Slavery in the Bible: Answering Atheist Critiques

[@ForgivenDoomer]

Thank you so much for all the work you do for Christ. From being a Pastor to being an amazing theologian who earnestly seeks for truth. This channel has had a tremendous impact on my walk with the Lord and has caused me to understand theology at such a wonderful depth. Thanks again Gavin, looking forward to reading your upcoming book. God bless you🙏🏼

[@ZacharyTLawson]

47:39 “Some people think the worst part of the American slave trade was the hypocrisy. I disagree. I think it was the slavery.” - Norm MacDonald

[@ajrthrowaway]

🤭🤭🤭

[@famiahamid]

Way to ignore the remaining hour or so.

[@blazers1177]

and everyone would agree with you, free brownie points congrats

[@dylanplaner2193]

People don't know norm macdonald is a comedian lol

[@Imheretohelpnhavefun]

To be fair, in the context he's talking about it in comparison with other slave systems in history.

[@Nighthawkinlight]

Thanks for dealing with the more difficult texts in this one. Good take.

[@justchilling704]

Difficult only if read out of context from poorer translations. Either way, the Hebrews weren’t permitted by God to practice chattal slavery.

[@Tinesthia]

@@justchilling704 God made the clear distinction that Hebrews couldn’t own Hebrews as chattel slaves because of their previous slavery in Egypt, but Hebrews owning foreigners as chattel slaves was perfectly okay and permitted by God. It is only if you take scripture our or context that you can claim Hebrews were not permitted to own chattel slaves.

[@highroller-jq3ix]

@@justchilling704 Except that they absolutely were and did.

[@justchilling704]

@@Tinesthia Reread my comment, stop making arguments form translations. A clear study of word using in the original language and modern translations even, show your ignorant comment to be bs. In ancient Hebrew the words for “buy” and “acquire” aren’t distinctly separate, you know that that means? Word usage and context determines the meaning in a specific case. This means you need to show by treatment and legal status that Hebrews were divinely sanctioned to have chattal slaves. What irritates me the most with people like you, is that you don’t have a genuine desire to learn and understand the literature and it shows, when I first did research into this area, it took me a few KZbin videos and google searches to find out about the linguistics and why some translations are better than others.

[@justchilling704]

@@highroller-jq3ix Read my above reply. I don’t care about your opinion. I care about facts.

[@cannon9521]

I weirdly wish these kinds of videos were longer especially Truth Unites videos lol

[@TruthUnites]

I was worried this one was a bit too long, so thanks for the feedback!

[@goyonman9655]

@@TruthUnites As a Christian from Nigeria, I'm sure the Bible and my faith permits slavery

[@TheEpicProOfMinecraf]

​@@TruthUnitesNot every video needs to be this length, but Mike Winger has demonstrated the sheer appetite for long, detailed content.

[@ProfYaffle]

​@TruthUnites not too long at all. Actually, what is remarkable is how short it is, given the rich content (this is the same for all your videos, so never feel you need to rush). I thought I had found all the answers about slavery, but you have brought new information. This is the video on slavery in the we have been looking for. Thank you.

[@ProfYaffle]

​@@TruthUnitesthe longer the video the fitter I get, cos I listen to them while running (slowly)😄

[@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom]

Amazing video, Gavin! Thank you for taking the time to put this together in such a digestible & organized manner.

[@BrianWright-mi3lc]

Love your videos too Brandon!

[@acebailey2478]

This comment is more constructive than anything you ever do on your channel. You're one of the best guys on KZbin at showing someone else's video, with your face in the corner, giving the occasional "yep."

[@Fassnight]

@@acebailey2478 Stay in your lane, man. Even if what you said were true, Brandon is still doing good work.

[@acebailey2478]

@@Fassnight I do believe this is a free comments section. Brandon straight up grabs other videos, then sits in the corner adding literally nothing to them besides "so true." "Listen to this right here." It's lazy and unconstructive. Perhaps it's just a grift to make money, if so, good for him for finding such an easy method.

[@BrianWright-mi3lc]

@@acebailey2478 I like his videos. I think he's giving us exactly what the channel promises a "daily does of wisdom". Don't feel at all that he is doing it disingenuously. Sorry you feel that way. Definitely doesn't call for this kind of behavior either way, though.

[@derrickcarson]

Dude, I truly don't understand why you don't have more subscribers. Your videos are always thorough, on time, and on point!

[@jasonleslie4349]

Exactly because you don't seem to understand 1 human being treating another human being as property is wrong!!!

[@avishevin3353]

... and wrong.

[@mr.awsome1288]

I know I love the long-form and in-depth content that he creates

[@Frank-np4sp]

@@avishevin3353big ole’ nothin burger

[@sndpgr]

I really like this kind of long detailed apologetic content made with humility and precision. Thank you Gavin! I wished this was longer!

[@Kakaragi]

MindShift though made his rebuttal to this video though

[@Владислав-ы9м5у]

Wait, wait. Why do you need to 'apologize' presumably good and moral scripture? Don't you see a contradiction?

[@sndpgr]

@@Владислав-ы9м5у so you don’t know what apologetics means !

[@TheEpicProOfMinecraf]

I have been waiting for this one!!

[@BibleSongs]

Your patient and irenic presentation is inspiring and admirable.

[@ninjason57]

I've been wanting to do a deep dive into this topic because it's always brought up by both believers and nonbelievers. Now that you've done the leg work I can piggy back! Thanks for all your hard work!

[@jtbasener8740]

I am very excited to hear of your thoughts on this! I have been wrestling with this issue a lot recently and I look forward to watching. Thank you, Dr. Ortlund! God bless! Edit: an hour later, 11:20 at night and I have listened to the whole thing. I love the points you brought up and the note on which it ended and am most certainly looking foward to the Canaan discussion.

[@rachaelgervasio1925]

Thank you for this! Mike Winger has responded to this issue a couple times and that really helped me. But this is such a great supplement to that. As always, your inclusion of historical opinions and contexts help greatly. Also your inclusion of specific modern day objections and responding to them was helpful. I honestly would have been fine with this being longer but perhaps it was wise to keep it to where you did for the sake of broader viewership.

[@ProfYaffle]

Agree

[@justchilling704]

Personally I think the best videos to date on this that I know of, is this one itself, the one Gavin linked, Tekton TV’s playlist, and Whaddo U Memes responses to Cosmic Skeptic. At least in addition to Winger’s videos.

[@gospelfreak5828]

This was the first serious doubt I had to wrestle with when I started out as a believer. I’m glad you’re addressing this important topic

[@Reclaimer77]

By lying and making excuses for slavery? Oookay. God enslaved people. God ordered genocides. God flooded the whole planet. You are worshipping the evil bloodthirsty genocidal God of the Middle East. He's the same as Allah. His redemption arc?? Oh yeah doing human sacrifice torture and blood magic on his own son. Much better than that Old Testament stuff right!? Feel the love man! God loves you.... 😂

[@gospelfreak5828]

@@okeydokey6097 Allowing and approving is different. The Bible is still Holy

[@bruh-wn7ko]

​@@okeydokey6097 Slavery in the Old Testament was more of an economic status and paying off debts. Of course, there were exceptions like prisoners of war being in chattel slavery, but this was overall a common practice between the nations. God allowed the Israelites to have slaves, but he had there be stipulations to treat them fairly-which they didn't respect-and they got exiled for failing to be faithful. Slavery, like other practices such as the two fabrics, no sorcery, divination, and the like were civil laws. They were meant for the Israelites to follow, not us, because Jesus hadn't incarnated yet. I'd say a better perspective on this would be understanding that Leviticus is a historical document. They're there for us to know what happened, even if it may come off as 'Unholy,' but not everything in the Bible was meant for us to look at and go "Wow! God is so amazing for doing this!" 💀

[@DrakonPhD]

​@@okeydokey6097Why do you think slavery is bad? It's simply the natural result of the strong dominating the weak. Any naturalist worldview should be ambivalent towards it. The fact you (rightfully) find it immoral is a sign naturalism is false.

[@bruh-wn7ko]

@@okeydokey6097 Like I said, it was an economic thing. Foreigners could sell children to the Israelites as slaves for paying debts, which the practice in general was heavily criticized by biblical authors. I honestly don't know what use would the children be either, so I see your confusion.

[@truthovertea]

I have been waiting for you to cover this!

[@chasewhitney]

"I'm convinced it's true. Happiest thought of my life. I think it's true." Beautiful. Thank you, Gavin.

[@rembrandt972ify]

The truth will set you free, but freedom is cold hard and frightening. And lies can be warm and beautiful.

