The BIBLE and SLAVERY Explained! (Dr. Carmen Imes)

[@hermanbaxterjr9533]

This is good for everyone for sure, but as a black Christian this is brought up so much amongst my peers. Thanks for this.

[@russellmiles2861]

Yes, it is not as if God hatred Blacks. God hates the Amelek, Egyptians, Cannites, certainly had it for the Hebrews. Just about everyone, really. Methodist must really get up His gall.

[@cygnusustus]

The Bible condones and promotes chattel slavery. Chattel slavery is defined as "the enslaving and owning of human beings and their offspring as property, able to be bought, sold, and forced to work. Another definition is: "The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude." Leviticus 25 explicitly describes and condones chattel slavery. "44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." Under Mosaic law, foreign slaves were chattel slaves. They could be bought, sold, separated from their families, beaten, raped, killed, kept for life, and passed down as inherited property. Every specific reference to foreign slaves in the Bible is to deny them rights and protections afforded to Hebrew slaves. The treatment of foreign slaves was every bit as bad, or worse, than slavery in the Antebellum south.

[@TrentonMabry1]

@@cygnusustuswhere do you get this notion that they were beaten, raped and treated terribly from the Bible? You are projecting 18th century chattel slavery onto the text.

[@cygnusustus]

@@TrentonMabry1 One can hardly spit in the Old Testament without moistening some atrocity commanded by God, but start with Numbers 31: 17-19 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Genocide, slavery, infanticide, and rape. All supposedly commanded by your God. "You are projecting 18th century chattel slavery onto the text." No projection. Just staging facts that you are denying. Under Mosaic law, foreign slaves were chattel slaves. They could be bought, sold, separated from their families, beaten, raped, killed, kept for life, and passed down as inherited property. Every specific reference to foreign slaves in the Bible is to deny them rights and protections afforded to Hebrew slaves. The treatment of foreign slaves was every bit as bad, or worse, than slavery in the Antebellum south.

[@funsun.]

​@@TrentonMabry1you believe the 18th century slavery where the worst type of slavery?

[@kevinderksen9297]

I've been waiting to see Carmen on here. About time ;)

[@SeanMcDowell]

Agreed!

[@stewartparker1872]

This is great. PLEASE DO A FOLLOW UP. I am sure this will have lots of critiques and those will need to be answered.

[@nickbrasing8786]

Yes yes yes. With Dr. Kipp Davis or Dr. Joshua Bowen contributing. Not THAT would be well worth watching!

[@RAFAEL27769]

One of the most insightful discussions I have heard on the topic . The Scriptures do not whitewash human history . Instead they break open the harsh reality of life in a broken , fallen world. "Man dominating man to his injury." It's within that context God speaks to the ancient nation of Israel , and sets boundaries they cannot cross , while being cognisant of their fallen nature.

[@davidhenderson6255]

So great! Thank you! I first heard Dr. Imes on the Naked Bible Podcast with Dr. Heiser. Always appreciate people with minds to consider difficult subjects.

[@theologymatters5127]

That was the best interview I've seen with her yet! Thanks so much!!!

[@SeanMcDowell]

She’s AWESOME!

[@nickbrasing8786]

If this was the best, I shudder to think what the worst one was like

[@radscorpion8]

@@SeanMcDowell I like how you selectively reply to only the positive comments and none of the overwhelmingly negative commentary

[@dannylgriffin]

One of your best interviews! Thank you.

[@cygnusustus]

They just repeated the same old lies about Biblical slavery.

[@Jesusandmentalhealth]

This was great. Thank you both!!

[@Dknow7812]

Great episode. Will buy anything she releases.

[@seaglass.jen86]

I loved this. Her charitable interpretations of the passages made much more sense to me, in light of what I already know about God’s character and His compassion toward people. I plan to listen again and share with friends. Thank you both so much.

[@cygnusustus]

I prefer honest interpretations to charitable interpretations. "in light of what I already know about God’s character and His compassion toward people." And how do you know that, child?

[@seaglass.jen86]

@@cygnusustus how God describes Himself in His word given to us, what Jesus did on the cross, and what He has done in my own life. He is a God of love of compassion. Charitable, meaning she’s not trying to find the harshest possible answer to these questions, bc she too knows that our God is loving and compassionate and she’s looking for the answer that makes the most sense within the whole of scripture. I didn’t say she was completely accurate in everything she believes about these passages, but I appreciate her attempt to unite these passages with the whole of scripture, which describes a loving God.

