. I would point you to his website where he goes into great detail about why owning people as property is not what the OT is describing. freedthinkerpodcast.blogspot.com/2018/12/collected-works-on-slavery-and-bible.html?m=1

[@lugialover09]

@@PastorMarc "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. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life" I'm sorry, but how on earth am I misunderstanding what these two verses are saying? "You may also buy" - purchasing of other human beings "...they will become your property" - ownership of other human beings "You may bequeath them to your children..." - more evidence of ownership to the point of handing them down as an inheritance "...make them slaves for life" - indefinite ownership How is this NOT slavery? Regardless if it is not the exact same form of slavery practiced in the antebellum South, it is obviously a form of slavery. Not to be mean, but option 4: The Mosaic Law and the Bible were created by man to suit its needs during antiquity, and the Abrahamic god does not exist. I'm not saying this is the case, but it certainly is an option.

[@PastorMarc]

This was also addressed in the video. The Hebrew language was a very small vocabulary. Words have many meanings which are nuanced by context. The language of buying and selling and property is also contractual language. Even in modern English we sometimes do the same thing. And the verses in question are situated in a passage about how Israelites are to be released from their debts in the year of Jubilee which is tied to the issue of land ownership as a part of their covenant with God ... which does not apply to foreigners since they are not party to the covenant and cannot own land. And passing a debt or bond from parent to child is not odd or in any way stating that the servant is "owned". And all of the other laws of the OT re servants (which also says to not mistreat foreigners or deny them justice) would still apply.

[@Iamwrongbut]

In the transatlantic slave trade, many slaves were sold to European slave traders by native Africans. In that view, if someone were to buy a slave from them, it would be allowed under Leviticus 25:44-46. Thus, even though man stealing was prohibited by the OT, buying foreign slaves was not. If you believe the Bible is inerrant, then you must say that at least under the old covenant, it was lawful to buy and own slaves as PROPERTY. Please tell me how that doesn’t fit the “context.”

[@PastorMarc]

The video actually explains that, so I am not sure what you are trying to say.

[@Iamwrongbut]

So you believe that it is okay to legally own another person as property?

[@PastorMarc]

@@Iamwrongbut I think that it is pretty obvious from the video that not only do I NOT think that, but I also do not think that the Bible teaches that, and I explained why.

[@Justinsatiable]

@@PastorMarc no it didn't. You're conflating the slave laws for the Hebrews with that of foreign slaves.

[@eddie7098]

Show me where in Leviticus where God permits the Israelites to buy foreign slaves that were kidnapped and forced into slavery 🤦🏾‍♂️

[@DesGardius-me7gf]

There’s simply no “explanation” for Leviticus 25:44-46.

[@charlesswedenburg9449]

this video is an explanation

[@TheBuildKingR]

i find it amazing how you are trying to justify slavery, but don't take satanism for example into "context". Owning a person is wrong and there is no justification for that, regardless. The bible is wrong bottom line, and saying shit like paying off x...

[@PastorMarc]

No one is trying to justify slavery. What is being described in the OT in not "slavery" as we understand it. As was explained in the video, "slavery" in the OT was not "owning a person."

[@PastorMarc]

@Aria As was gone into in detail in the video, the is an entire legal and cultural framework in which that statement is made that indicates it cannot mean ownership of persons as objects.

[@rickeydeyoung9096]

@Aria My parents have a debt on a property and if they were to die then it would be my brother, sister's, and I to pay off the debt. In the same way, if the person who we owe money to for the property were to die then we would owe that money to whoever that person says is his heir. In the same way the "Slaves" debt would still be owed to the heir, therefore they would still have to work to pay off the debt. Based on the scriptures cited in the video talking about foreigners being treated justly, when the debt is payed off the person would have to be left free or it would be considered kidnapping them.

[@bakedbeans5494]

@@rickeydeyoung9096 Nope.

[@rickeydeyoung9096]

@@bakedbeans5494 very thorough argument. Well reasoned and backed up with evidence.

[@Justinsatiable]

Lol how are you a pastor and cant figure out that the Hebrew slaves are under different rules and that foreign slaves are PROPERTY including their children. A foreigner and a foreign slave are different classes.

[@PastorMarc]

That was the whole point of this video. I unpacked biblically how that interpretation does not follow given the immediate context of Leviticus 25 and the full scope of what is taught about slavery and foreigners in the Bible.

[@Justinsatiable]

@@PastorMarc you lumped foreign people with foreign slaves and they are not the same things. Two very different social classes

[@Justinsatiable]

Lev 25:45b-46a "they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life." That's not indentured servitude.

[@krayziejerry]

Did you know The Bible also says, "there is no God?" You can make The Bible say anything when there's no context.

[@Justinsatiable]

@@krayziejerry I made no such mistake. The passage I referenced is very much in context and very much refers to perpetual forced slavery

[@krayziejerry]

@@Justinsatiable You know, it's funny because if you read the context of the whole passage right after Leviticus 25:45-46, the very next couple of verses talks about the voluntarily servitude to pay off debt that they owe and that they are able to redeem themselves from the debt. Leviticus 25:47-53 “‘If a foreigner residing among you becomes rich and any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to the foreigner or to a member of the foreigner’s clan, 48 they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves. One of their relatives may redeem them: 49 An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in their clan may redeem them. Or if they prosper, they may redeem themselves. 50 They and their buyer are to count the time from the year they sold themselves up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for their release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired worker for that number of years. 51 If many years remain, they must pay for their redemption a larger share of the price paid for them. 52 If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, they are to compute that and pay for their redemption accordingly. 53 They are to be treated as workers hired from year to year; you must see to it that those to whom they owe service do not rule over them ruthlessly." The verses from 47-53 says that a voluntarily servant can be redeemed of debt and that they are considered workers and not to be treated ruthlessly, but of course, I can see why people believe that The Bible condones chattel slavery without the proper contextual reading of the passages mentioned above. Also, it is worth mentioning that in the newer translations of the The Bible, servants was changed to slaves.

[@krayziejerry]

@@Justinsatiable By the way, God freed the Israelited from chattel slaverryfrom Egypt. Why would He permit such thing? It makes zero sense.

[@Justinsatiable]

@@krayziejerry the thing about context is that it's supplementary to the text. It doesn't override the text. The passage in Leviticus 25 speaks mostly about Hebrew servants which is why when it makes mention of the forced slaves, it ends the note with "but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly". Based on plain logic, either the text refers to a group of non-hebrews and also Hebrews, or only Hebrews. But it cannot be only Hebrews because you can't be a perpetual forced slave and a temporary worker at the same time. This isn't complicated stuff. If you're going to make a claim on context you still have to address the unambiguous part directly in the text.

[@C.Noble13]

IsRaEl UK lords Mann bread UK United kingdom of Israeli's Queen Bishops Ops.