[@paulcho7898]

Ty Pastor Gavin, grateful for you videos and ministry! May God continue to use you 🙏 praying for you!

[@murrayv08]

Dear Gavin, I believe Peter Williams is mistaken in his claim that the Lex Fufia Caninia imposed a legal limit on the manumission of slaves. This law only restricted the number of slaves that a master could manumit by will. As the Roman jurist Gaius explains, the law permits a master to manumit his entire household while he is still living. I pointed this out to Dr. Williams in an email correspondence in 2017. He graciously acknowledged that I was correct and that he would need to stop using this argument. I've done some research on the issue of slavery in the NT that you might find helpful in answering the critics. Some of it is available on my website, but most is still forthcoming. Feel free to reach out if you would like to discuss this issue more. Thanks for the excellent work you do on this channel!

[@rbrainsop1]

I've done my own deep dive into the issue of slavery in the old testament particularly. But as a layperson I might have misunderstood what I read or missed important context and nuances. So I would love to hear what an actual scholar has to say about what I found, if you don't mind. In a nutshell, I'm not convinced the old testament law was talking about slavery at all. It seems to me that the key element of slavery, the one that determines whether we translate ebed/eved as servant (indentured or otherwise) or slave, is the issue of ownership. And I don't really see any evidence of ownership in the passages that discuss these ebed, even the foreign ones. Going forward, I'm going to use the word worker instead of ebed because it can get confusing otherwise, especially when I try to pluralize it according to English rules ;) As I've studied the passages relating to these workers, I noticed a distinction between the words used to discuss them, and the words used to discuss other things that the Hebrews could rightly be considered to own. First, there are the words baal and adon. Baal clearly implies ownership and is used to talk about a variety of things, including animals, houses, pits, arrows, loans, etc (even wives). But it is never once used for a worker. In fact, in Exodus 21, the word baal appears 13 times, but whenever it talks about workers, it switches to the word adon/lord, which implies authority but not ownership. Exodus 21:32 distinguishes between the baal of an ox and the adon of a worker within the same sentence. It's also worth mentioning that the Israelites are never said to be baal of the land. In Leviticus 25:23, God clearly states that the land belongs to him and the Israelites are only tenant farmers. Then in the next three words, he calls that land (that they can possess but not own) their achuzzah. Which is the word used 22 verses later to describe foreign workers in the infamous Leviticus 25:44-46. This seems to indicate that achuzzah implies possession rather than ownership. This conclusion is supported by two things: 1) The way it is used throughout the old testament. Of 66 appearances, 63 are in reference to the land, two are in reference to the workers in Leviticus 25, and one refers to God as our achuzzah (definitely not someone we own). Only two of these occurrences (excepting potentially the workers) are in situations where ownership is assumed- when Abraham purchases the field and cave to bury Sarah in, and in Joshua 22:19, when God is said to possess the land. 2) The root word achaz, which means to grasp, take hold, or take possession, is overwhelmingly (63/68 occurrences) used to describe temporary possession (like grasping someone's hand or cloak), and never used to describe taking ownership of something. In fact, 2 Samuel 2:21 differentiates between taking hold (achaz) of someone temporarily and taking (laqach) their armor as your own. The word achuzzah is never once used to describe livestock, houses, tools, weapons, clothes, precious metals, or gems- things that could be owned. There was another word for those things- rekush- which, in turn, is never used to describe workers (or the land). Over and over again, I see a linguistic differentiation between things the Israelites owned, like livestock (where the words baal/owner and rekush/property are used) and things which they didn't own, like the land and (I'm arguing) human workers (where the words adon/lord and achuzzah/possession are used). Even in Leviticus 25:46, when it talks about giving these workers to your children as an inheritance, it specifies that you would be passing them on as an achuzzah. And both words used to talk about inheritance (nachal and yarash) are only used in this way when talking about passing down the land, which they don't own. In those circumstances, the father is passing down stewardship of the land, rather than ownership. It seems to me that the main reason for limiting Hebrew workers to seven year contracts while allowing foreigners to become workers "for life" comes down to the land. Israelites had an allotment to return to. Foreigners didn't. So if they wanted to commit to working for a family for the rest of their lives, that was job security. When it comes to buying and selling, the words translated as buy (qaneh and miqnah) are used for explicit lease agreements far more often than for explicit purchases within the law code, so we can't say with certainty which meaning was intended in the passages about foreign workers. As for selling (makar) people- beyond the passage about the father "selling" his daughter (which in context is clearly talking about marriage and dowries) and a thief being sold to pay for what he stole (a judicial sentence- working off his/her debt), there is a very clear pattern. Either it is describing a person selling themselves or it is expressly forbidden. So it seems like, within the law, the only person allowed to sell a worker was the worker in question. In all this, I don't see any evidence that the law viewed these workers as owned property in any circumstances, whether talking about Hebrews or foreigners. So that's why I really don't think it's talking about slavery at all. But of course, I am not a scholar. I might have missed or misunderstood something, and there is certainly context or nuances that I'm unaware of. So if you have the time to share your own insights, I would love to hear your take on it. There's obviously much more to the issue, but I didn't want to write even more of a novel, especially since I don't know if you'll have the time or inclination to engage in this discussion with me.

[@justchilling704]

@@rbrainsop1You’re correct, it in fact is not talking about slavery Hebrews practiced a form of servitude. Even Jacob was bonded to his uncle for 7 years to marry his second wife, it’s obviously foolish to say Jacob was his uncles “slave”.

[@jtbasener8740]

​@@rbrainsop1 I sincerely appreciate the thoughts you have raised here. When considering the discussion of whether or not it is moral to "own" another human being, you need to define what "Ownership" entails. For instance, if you're familiar with 19th-century literature, such one of my favorite novels, Jane Eyere, you would be well aware of the context of rich families "Owning" household servants. The servants, like Jane, were owned by their masters, worked for their masters, and lived off their masters homes; but nobody would say that there is something inherently immoral about the rich upper class having servants, because it was all by the free will and consent of the servant. Although there are quite a few differences of cultures and circumstance between Victorian England and ancient Isreal, I, for one, cannot find much of a difference between the principles behind the Abed of the Hebrews and the servants of the Darcys.

[@scottb4579]

@@rbrainsop1 Thank you. This was very helpful

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

What is your website? Have you read condensed Anti Slavery Bible argument by George Bourne? It changed my view on slavery. Have you read Granville Sharp on slavery? Have you read the 1700 argument against slavery by the puritan judge? Have you read the recent book of sermons by reformed Baptists against the slave trade and slavery? It shows there was a multiple view of different passages on slavery, specifically if slavery was always sin or if it was temporarily allowed for Gentiles.

[@KaneSanMiguel]

I’m at the 48:11 mark, still listening, but wanted to pause and leave this comment. As a believer, slavery, Numbers 31, and the slaughter of the Canaanite’s are the three biggest issues I struggle with. I think you’ve made a couple of interesting points that I hadn’t heard before, so thank you for that. I can totally appreciate all of this from a social/ historical perspective. But even if I grant everything you’ve said so far, my personal THEOLOGICAL challenge still remains: What do these laws say about the power and character of God? For me, I haven’t been able to reconcile how the all powerful , all knowing, objectively morally good God who was able to do such incredible miracles chose to sustain a people group with the institution of slavery in tact. If we believe He performed miracles to sustain His people, it’s not a stretch to say that He did not *have* to keep slavery in tact (because He doesn’t *have to* do anything). He chose to. God is all knowing. God is all powerful. God is the foundation of our moral guidance. He gives us the ability to “ground” our “objective” moral positions. God cannot contradict Himself. God is UNCHANGING. Slavery in all forms is morally wrong. And yet… God gives provisions for slavery and says His people (the Israelites) may have them. To me, “progressing” slavery is still slavery. Comparing to American slavery is irrelevant. Comparing to anything else is irrelevant. How the slaves were acquired is irrelevant. How the slaves were treated is irrelevant. Whether they could gain their freedom is irrelevant. Everything rests on this question: If God told a Jewish person in 500 BC that he may acquire a slave to own as property regardless of the reason, would that be morally OK? Would it go against God’s character? The problem is that the answer to both of those questions, to me, is “No” - which begs the question of the character of the God we serve. Anyway… Thank you for this video. I’m going to finish watching. If anything changes for me, I’ll come back to edit this comment.

[@matOpera]

Why would the answer be “No”? In all humility, brother, have you considered that there is simply a righteous way to own a slave, and that your visceral revulsion at the idea is an artifact of your cultural upbringing?