[@cygnusustus]

@@seaglass.jen86 Child, all we have are the words of men describing their God. And they described their God condoning chattel slavery. "He is a God of love of compassion." They describe your God condoning genocide, slavery, infanticide, and rape? Do those sound compassionate to you? Do genocide, slavery, infanticide, and rape sound loving to you?

[@sharonjacob4782]

​@@cygnusustusRape?????please do supply references

[@cygnusustus]

@@sharonjacob4782 Sure thing, child. I love it when Christians beg me for Bible lessons! How many would you like? Let's start with two: Numbers 31: 17-19 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Genocide, slavery, infanticide, and rape. All supposedly commanded by your God. Deuteronomy 21: 10-13 "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife." More rape. I have half a dozen more, if you need them.

[@geraldbritton8118]

One thing I always come back to is this : the Bible begins and ends with no slavery. The Greatest Story of the Old Testament is the Exodus which is. God acting to free up to 2 Million slaves. In the law we see a temporary Regulation of slavery. And always. I keep in mind that slavery in Ancient Israel was nothing like slavery in the antebellum South.

[@velkyn1]

no evidence for any exodus, so no "freeing" of any slaves, and this god suports slavery by saying how to do it. It's not a "temporary regulation". Funny how those "regulations" are NEVER repealed: you simply lie when you claim that slavery in the bible wasn't the same slavery in the south. here's where this god (aka humans who make it up) says slavery is fine as long as it isn't an israelite: "39 “If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: 40 he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. 41 Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and go back to his own clan and return to the possession of his fathers. 42 For they are my servants,[e] whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. 43 You shall not rule over him ruthlessly but shall fear your God. 44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly." Leviticus 25 Here's where it says slavery is fine even if it's an Israelite as long as he wants to stay with his family: "“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave,[a] he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever." Exodus 21 here's where it says that slaves are only possessions. "20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. Exodus 21 here's where this religino says thta slaves shouldn't seek their freedom: "18 Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. 19 For it is to your credit if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. 20 If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, where is the credit in that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps." 1 Peter 2 Guess what the bible NEVER says? That slavery is wrong.

[@xarchist]

Paul says we are all slaves of Christ, so this isn't really correct.

[@geraldbritton8118]

@@xarchist well that's pretty clearly metaphor. Not what we're discussing here.

[@russellmiles2861]

The crucifixion is a metaphor ​@@geraldbritton8118but that doesn't folk claiming the whole Jesus, God, zoobie thing. I guess; I quoting scripture, that is a metaphor and you're getting hurt at the stake for heracy

[@adamruuth5562]

It's weird how Christians did not read "slavery bad" in their book until the rest of society had moved up to that point. A big "whoopsie" by Jesus that lasted a few thousand years.

[@hrvad]

Slavery definitely has very bad connotations today, but it meant a lot to me, when I realized that "indentured servitude" was the majority of it. We have different societies now, and some of the modern complexities obscure how things really work. I would argue that we still have indentured servitude, a kind of debt-slavery, but it's much more obscure because of the complexity and also practical arrangements that differ from earlier times. Debt has always needed to be regulated, and we still do that today. If you owe money, I can guarantee that someone owns at the very least some fruits of your labor, even if we have perhaps more lenient payment plans today. So we go to university, borrowing money to do that, and we literally work off that debt afterwards. If we don't someone might show up and seize our property in order to extract payment. At the root of things is the idea that we are responsible for our actions, including making debt. But also notice that even today there are people who are virulently against such responsibility - like students who want their student loans to be forgiven (for no reason whatever). They unrealistically want to be "liberated" from the effects of their own actions, as if someone collecting the debt is somehow "unfair". While people in debt today are usually on their own, we should not forget that debt can be transferred from one creditor to another. So we still sell the debt, and in doing so the person attached to the debt is also, in a sense, transferred to a new master. It is a simple fact that those who give you money also gain power over you. You are not entirely free if you indebted yourself. While this may objectively be unpleasant, the fact remains that you went into debt by your own actions. Even if that was forced by extraneous circumstances, such as crop failure for reasons entirely outside of your influence. Even as late as the 1800s and forward, including to my mother's time (she was born in 1938), there was a practice in Denmark where young women "were out to serve". Typically the women served on farms or in households. The majority of compensation came from bartering goods (food, shelter, clothing...), and only a small amounts of wages were paid in money. Depending on how bad you want that arrangement to look, you could probably call that slavery if you look at it through modern sensibilities.