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

@@matOperaGods laws on slavery are no different than many laws in modern America today.. I agree with you that Christians are blind to this because A: they aren’t reading the Bible and B: the emotional baggage of antebellum slavery is more powerful in their consciences

[@danhoff4401]

​@@matOperaif you find yourself defending slavery in the comments section it's time to take a step back and consider that you may in fact be the bad guy.

[@matOpera]

@@danhoff4401 There’s no logical substance to that argument. You cannot have a coherent moral position that contradicts God.

[@danhoff4401]

@@matOpera that's a ridiculously ignorant thing to say mat. There's plenty of different moral systems that don't require a diety and it misses the point that this is an internal critique. You're choosing to bite a bullet here right. Slavery isn't really immoral. That has to be your position and you should reconsider if that makes you the good guy here and by extension if Christianity is actually true.

[@carlidoepke5131]

Great message, Gavin! So much time and thought put into these important topics to engage our culture today! So appreciate your work.

[@blaketmoran]

I’ve been waiting for this video! I am legitimately bothered by the rhetoric used to beat Christians to a pulp by atheists and agnostics. This is one of those topics that has made me doubt the most and I’m glad you are tackling it head on. The way you deal with tough questions with such charity is really telling Gavin, thank you 🙏

[@wet-read]

What rhetoric is that, exactly?

[@JesusRodriguez-gu1wv]

​@wet-read God commanded that the Israelites practice chatte slavery. Slavery like the ones done in Egypt and the Atlantic slave trade and commanded you treat them like property. This is untrue as God condemned it not supported it.

[@bettytigers]

Like an expert tennis player, you don't always smash the truth (ball) to win the point, sometimes a slight deflection or allowing the opponents ball to go beyond the boundary of the court does the job of graciously winning fair and square, and then shaking his hand without being patronising! Well done Mr Laver!

[@nickbrasing8786]

@@wet-read "What rhetoric is that, exactly?" Bible verses?

[@Alex_Pinkney]

Faith Because of Reason also has a great KZbin video on this issue

[@janiejackson234]

Very thankful for this video. Thank you for such in depth work on this difficult topic!

[@TruthUnites]

thank you, friend! :)

[@evangreen23]

Great video Gavin! I love that you are addressing this. This is a troubling topic and I think there is very few good works done on it in video form! Very encouraging!

[@jimisoulman6021]

Great video Dr Ortlund. God bless you and your work.

[@Telorchid]

Going back to finish this since your newer response to critiques of this video has dropped. Appreciate the resources mentioned from Sklar and Wright.

[@DrKippDavis]

@TruthUnites I think that your video-like most apologetic approaches to this difficult issues-makes numerous errors in your handling, especially, of the Hebrew Bible and ancient Near Eastern literature. My colleague, Dr. Josh Bowen, and I have spent considerable time engaging the public on the topic of biblical slavery, and we think it would be beneficial if you would agree to have an open conversation about it, given the several places in which this video skews critical approaches to the biblical texts. The invitation for you to join us for a friendly exchange is open.

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

This^^^

[@DigitalHammurabi]

I hope he takes you up on this.

[@DrKippDavis]

@@DigitalHammurabi Give the people what they want.

[@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111]

I look forward to you guys inviting Rabbi Tovia Singer to a discussion on the texts of the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish understanding of those verses. Singer has been on MythVision, so it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to have him in a discussion.

[@AlanCanon2222]

He knows he'll lose. I bet he never will.

[@leemorrison9006]

Fabulous job, and this was so needed! I'll be sharing this like crazy. Thrilled that you'll be doing the slaughter of the Canaanites! Gavin, I agree with others that you shouldn't hesitate to make videos however long is needed to make a strong case. Limits on the right to vote is another example of how something wrong can be such a strong cultural norm that you shouldn't condemn people of the past as immoral for not abolishing it.

[@MrAwombat]

This is the best video/lecture I've ever seen on this topic. Thank you Dr. Ortlund!

[@bradleymarshall5489]

I mean Gregory of Nyssa was basically the first person ever to unambiguously condemn slavery when it was universally accepted everywhere for all of time.

[@thedude0000]

what about the other 1800+ years where the VAST MAJORITY of Christians bought, sold & owned slaves? 1) The Venice Slave trade (operated by Christians & condoned by the church) transported MILLIONS of slaves throughout the Middle Ages. 2) 1455 the church issued a series of papal bulls that allowed Portugal to capture and transport African slaves to the new world...THE BEGINNING OF THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE.

[@rembrandt972ify]

Wang Mang, first and only emperor of the Xin dynasty, usurped the Chinese throne and instituted a series of sweeping reforms, including the abolition of slavery and radical land reform from 9-12 A.D. However, this and other reforms turned popular and elite sentiment against Wang Mang, and slavery was reinstituted after he was killed by an angry mob in 23 A.D.

[@brokenrecord3095]

hmm so I guess you're admitting the authors of the Bible didn't unambiguously condemn slavery. Neither Jesus of Nazareth.

[@bradleymarshall5489]

@@brokenrecord3095 I would say one of the problems is even using that approach to scripture. The exegetical method utilized by Gregory makes that objection nonsensical and irrelevant.

[@thedude0000]

an yet...for another 1500+ years after Gregory, Christian history demonstrates how slavery was integral part of Christian society. Venice Slave Trade - operated throughout the Middle ages 1453-1455 papal bulls allowed Portugal to essentially start the Atlantic Slave Trade These are just two examples....there are literally millions more of Christians practicing slavery.

[@megaloschemos9113]

Thanks Gavin, this is one of the best breakdowns on this topic. I will definitely go over this and look into this area in more detail 💯

[@bt6248]

Thank you, Dr. Ortlund. Your argument is very helpful.

[@BlindBart_Mk10-51]

This is a good video im looking forward to seeing your video on the Canaanite conquest.

[@alexandrethebault2637]

Thank you so much, brother Gavin. Your videos are always a breath of fresh air, faith and knowledge. God bless and please keep up the good work! Cheers from France :-)

[@melissahasart4969]

Thank you for making this video! We needed a comprehensive video on slavery. There are plenty of great videos on KZbin, but not many that are very comprehensive of all the verses.

[@DanielHackett-vf6tn]

Encouraging and informative video, Gavin. I appreciate the time and effort you spend producing these videos. God bless you and family.

[@cjstev1]

Great video! Thank you Gavin!

[@whatwecalllife7034]

One side has scholarly consensus, the other has religious apologetics. Why give more credence to those who's main goal is to defend their ideology no matter what, as opposed to those who will simply tell you the facts of the matter, regardless of how it makes any ideology look?

[@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111]

The scholarly consensus can be traced back to the antebellum period. Most, if not all, of those critics and cynics of Christianity received their education at institutions whose professors inherited the view that the institution of slavery in Old Testament times was virtually the same as that practiced in the antebellum south. The British outlawing of the slave trade and American abolition was heavily influenced by Christian theologians, pamphleteers, and preachers from the Reformation times who had a very different interpretation of Scripture than the anti-apologists and white racists of the south. For example, the distinguished German Lutheran theologian J. F. Buddeus (1667-1729), author of "Selecta juris naturae et gentium" argued that even if some blacks were legally captured or received criminal convictions leading to slavery, their offspring should not be subject to bondage by inheritance. Another example would be John Newton’s dramatic conversion from slave trader to clergyman had tremendous impact in changing the English climate of opinion. John Newton is especially known for composing the hymn "Amazing Grace."

[@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111]

There is an article from a book that I dates from 1880. It is from the series, “The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.” What is fascinating is how little the mainstream Protestants and Catholics were involved in the abolitionist movement in the antebellum period. Evidently, the consensus position back then was not to interpret the Bible as having an abolitionist trajectory. It was the evangelical branch of the Christian church, along with Bible based Unitarians such as Charles Sumner, etc. that grounded abolitionism in Divine law. Here are some quotes from the book: “The Roman Catholic and Protestant Episcopal churches never expressed an authoritative condemnation of slavery, and in the Union the influence of the Papal Church was emphatically favorable to the South, but other churches were opposed in principle to slavery, while they tolerated it in practice and tried hard to persuade themselves that slavery is right.” “The extirpation of slavery has been made a part of the mission of Protestantism. It is among Evangelical Christians alone that the evils of slavery have arrested attention, and it is chiefly through their influence that its sway has been contested." "The attitude of the Papal Church has been that of indifference or of impotency. The first place among the opponents of human slavery belongs to Great Britain, whose West-Indian colonies and naval supremacy compelled a recognition of responsibility in the matter; but the Christian spirit ruling in Protestant lands will allow none: of the nations which they shelter to rest until the last vestige of human slavery is wiped from the face of the earth.”

[@whatwecalllife7034]

@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 "The scholarly consensus can be traced back to the antebellum period." Although slavery in the antebellum period was based off of the laws prescribed in the Torah, including laws about not beating a slave too much, that is not where the scholarly consensus can be traced to. It can be traced backed to Ancient Near Eastern practices, the Hebrew from which the text originates, findings of archeology, and a study of the culture of ancient Israel.

[@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111]

@@whatwecalllife7034As far as I've read, arguments from the pro-slavery camp in the antebellum period relied upon their particular (twisted view in my opinion) of Old Testament laws and did not consider ANE practices. But at the end of the day I don't think it matters. I suspect many of the Christian slave owners might have rationalized keeping their slaves out from the thought that they were better off working the plantations than going back in Africa. If in the antebellum period slave owners heard "Bible teachers" say that back in Bible times it was normative for slaves to be brutally beaten and that raping slaves was ok also, than that would explain many of the horror stories that were shared by slaves who escaped.

[@whatwecalllife7034]

@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 "I suspect many of the Christian slave owners might have rationalized keeping their slaves out from the thought that they were better off working the plantations than going back to Africa." Ironically, that's something I often hear from apologists when they want to justify why the Hebrew people taking prisoners of war was a good thing.

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

Another great wealth of learning concerning slavery in the Bible are the three videos from Whaddo you meme??, where he responds to Alex O Connor. One of the best resources i've ever seen on Utube. Thanks Gavin, for your take on this

[@mcable217]

Look at Dr. Bowden’s (digital Hammurabi) reply to what do you meme. What do you meme unfortunately did not do research prior to his response…

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

@@mcable217 looked at Dr. Bow(no d)en's 3 videos in response to Whaddo you meme. Several times he corrects both Whaddo you meme and Alex O Connor. Overall, Dr. Bowen does not impede to the point of disabling the argument Whaddo you meme is giving concerning slavery in the Bible, especially when in concert with Dr. Gavin's video. The debate Dr. Bowen has with Dr. Michael Brown is especially helpful for further research

[@mcable217]

@@fernandoformeloza4107 I totally agree, Alex made mistakes as well and overstated his case. Scholarship is the way to go for this question, not popular skeptics/apologists.

[@eidiazcas]

Apparently reading what the bible says is never the right thing to do, you need scholarship, external historical context, or mental gymnastics like in this case to try to make it say the opposite. What a great manual!!

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

​@@eidiazcas if you look at the debate between Dr. Josh Bowen (agnostic, expert on ancient cultures and Bible scholar) and Dr. Michael Brown (Jewish Christian Bible scholar and scholar of multiple languages), they both mention that they agree on nearly every point when it comes to slavery in the Bible. This is a consensus from two opposing sides, and cannot be ignored by the christian or atheist view

[@rachelbintley9136]

Really thankful for this! Have been struggling with a lacklustre Christian response on this issue and was praying that I would eventually have answers amongst the doubt. Believe the Spirit is giving answering through this video.

[@dnjelly1063]

about time somebody addressed them. thanks!

[@AndrewBorrill-q4c]

I'm not a Christian, in large part because I don't trust the Bible as a revelation from God (slavery plays a part here). Having said that, I have to say excellent work, Gavin! This is certainly one of the best responses to this topic I have watched. Your manner of approaching these issues is what keeps me coming back to your channel; your erudition on Christian topics, combined with your charitable reading of those on the other side of the fence, make you a joy to listen to. I wish others (both Christians and atheists-I'm looking at you, Rationality Rules) could be slightly less vitriolic. On a slightly different topic, for me, Christianity stands or falls on the place of scripture as an epistemological authority. Could you do a deep dive video on why scripture (or tradition) is a source of epistemological authority and how it compares to other forms of epistemological authority (science, reason, imagination/creativity, embodied knowledge, etc.)?

[@TruthUnites]

thanks for the comments! I will consider that for a video topic. God bless.

[@josephtattum6365]

Christianity stands or falls on whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, the authority of scripture has nothing to do with that

[@emmadasilva1794]

​@@josephtattum6365But Scripture is the main source documenting Jesus' words, death, and resurrection, so it at least has to be a good authority on that topic.

[@nubianecutie]

​@@emmadasilva1794In saying this, I think you're ignoring the millions of people who were willing to endure death and harsh treatment because they believed that truth long before the scriptures were finalized.

[@emmadasilva1794]

@@nubianecutie I'm not, but I guess I could see how you could misunderstand who I am based on who I was responding to. I'm a Christian, and I think the authority of Scripture is one of the biggest legs Christianity stands or falls on.

[@JosephAlanMeador]

This is really important. Helpful stuff, thanks Gavin!!!

[@mosescosme8629]

Very close to being a perfect video, Dr Ortlund. Thank you.

[@MsGardener77]

This is an important topic apologetically. Thank you for taking it on.

[@thedude0000]

apologetically....you must obfuscate the truth in order to defend slavery in the Bible and for over 1800+ years of Christianity.

[@juilianbautista4067]

@@thedude0000lmao. the only religion that loves obfuscation is atheism. Onus is on you to show that slavery is wrong in the first place, let alone the existence of rightness and wrongness. But such concepts cannot exist apart from the God you pretend doesn't exist. Sorry!

[@crabb9966]

​@@thedude0000 watch the video before commenting

[@thedude0000]

@@crabb9966 I watched the ENTIRE video and posted comments.

[@MaxStArlyn]

@@thedude0000 Eastern Orthodox ended slavery 1000 yrs ago, WITHOUT banning it. The Eastern Orthodox Christian Roman Empire, with its capital in Constantinople (falsely named Byzantine Empire ), ended slavery 1000 yrs ago, via FREE WILL. While people groups, informed by other, denominations, world views, or other religions, doubled down on it. About 800 or so yrs later, via threat of violence, bloody civil wars, and political conflict, …slavery was banned, by FORCE. To this day, the west, still couldn’t put an end to slavery via FREE WILL, driven by TRUE Christian morality, like the Eastern Orthodox Christian, Roman Empire, led by Constantinople, achieved. Significantly, WITHOUT the need to ban slavery….of which I believe was done by design, so that the idea could spread, without the need to have backing by laws informed, by other nations, and other world views. ......”Slavery became common within much of Europe during the Dark Ages and it continued into the Middle Ages. The Byzantine-Ottoman wars (1265-1479) and the Ottoman wars in Europe (14th to 20th centuries) resulted in the capture of large numbers of Christian slaves. The Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, British, Arabs and a number of West African kingdoms played a prominent role in the Atlantic slave trade, especially after 1600. In the Eastern part of the one and only Roman (wrongly coined Byzantine) Empire, slaves became quite rare by the first half of the 7th century[1] A shift in the view of slavery is noticed, which by the 10th century transformed gradually a slave-object into a slave-subject.[2] From 11th century, semi-feudal relations largely replaced slavery, seen as "an evil contrary to nature, created by man's selfishness", although slavery was permitted by the law.”…ωικιρεδια

[@redrebelleader-7495]

This was amazing. Truly! There is so much here, and I never felt board (not like I ever do with your content). Definitely a great resource 👌🏼 Can’t wait for the next topic.

[@BrianWright-mi3lc]

Thank you for this video - it's a topic that makes people uncomfortable from the get-go, Christians included, but usually because it is not well understood or thought about. Greatly appreciate your voice on this, Gavin.

[@MaverickChristian]

11:24 to 12:02 - Summary of six points. 33:35 to 34:05 - Unprecedented practice in ANE legislation. 49:55 to 50:40 - The idea that the Bible endorses slavery. 50:41 to 51:27 - Contextualized laws 51:11 to 53:33 - Philemon case, radically counter-cultural. 54:18 to 54:47 - Tectonic tension. 1:01:15 to 1:03:10 - Gregory of Nyssa 1:03:57 to 1:04:55 - Abolitionism being a religious movement.

[@festeringboils3205]

This video is over an hour, and not one word about Lev 25:46. I’ll quote it for you: “You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever.” I’d like to think you are trying to make an honest argument, but it is hard to take you seriously when you skip the hardest verse to reconcile . At 31:50 you said you’d address this passage but you never did

[@TruthUnites]

I addressed Leviticus 25 starting at 38:45. You are correct that I didn't single out verse 46 but the comments I made about the entire passage apply to that verse as well.

[@festeringboils3205]

@@TruthUnitesVery well, then can you please single out verse 46 and explain why God can allow foreigners to be owned as slaves for life, and allowing their children to be born into slavery for life?