[@cygnusustus]

" it meant a lot to me, when I realized that "indentured servitude" was the majority of it" And what makes you think that indentured servitude was the majority of slavery. There are no statistics on the breakdown of indentured servants vs chattel slaves, but there is not doubt that chattel slaves existed, represented a significant portion of slaves in ancient Israel, and the life-long chattel slavery is explicitly condoned in the Bible. It that does not disturb you, then you are morally vacant.

[@JohnSpencer90]

It's astonishing how some people believe they have the right to own or abuse others. Equally shocking is their narcissistic belief that renaming the practice (e.g., indentured servitude) or pretending it was acceptable 2,000 years ago somehow justifies this immoral behavior. This is a clear example that 'true evil never takes a day off.

[@dannylgriffin]

@@cygnusustus "the life-long chattel slavery is explicitly condoned in the Bible." No, it isn't.

[@cygnusustus]

@@dannylgriffin It's my pleasure to educate you, boy. Chattel slavery is defined as "the enslaving and owning of human beings and their offspring as property, able to be bought, sold, and forced to work. Another definition is: "The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude." Leviticus 25 explicitly describes and condones chattel slavery. "44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a POSSESSION; they shall be your bondmen FOR EVER: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." Let me know if you need any further Bible lessons.

[@glennshrom5801]

When I lived in Spain, a Christian brother frequently quoted to me a verse that is repeated in the Old Testament (NET) Exodus 22:21 “You must not wrong a resident foreigner nor oppress him, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. Exodus 23:9 “You must not oppress a resident foreigner, since you know the life of a foreigner, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. Leviticus 19:34 The resident foreigner who lives with you must be to you as a native citizen among you; so you must love the foreigner as yourself, because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God. Deuteronomy 10:19 So you must love the resident foreigner because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. (NET) I have heard this verse often used in the context of immigrants, strangers, visitors, travelers ... even though the NET renders it as resident foreigners. But I'd never heard it used in the context of slavery. What is interesting, is that all the slaves that Israel had, if they obeyed God's law, were resident foreigners - never fellow Israelites. AND, when Israel lived as foreigners in Egypt, they were also slaves in Egypt. So even if the Israelites had "slaves", they were commanded to love their slaves, and treat their slaves they way they themselves wanted to be treated (and should have been treated when they lived in Egypt). Israel knew what it was liked to be oppressed, to be victims. It was no fun. So they are commanded not to be oppressors and not to create victims. The only way one of their slaves could be a "victim" of slavery, is if Israel was directly disobeying God's command. There is no way that victims were created, no way that oppression was practiced, if God's commands concerning slavery (foreigners) were carried out. Other renderings of "do not wrong or oppress a foreigner" include: Do not deceive Do not mislead Do not take advantage of Do not exploit Do not use them as objects for your personal gain Do not give them any grief Do not give them a hard time Do not make their life difficult Do not place burdens on them that you yourselves would not be happy to bear Give them justice - do not practice injustice or unfairness Treat them as equals, equality and equity Another side note is that any foreign slave could be freed from slavery if they became an Israelite through circumcision. If a foreign slave became part of the covenant people of God, that person was not allowed to be held as a slave. A fellow Israelite was not allowed to be made a slave against that person's will. (It is hard to imagine, with our concepts of slavery, that anyone would willingly become a slave, but it is not unheard of in the OT concept of slavery for a person to do so.) On the other hand, a foreigner should not become an Israelite without sincerely covenanting with the God of Israel. You wouldn't want to have any false conversions just for people to get out of slavery. This is something that blacks in the American south did not even have as an option. One would think that - applied the same way as OT biblical slavery - if a black became a Christian and got baptized, they would automatically be freed from slavery because no Christian could hold a fellow Christian as a slave. (assuming the slaveowners were at least nominal Christians). I don't know how much Israel followed or disobeyed God's commands concerning slavery, but what is very clear from these verses about foreigners is that IN NO WAY did God command Israel to do to anyone what the Southern slaveowners and international slave traders did to black Africans in the past 500 years. In fact, it was quite and totally the opposite. God did not simply "allow chattel slavery" to accommodate the spiritual maturity level of the Israelites or because it was so ingrained in the culture. He gave direct commands that in no way were the Israelites supposed to do to anyone else what was done to them in Egypt. The same slavery God opposed when the Israelites were oppressed in Egypt and God delivered them is the same slavery that God prohibited His people from carrying out against any other human being. The only slavery that God permitted for the Israelites to carry out was the polar opposite of the oppression and injustice of chattel slavery. The permission to have foreigners as slaves was conditional on the direct command to love the foreigner. Love took precedence over slavery. According to Mosaic law, if there was no way to practice perfect love and justice (equality) towards the foreigner AND have the foreigner as a slave at the same time, then the only logical lawful conclusion is that the slave would have to be released in the name of love. The only way a slave could be retained as a slave is if the slave had the same treatment as what the Israelite would want, and in a love and justice relationship. Again, whether Israel did that or not is another story. But don't let it be said that God condoned, much less commanded, the type of slavery that was in any way unjust or oppressive!