[@Tinesthia]

@@festeringboils3205 He tried to downplay it by repeating what Paul Copan does, that language of “ownership” today is vague therefor language of ownership in the ancient east was vague. However this language is very clear. Then he misuses the Leviticus’ passage telling Israelites to treat foreign sojourners with respect by applying it to foreign slaves, but it clearly doesn’t apply. Look up what is being referred to in the text as a sojourner: free men and women. He also misuses the passages against man stealing/kidnapping to try and argue against the practice of taking slaves, but it doesn’t. It is exclusively against theft of a person, regardless of what the thief intended to do with them. However purchasing (not theft) slaves from foreign nations and daughters from your neighbors was clearly and completely okay.

[@AK_7906]

​@@TinesthiaIf they purchased someone who was kidnapped into slavery, they were still guilty of man-stealing.

[@georgenassif5777]

Fantastic video. I do appreciate your approach to this topic but have a small gripe. What about Mathew 5:18-20 in regards to the depiction of the law. Don’t these verses portray the law as timeless?

[@Shane_The_Confessor]

Gavin kind of making a transcendental argument. I love it.

[@mokeboi3328]

Great work fella. God bless you sir

[@senorbb2150]

Slavery helped to stop generational poverty? Well I'm sure it did for the slave owner.

[@JunkerStolzing]

He referred to the jubilee year, not slavery at such

[@BoxFunk]

It's clear you haven't read the passage, the "servants" were freed and sent with enough to rebuild their life after the end of their period in servitude, of course that would help end generational poverty, the person that on his own will decided to "sell" himself as a worker would then be able to build something of his own

[@gabrielteo3636]

@@BoxFunk Read the difference between Hebrew slaves and foreign slaves. The foreign slaves were bought and the master can keep this slave for life and they can be willed to someone after the master dies. The master can also keep the foreign slave's children for life. Imaging being a slave for life, since the master can choose to keep you for life. Maybe these verses are just from only men who have not been inspired or breathed on by any deity? This probably makes more sense.

[@justjason7662]

Thank you for addressing this topic. It is probably the most vulnerable topic for debate and it must be addressed with careful scholarship. You’ve done an excellent job, and honestly I would love to see a longer form, perhaps a series on this going much deeper.

[@thomasrutledge5941]

The sheer effort, crystallized intelligence & thought that you put into apologetics is extreme. You're not normal. =D

[@rodney8075]

But you should be! Imagine the world we would live in.

[@eidiazcas]

It's called mental gymnastics and it was pretty bad, it was reduced to some were not treated so bad, it wasn't that bad

[@thomasrutledge5941]

Slavery, Gymnastics, & Divine Laziness: 1. Dr. Lawrence Krauss, "The Principle of Least Action in Classical & Quantum Worlds" kzbin.info/www/bejne/fqaaaWqEo5J7qq8si=_e3TxnNOednCQGKW 2. Taoism's Unconventional Advice on Doing Nothing kzbin.info/www/bejne/ombbhn6hqJeIY9Esi=yeLFwkpxtPnMWNj8

[@MaxStArlyn]

@@rodney8075 Eastern Orthodox ended slavery 1000 yrs ago, WITHOUT banning it. The Eastern Orthodox Christian Roman Empire, with its capital in Constantinople (falsely named Byzantine Empire ), ended slavery 1000 yrs ago, via FREE WILL. While people groups, informed by other, denominations, world views, or other religions, doubled down on it. About 800 or so yrs later, via threat of violence, bloody civil wars, and political conflict, …slavery was banned, by FORCE. To this day, the west, still couldn’t put an end to slavery via FREE WILL, driven by TRUE Christian morality, like the Eastern Orthodox Christian, Roman Empire, led by Constantinople, achieved. Significantly, WITHOUT the need to ban slavery….of which I believe was done by design, so that the idea could spread, without the need to have backing by laws informed, by other nations, and other world views. ......”Slavery became common within much of Europe during the Dark Ages and it continued into the Middle Ages. The Byzantine-Ottoman wars (1265-1479) and the Ottoman wars in Europe (14th to 20th centuries) resulted in the capture of large numbers of Christian slaves. The Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, British, Arabs and a number of West African kingdoms played a prominent role in the Atlantic slave trade, especially after 1600. In the Eastern part of the one and only Roman (wrongly coined Byzantine) Empire, slaves became quite rare by the first half of the 7th century[1] A shift in the view of slavery is noticed, which by the 10th century transformed gradually a slave-object into a slave-subject.[2] From 11th century, semi-feudal relations largely replaced slavery, seen as "an evil contrary to nature, created by man's selfishness", although slavery was permitted by the law.”…ωικιρεδια

[@myjunedayya]

Thanks! This is also my recent research interest.

[@BramptonAnglican]

Thanks for the great video. Definitely find your videos very educational and helpful.

[@gerinja]

This is amazing brother. God bless.

[@mugikuyu9403]

At 14:31 he says that the evolution of the idea of human rights is somehow a challenge to atheists but this is not the case. It’s actually evidence for atheism since we maintain that values are subjective and have developed through history. Under the atheist view we would expect that when we look at humanity we find a preponderance of values depending on time and place and that’s exactly what we actually see. If there’s no God in heaven that’s giving out a common set of values X to all groups on earth then we would expect to find that Group Alpha in Africa has values ABC while Group Beta in the Americas has values DFG and so on. We would also expect that some values are going to overlap between groups for evolutionary reasons such as parents caring for their children and so on just because these are necessary for survival and those groups that don’t care for their children don’t last long enough for their values to become common for obvious reasons. So the challenge here is to the theist who believes that morality is objective and comes from God. If you maintain that God has a chosen people with whom he’s interacted with for the last 2500+ years or so then the question becomes why their moral values seem to change and develop like any other group? Wouldn’t that group have long ago adopted God’s morality and been consistent to this day? Yet we find that they once took slaves but now they don’t because of a change in thinking, we find that they used to be polygamous but now they’re not, we also find that they used to stone adulterers and apostates but have long abandoned that practise. This is easy enough for the atheist to explain - there is no God to hand out an objective code of morality - but for you it’s lot so easy.

[@BeccaYoley]

💯

[@Vhlathanosh]

Remember you're dealing with theist, there's no hope. The mental gymnastics they'll do to say a text doesn't say what it says is something you don't want to deal with.

[@augustine.c8204]

this is amazing, sound, and makes me appreciate the Bible so much more the way it is. I'm so thankful you put this out! God bless you

[@brunoabreu6547]

I'd go further, Jesus said: my kingdom is not of this world. We don't see him or the apostles trying to impose a new political system, but making people new creatures in whatever position they are. it doesn't have to do with endorsing slavery or not.

[@Beroean30]

Yet we will endorse or oppose less important things? I think we are being cowardly to not accept the reality that the culture the many books of the Bible was written in was content with the ownership of another person. Qhen we dehumanized and especially do so to justify the failings of a book...terrible tragedies happen.

[@zacharystarrin4039]

I love this breakdown. Would you ever consider making a visual diagram of the points made here especially in breaking down of the old testament into its proper categories with brief explanations? I think it would bless many people who are visual learners like myself, and would further drive and clarify your points through the confusion the already exists in our culture. God bless you and keep up the good work in the Lord!

[@ZacharyTLawson]

While I enjoy hearing others’ perspectives, many of the skeptics’ comments in this video strike me as inverse versions of “what does this passage mean to you?”, reader-response Bible studies; helpful for learning about the reader but less helpful in understanding the text. Perspectives carry more weight when there is significant interaction with the secondary literature. Gavin’s response prioritizes getting a handle on the data first then offering commentary second which I think is a fruitful approach.

[@Dave_OGG]

Good video. I'm glad you pointed this out

[@tomasrocha6139]

Gavin Ortlund claimed that in Exodus 21:21 the master only goes unpunished as far as not getting the death penalty but is punished by other means? That's not what the text or the New English Translation notes seem to suggest at all: Exodus 21:21 tn This last clause is a free paraphrase of the Hebrew, “for he is his money” (so KJV, ASV); NASB “his property.” It seems that if the slave survives a couple of days, it is probable that the master was punishing him and not intending to kill him. If he then dies, there is no penalty other than that the owner loses the slave who is his property-he suffers the loss.

[@TruthUnites]

see verses 26-27.

[@tomasrocha6139]

@@TruthUnites Isn't that merely compensation rather than punishment? For instance today for assaulting someone one would have to both pay the victim compensation and also be punished through incarceration.

[@MaxStArlyn]

@@tomasrocha6139 Eastern Orthodox ended slavery 1000 yrs ago, WITHOUT banning it. The Eastern Orthodox Christian Roman Empire, with its capital in Constantinople (falsely named Byzantine Empire ), ended slavery 1000 yrs ago, via FREE WILL. While people groups, informed by other, denominations, world views, or other religions, doubled down on it. About 800 or so yrs later, via threat of violence, bloody civil wars, and political conflict, …slavery was banned, by FORCE. To this day, the west, still couldn’t put an end to slavery via FREE WILL, driven by TRUE Christian morality, like the Eastern Orthodox Christian, Roman Empire, led by Constantinople, achieved. Significantly, WITHOUT the need to ban slavery….of which I believe was done by design, so that the idea could spread, without the need to have backing by laws informed, by other nations, and other world views. ......”Slavery became common within much of Europe during the Dark Ages and it continued into the Middle Ages. The Byzantine-Ottoman wars (1265-1479) and the Ottoman wars in Europe (14th to 20th centuries) resulted in the capture of large numbers of Christian slaves. The Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, British, Arabs and a number of West African kingdoms played a prominent role in the Atlantic slave trade, especially after 1600. In the Eastern part of the one and only Roman (wrongly coined Byzantine) Empire, slaves became quite rare by the first half of the 7th century[1] A shift in the view of slavery is noticed, which by the 10th century transformed gradually a slave-object into a slave-subject.[2] From 11th century, semi-feudal relations largely replaced slavery, seen as "an evil contrary to nature, created by man's selfishness", although slavery was permitted by the law.”…ωικιρεδια

[@Tinesthia]

@@TruthUnites As you stressed repeatedly it is easy to misread the passages, which you have done. In ancient slave culture it is expected that an owner may need to beat their slave. How else do you get a defiant slave to work? The slave is the owners money and the owner can absolutely, without penalty, beat up their slave as much as needed to make them compliant, with one exception: permanent damage. Teeth, Sight, Hearing, Life, are not only important for the slave to be a more effective worker, but it is expected that they may one day be free or purchased by another owner, or passed down as inheritable property. Thus basic protections for slaves makes sense, and is not an effective defense of this otherwise unjust law.

[@Caffer9286]

Gavin you are a gem. I had heard great apologists like godlogic debunk slavery. But this video really went deeper and galvanised my thoughts on the subject. Thank you brother. In my atheist era i had listened to those youtubers and took on what they said to my shame. Keep up the good work.

[@audreytinker6795]

This was incredibly helpful! Thank you.

[@extremelylargeslug4438]

Hey Gavin, a big fan of yours from the other side of the debate. I’d encourage you to face a more steel-manned objection of slavery in the Bible presented by Kipp Davis and Josh Bowen (along with their scholar colleagues). Always appreciate you taking on tough topics!

[@jamiecharles8334]

I dunno. Your handle is the one making all the assertions 😂

[@Iamwrongbut]

Yeah Bowen’s book on the Bible’s endorsement of slavery is a tour de force.

[@thedude0000]

@@Iamwrongbut halfway through the second edition now.

[@ArticulateApologetics]

@@thedude0000 wow nice to see you here friend :)

[@crisgon9552]

I wonder if Gavin has spoken to Josh or Kipp. Love both their works

[@guilhermecruz4899]

Hey, Gavin. Thank you so much for your content! Its genuinely such a blessing and i thank God for you, brother. I'm just wondering if you have any book recommendations about how to reason & use logic?

[@TheNinjaInConverse]

I so appreciate your thoughtfulness.

[@stephenbailey9969]

I was an atheist most of my life. I knew that war, slavery, genocide, inequality, the despoiling of the environment, ethnic and racial hatred, and a myriad other oppressions, were all the work of men. Now that Christ has opened my eyes, I know the same, that a broken humanity has invented many horrific things. I also know that this age of Man's wicked stewardship over the earth will not last forever and none of that evil will exist in the age to come. "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus."

[@alz1997]

Thank you. It's so frustrating that people expect "Christianity" to just be this monolithic force that overrides the hearts and wills of men just because it puts forth ideals. The brokenness of Christians and all men are the exact reason we need Christ.

[@Reclaimer77]

When men do genocides it's immoral. When God does it it must be moral because it's a "Devine command". William Lane Craig recently peddled that bullshit and it's not fooling anyone. It makes you all sound like mindless unthinking sheep who will just say anything.

[@jyllianrainbow7371]

This argument becomes very weak if you actually know the full story of the Bible. We live in a fallen world and the atrocities of this world are inventions of humanity. There was no slavery in the Garden of Eden. Humans invented slavery and God not only doesn't condone it, but He doesn't condone anything of this world. That was actually the main message of Jesus. Do atheists really believe there isn't going to be death on the new Earth, but slavery will somehow still exist? No, they just clearly have no idea about the new Earth, because they don't actually know the full story of the Bible.

[@heather602]

Amen!!

[@eidiazcas]

OK, no issue with your beliefs, but do you at least accept that there is no excuse for slavery in the bible? because this one was pretty lame

[@bridgetgolubinski]

Crazy good video!

[@lukyguy1240]

So glad you've done this! Your first sentence - I agree correctly. Thanks!

[@levifox2818]

Great discussion on the topic! Even though I like most of your videos, I was prepared to be skeptical of this one (I think just because I’ve seen it done poorly too many times), but I have to admit you did a really good job given the hour you kept yourself to. Would you ever consider doing a follow up where you engage with the scholarship on the issue more deeply (especially opposing scholarship), or is that beyond your depth on this topic?

[@gustavusadolphus4344]

I'm very interested in this video, because this is something that has been bothering ne and most Christian arguments i ahve heard aren't that good or convincing honestly. So im hoping you can give a more satisfying answer that i can wrestle with.

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

Brother please consider watching my playlist on slavery (im still uploading videos). It will show the beauty of Gods laws, even in slavery. Deuteronomy teaches that the Law of God will be seen by heathens to be wise and good.. if Christians have failed to show the merits of the law in and of itself, it’s because christians have dropped the ball. I attempt on my channel to pick that ball up again.

[@whatwecalllife7034]

😬 YIKES!​@@toughbiblepassages9082

[@pmccotter5569]

Very clearly spoken. Thank you! Subbed

[@Declared-righteous]

Thank you so much for tackling this issue!

[@KerryLiv]

Thank you brother! The body of Christ needed this. May you overflow with joy, knowing you will one day hear the words "well done My good and faithful servant" from the One who created us all equal... Whom we should ALL willingly serve

[@Rubberglass]

Thank you, Gavin.

[@316350]

One: great video. Thank you for your great work Gavin. Two: Two push backs: 1. 1 Timothy 1:10 is referring to kidnappers, who may or may not have made their victim a slave. A slave could be kidnapped, and kidnapping was even outlawed in the law of Moses. I believe Paul would have excoriated Philemon if he believed slavery was wrong. I do not believe was equating slavery with kidnapping. 2. Paul’s call to Philemon was not to own a slave, but to treat Onesimus as a brother in Christ, and the way he would treat Paul himself, knowing he owed Paul his own life; quite a statement considering the context of the conversation. This statement of Paul in Philemon 1:19 should be considered in the context of Paul’s words claiming he had the right to privileges he would not be wrong to take to himself though he had chosen not to (1 Corinthians 9:1-18).

[@grahambrooks4179]

A practical video I'd love to see soon would be how to strategize theological study as a working class parent. It often feels like there isn't enough time in the day to make real headway in study. Any tips would be appreciated!

[@imbecilicGenius-hn3jo]

I'd suggest a chapter study with a commentary on a book your less familiar with. Most study books are too simple or are just out in left field, same with devotionals. Straight reading can be difficult to really meditate and dwell on without something to guide you.

[@JonClash]

Very well done!

[@earnyourgold]

Not finished yet, but so far I’m not seeing an argument that proves what the atheist are saying as false. 23:35 Deuteronomy 21 DOES show that God approves of polygyny. God could have forbid anything he wanted to. This suggestion that he bent to the cultural/historical norms is borderline blasphemous. Whatever he wanted to happen he put in his laws. Simply disregarding them as “permissive” laws doesn’t hold up biblically. You would have to explain why he permitted those cultural norms, but forbade others. That argument has inconsistency embedded into it

[@WesleyKwan_]

Then how do you square God's permission of divorce in the OT, and Jesus saying that divorce is wrong (except due to sexual immorality), and that God only allowed it because of the hardness of people's hearts (i.e. the cultural context)? Permission is not always equal to approval.

[@earnyourgold]

@@WesleyKwan_ well there’s a really strong argument that that passage is actually talking about “putting away” which was common back then and different from divorce because men could just lie and claim that they never divorced their wives and therefore make them guilty of adultery (which was punishable by death). Even with that, God explicitly put in the text that he found it appropriate to allow it, but Jesus made sure to address it on the Sermon of the Mount. God also stated that he hated it in the Old Testament (Malachi 2:16). We can’t take that example and apply it to anything else we don’t agree with because God showed that he would have simply brought it up again if that was the case. God never forbade polygyny or what’s considered to be slavery in the Bible.

[@WesleyKwan_]

@@earnyourgold Yes, but you're missing the principle Jesus is getting at, which is that just because God permitted something in the OT law, doesn't mean that was the perfect ideal. This is a perfectly valid principle, which this example illustrates, and there is nowhere that contradicts it in the Bible. The OT law was never meant as a perfect ideal, and Jesus states that it is perfectly within God's right to "bend to culture" and permit things that are morally wrong because of the hardness of our heart.

[@earnyourgold]

@@WesleyKwan_ I get what you’re saying but we can only apply that to divorce but applying it to anything else would be adding onto the text. God stated that he hated divorce in the old testament (Malachi 2:16). I’m sure if there was a verse with God outright stating that he hated polygyny or slavery then that would show his heart on those issues but the fact is that he does not look at those practices the same way that Westerners do

[@WesleyKwan_]

@earnyourgold Stating that God approves of slavery would be adding onto the text because nowhere does God endorse or support slavery. Again, permission does not equal support. And just because only divorce was specifically mentioned doesn't mean we can't apply this principle to other things, as long as our reasons are justified by the text. For example, slavery directly goes against the idea of Imago Dei and "love thy neighbour as yourself." There's no question it is a moral evil. And Paul says that if a slave goes free he should remain free, that there is no slave nor free in Christ, and that slave trading is a sin. So how do we reconcile this with the OT law? This is where we apply Jesus's principle of divorce -- it's not adding to the text, but faithfully interpreting the Bible as a whole.

[@SeekingTheLogos]

Great video. Thank you

[@alpha4IV]

I'm out here doing the work and Mindshift gets a shout out before I do. Bruh, that's cold. 😢 I defended Gavin in Trent's comments and Mindshift gets on both Trent & Gavin's channels. I need to reevaluate my life. [this is mildly sarcastic - but there is truth in humor]. Keep up the great work Gavin. I hope many more apologists start taking notes from your approach.

[@buckeyelevi]

This was so helpful! Thank you. I have an old friend who has popped back up at my church who is taking the common critiques of the Bible as condoning slavery and blessing it and instead of arguing against them, he's embracing them as a part of God's good design for creation. That had not been something I had not thought about before, outside of to critique MacArther's position or Wilson's position. My friend is much much farther down that path than they are. We're talking Curse of Ham, but not even how it's been traditionally used, it's got a modern, genetic twist to it that's really disgusting. Think Curse of Ham plus Neo-Nazi eugenics, wedded to the western white man, not just the Germans. I had wrestled with how the Bible could not condemn slavery outright, but it's been a long time since that wrestling, and this is an entirely different type (and level) of question. I needed to brush up on what the Bible is understood as saying by scholars, to say the least lol. What you brought up regarding the way the language is used in some of the OT passages was especially helpful and relevant. Thank you!

[@Seminarystudent99]

Hey Gavin, thanks for the video. A lot of good stuff. Thanks for addressing 44-45, but would you be willing to do a video on Leviticus 25:46? I didn’t see you address it. This verse seems to state that foreign slaves would be their “property” (chattel) and their children’s for life. I will be reading some of the resources you mentioned in the video! Thanks for all you do!

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

I cover it on my channel (playlist on slaves servants and Biblical Law) and you will see the beauty of that law

[@danhoff4401]

He addresses part of it. Not the full verse, not the full context, I'll let you decide why he chose to do that.

[@danhoff4401]

@@toughbiblepassages9082 ah yes the beauty of chattel slavery, I don't have the words and YT would definitely censor how little I think of you if I tried to put it into words. Just trash.

[@avishevin3353]

@@toughbiblepassages9082 You think there's beauty in chattel slavery?

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

@@avishevin3353 The Law in Leviticus 25 is merciful AND just, and it articulates how the law runs even today in the USA before even the USA could figure it out.

[@emmadasilva1794]

It wasn't too long at all! In fact I'd love a follow up addressing possible or actual objections to your points. The more detail for a topic like this, the better. It's a very serious objection to the Bible that keeps many people away from the faith.

[@fishdude9102]

2:01 - *Let the apologetics begin!!!* Notice the "bondservants" instead of slaves. You're already trying to deflect from slavery in the bible. Yes, it had debt slaves, but the entire Ancient Near East was full of chattel slaves as well.

[@andrewluker4036]

This is a brilliant response to a very important and common critique of the Bible these days

[@JW_______]

I was having a comments discussion with an internet atheist very recently and he posted a prewittten tome about how Christianity allegedly condoned slavery. I had to tell him, "listen, I don't have time to respond to all the issues you raise here (some fair and some mischaracitures or misunderstanding), as it would require an hour to respond. I recommended that he look for a video such as this. I hope he finds it.

[@iamme1226]

I'll tell if u think this is a good response that probably explains why u are christian

[@Wertbag99]

As an atheist I would say Gavin is one of my favourite apologists. He dives deeply into tough subjects and always looks to steel man arguments before addressing them. A lot of KZbin apologists could learn a lot from these videos. Too many other apologists latch on to indentured servitude and use that as an excuse to avoid talking about slavery. No one denies indentured servitude occurred, but that was at well as chattel slavery and not instead of. It is also annoying to hear indentured servitude described as rainbows and happiness, while such slaves were more likely sent to work in mines, quarries or rowing ships, while the women likely ended up as prostitutes. Apologists never mention that indentured servitude is categorised as a type of slavery and is banned throughout the western world and by the UN.

[@flamingswordapologetics]

In his book Dominion, Tom Holland shows how human rights most defiantly came from the Christian world view. He shows Christianity from the start until recent times "warts and all", changed the world.

[@BeccaYoley]

Even if Christianity started human rights, they sure threw it out the window. Aside from the Bible saying non-believers are filthy rags, infidels deserving of eternal damnation, humans are born in sin, any actually humane teachings in the Bible are promptly ignored by his supporters. Christians are by large the ones voting against helping refugees, feeding the poor, providing healthcare, for the right to discriminate against people for their sexuality, beating your children, etc etc etc.

[@avishevin3353]

There have been innumerable cultures with better morals than Christianity espouses.

[@rodney8075]

Get breakdown! Love that you brought biblical text and high level opinions on the matters.

[@johnxina-uk8in]

"Slavery" as the english translation says, was an act of mercy in the OT. Telling the israelites to take POWs and criminals and offer them a second chance to live is BEYOND merciful, even today

[@johnxina-uk8in]

@cygnusustus This hippy mentality of letting people go unpunished is immoral and terrible. Think for one moment, if you were captured by an enemy military in ancient times, would you rather A, be slaughtered, or B, made a servant that in time, would be given a home, food and clothing? I'd assume 99% of people would pick B. If that is "stomach churning" to you, you don't get out much

[@avishevin3353]

So you admit the Bible was addressed to an audience of unmitigated bigots?

[@johnxina-uk8in]

@avishevin3353 Bro just called 3,000 year old middle Eastern tribes "bigots". The modern westerner is outrageously dumb

[@iamme1226]

​@@johnxina-uk8inthey are by definition bigots whether u like it or not. Bigotry is born out of ignorance and they all in their ignorance participate and promoted bigotry

[@whatwecalllife7034]

It always infuriates me how confidently wrong y'all are when it comes to this issue.

[@IAmDLFL]

Looking forward to this! Dr. Ortlund, I have a question - are you willing & able to do a video handling accusations of animal cruelty/morality of the animal sacrificial system? I couldn't find one you had already done, apologies if I missed it. If not, do you have any resources you could recommend? Grateful for your contributions to the body, as always. Some friends and I are working through "Finding the Right Hills to Die On" right now and it has been helpful so far!

[@susanburrows810]

The Bible says "without the shedding of blood there is NO remission of sin." Yes, it seems extreme or sad today BUT GOD's holiness & God himself decides what payment is appropriate to pay-- it is BLOOD & A LIFE. If an animal hadn't died then it would be YOUR blood required to pay for YOUR sins. Aren't you glad JESUS gave His life & blood once for all, including you? Sin is severe & so is the payment to make a person righteous before God. Somebody or something had to die. We trust and thank Jesus that He gave Himself as a ransom for many. HALLELUJAH!

[@IAmDLFL]

@@susanburrows810 Yes and amen! Just to be clear this is not something I personally struggle much with. I have a family member for whom this is one of their biggest obstacles in believing that the Bible is God's word.

[@tomasrocha6139]

​​@@susanburrows810Doesn't God forgive Nineveh in Jonah without sacrifice?

[@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111]

That's a good question. It does seem a bit weird to have animal sacrifices. I'm not a vegan. But still, I would have a tough time (though I love meat) to watch a lamb being killed! It's interesting to read the Jewish perspective on this, as it;s also somewhat parallel to slavery. For example, I recently came across an observation from the Jewish philosopher Maimonides. He explains that the Torah’s main objective is to eradicate the viewpoint of paganism. "Thus, to truly understand the Torah’s original intent, one must be familiar with the philosophies and practices of ancient idolaters [...]" Maimonides suggests that ritual sacrifices are a sub-optimal form of worship, leading him to making the bold statement that the Torah instituted its system of ritual sacrifices to facilitate the rejection of idolatrous practices. Maimonides explains that human nature is that whatever people have accustomed themselves to doing becomes so ingrained in their nature that it cannot be easily uprooted. Man cannot successfully transition from one extreme to the other without some time to acclimate.

[@bettymofokeng3404]

Pastor Gavin thank you, that was enriching, and eye opening,🙏 your conclusion 👌 from the heart of God, Thank you for helping us uniting with the Truth and love❤️

[@CrazyPhysicsWork]

This is a great video!

[@ciggyjacobs6391]

There’s a good deal of side-stepping, cherry-picking, presupposition straw-manning at the heart of this critique of, as an example, MindShift’s thinking. Gavin Ortlund should be submitting a wholly comprehensive presentation of the Biblical material he’s citing if he’s going to do this-tho I imagine he doesn’t do so because he rightly suspects it would come out as uselessly unconvincing. Have a look at Brandon’s (MindShift) response to see what I’m talking. Btw, I’m not any kind of representative of MindShift-Brandon doesn’t know me from Jesus.

[@rbrainsop1]

I've done my own deep dive into the issue of slavery in the old testament particularly. But I would love to hear what an actual scholar has to say about what I found, since as a layperson I might have misunderstood what I read or missed important context and nuances. In a nutshell, I'm not convinced the old testament law was talking about slavery at all. There is, of course, the discussion of the word "ebed/eved," which 9 times out of 10 is understood as servant. It seems to me that the key element of slavery, the one that determines whether we translate it as servant or slave, is the issue of ownership. And I don't really see any evidence of ownership in the passages that discuss these "ebed," even the foreign ones. As I've studied the passages relating to ebeds (pardon my Anglicization of the Hebrew plural), I noticed a distinction between the words used to discuss them, and the words used to discuss other things that the Hebrews could rightly be considered to own. First, there are the words "baal" and "adon." The word baal is used to describe ownership, and is used to talk about a variety of things, including animals, houses, pits, arrows, loans, etc (even wives). But it is never used for an ebed. In fact, in Exodus 21, the word baal appears 13 times, but whenever it talks about ebeds, it switches to the word adon/lord, which implies authority but not ownership. Exodus 21:32 clearly distinguishes between the "baal" of an ox and the "adon" of an ebed/worker even within the same sentence. Then there are the words for property. There is the word "rekush," which is used to describe livestock, clothing, precious metals and gems, and other goods, but not for people. And there is the word "achuzzah" which famously appears in Leviticus 25:45-46, talking about foreign ebeds. But looking back only 22 verses, we can another, clearer example of this word. We see God stating that the land belongs to him and the Israelites are only tenant farmers, and then calling that land (that they can possess but not own) their achuzzah. So it seems to imply possession rather than ownership. It is used in the same way 8 more times over the next 14 verses, and then used for the foreign ebed in v. 45-46. And if you look at all 66 times the word appears in the old testament, it is almost exclusively used to describe the land. The only exceptions are the two times it refers to ebeds in Leviticus 25, and when God is called our achuzzah (clearly not someone we own). There are only two passages that seem to imply ownership, and that is when Abraham purchases the field and cave to bury Sarah in (which long pre-dates the Mosaic covenant and this way of viewing land ownership), and in Joshua 22:19, when God is said to possess the land. It's also worth noting that the Israelites aren't described as being baals (owners) of the land anywhere in the law or later old testament books, which seems to support this distinction. Over and over again, I see a linguistic differentiation between things the Israelites owned, like livestock (where the words baal/owner and rekush/property are used) and things which they didn't own, like the land and (I'm arguing) human workers (where the words adon/master and achuzzah/possession are used). Other words that seem to imply ownership (at least in the English translations) like "buy" and "sell" are less clear cut in the original. Qanah and miqnah, which are translated as buy, acquire, purchase, etc., are both also used to describe leasing things or people (indentured servants). In fact, in the books of the law, they are used in situations that unambiguously describe leasing far more often than they are for buying. So the use of these words to describe acquiring ebeds doesn't necessarily imply buying or ownership. The word "makar" means sell, and there's really no ambiguity there that I could see. But beyond the passage about the father "selling" his daughter (which in context is clearly talking about marriage and dowries) and a thief being sold to pay for what he stole (a judicial sentence- working off his/her debt), there is a very clear pattern. Either it is used to describe a person selling themselves (aka. indentured servitude) or it is expressly forbidden. So it seems like the only person allowed to sell an ebed/worker in the law was the worker themselves. Which, again, is indentured servitude rather than slavery. In all this, I don't see any evidence that the law viewed these workers as owned property in any circumstances, whether talking about Hebrews or foreigners. So that's why I really don't think it's talking about slavery at all. But of course, I might have missed or misunderstood something, or there may be context or nuances that I'm unaware of. So if someone who is an actual scholar of ancient Hebrew and/or the old testament would like to weigh in, I would love to hear your take on it.

[@avishevin3353]

_And I don't really see any evidence of ownership in the passages that discuss these "ebed," even the foreign ones._ וְ֠גַם מִבְּנֵ֨י הַתּוֹשָׁבִ֜ים הַגָּרִ֤ים עִמָּכֶם֙ מֵהֶ֣ם תִּקְנ֔וּ וּמִמִּשְׁפַּחְתָּם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עִמָּכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר הוֹלִ֖ידוּ בְּאַרְצְכֶ֑ם וְהָי֥וּ לָכֶ֖ם לַֽאֲחֻזָּֽה׃ How exactly can you pass down as an inheritance something you don't own? The Bible explicitly instructs Israel to maintain chattel slavery. I suspect you missed this for one of two reasons: you didn't want to find it, or you simply can't read Hebrew.

[@rbrainsop1]

@@avishevin3353In case you missed it, I was very clear about being a layperson, and the possibility that I could have misunderstood or missed something. Twice, actually. Once at the beginning and once at the end of my comment. If you are a scholar of ancient Hebrew and/or the old testament, and if you would like to teach rather than talk down to me, I would love to hear your insights. To your question: 1) Both words used to speak of inheritance in this passage are only ever used as such in reference to passing down the land. The land which, I've already established, was not owned by the Israelites. Fathers were passing down stewardship of the land, not ownership. 2) The verse in question specifies that the children can "inherit" the ebed as an achuzzah (possession, not property). One of the big differences between Israelites and foreigners in the law was the allotment of land. Israelites had land to return to, so it was important to limit their contracts to 7 years. Foreigners didn't, so if they wanted to commit to working for a single family (including the children of the original adon, if he died), that's job security.

[@whatwecalllife7034]

​​@@rbrainsop1​​Dr. Josh Bowen from the Digital Hammurabi channel is an ANE scholar and Dr. Kipp Davis, who's channel is his name and is a biblical scholar, both go into detail on the Hebrew words, their meaning, how they were typically used, and compare ancient Hebrew culture to their contemporaries. There are a good amount of ANE scholars out there but these two immediately come to mind. I WAS going to go into what I've learned as a layman as well as what the Torah clearly states, but Ill leave that to the professionals since thats what youre looking for. I hope those referrals help. 😊

[@rbrainsop1]

@@whatwecalllife7034 Thanks for the recommendations! I'll go check those channels out!

[@alienwarex51i3]

So just to make sure I got it straight... Hebrew "slaves" weren't really slaves, they were hired workers, while non-Hebrew slaves were literally slaves, the property of their masters. Got it.

[@jimmyisaac5168]

I was looking for an adequate explanation about violence in the Bible, when I came across this video about slavery. Excellent! What I liked best is your absolute insistence on adherence to the truth and admitting that Christians have done a lot of wrong. Now, I will watch your video on the Canaanites. Thanks for all you do!