[@davidpayne8413]

Why was "thou shalt not own another human being as property" not included among the Ten Commandments?

[@Tim.Foster123]

I like this discussion far better than many others I've heard before (and I've heard a lot). Often times, the "explanations" patronize the OT saints and treat them like ignorant and clueless fools, or skip passages that get prickly, like Lev 25. (Yes, imho even Copan and Turek aren't as thorough)

[@darrenmiller6927]

Fair to say the world looked differently 3,000 years ago in the middle east than even 300 years ago in the US. I found this helpful. I think refraiming our thinking when looking at history, generally, can be important. Different parts of the world in modern times look at the world differently. Context in ancient history, and in literature, for sure makes sense.

[@russellmiles2861]

Good point - we have the same argument for restricting firearm ownership, access to drugs and same sex marriage Seems very selectively applied ... What is the moral construct to make these decisions if not the Bible.

[@adamruuth5562]

I don't think 2000 year old books should dictate anything outside of a church. We've improved on every moral lesson of the bible. We've improved on the "science"/"wisdom" as well. The bible is not that important anymore. And it should not be.

[@darrenmiller6927]

​Interesting thoughts, a church is just a called out body of people for a purpose, as translated from the greek word. Science? Like Darwyn? He said if we ever fond out the cell is complex his whole theory falls apart. Weve known the cell is more complex than a modern city since the 60's. Consider DNA, as one example of how complex a cell is as just one aspect of the complexity of the cell. Just some thoughts. Consider Michael Behe's book Darwyn's Black Box, and many other books on those scientific matters .f​@@adamruuth5562

[@nickbrasing8786]

I listened to this, and it's nice you had an OT scholar besides Copan on this subject Sean. Much appreciated. A few questions or comments if I may. It's nice that she begins by recognizing that this is consistent with other ANE laws meant to be only wisdom, and not meant to be actually applied in court at the time. Something I don't think I've ever heard mentioned outside of maybe Dr. Bowens books on the subject. But I do not understand later why she would make the claim that Exodus 21:16 would have outlawed the transatlantic slave trade? This is at best inconsistent with her opening discussion. And that's completely ignoring the fact that many slaves from Africa were captured in tribal wars. Something perfectly fine in the Bible. And it's really nice to hear her say "One of the mistakes Christian apologists make, is to try to overplay the differences between slavery in Israel and slavery in other nations". Absolutely, and I hope the word spreads here. This is constantly thrown out as fact as if it's true. Which it most certainly is not. As to your reference to Dennis Prager Sean about the Bible not "commanding" slavery and only regulating it? This is equally true of America then as well. Not something I think Dennis would want to argue. This is a perfect example of setting the bar as low as it can possible be it seems to me. Same with the comparison to NBA players. This needs to stop. We do not say players are "bought or sold" we say "traded". We don't say the team owner "owns the players as his property" either for Pete's sake. To argue traded and bought in this context is comparable is simply ridiculous. This is not as you said here a "great illustration". I really wish people would stop doing this. But maybe that's just me. As to Exodus 22:21, I think Dr. Imes sums up her take perfectly with her statement "So whatever is going on with these foreigners, it's not mistreatment or oppression" referring to Lev. 25:44-46 (you kept saying Lev. 19 for some reason Sean?). My question would be, isn't slavery inherently "oppressive"? I would have loved it if she had provided a definition of "mistreatment" or "oppressive" here. It seems to me that slavery by it's very nature is oppressive. But perhaps she and I disagree on that? Which leads me to her take on Lev. 25:44-46. Where to start here. I guess with her admission that "I'm reading this in the most charitable way possible". Honestly, I think this goes without saying to anyone who knows any Hebrew or is a scholar of any stripe? If anything I think it's an understatement. I've never heard any scholar say anything close to Dr. Imes position here. No offense intended, but I've listened and read many many of them on this subject. Leaving aside her "buy" position for now, why would she think the ONLY way for a foreigner to survive in Israel is to become a slave of an Israelite? I mean, the verses literally immediately following talk about foreigners "becoming rich" in Israel and buying Israelite servants. How is this possible according to Dr. Imes? If "They need to become attached to an Israelite family in order to have access to food" and "The permanence of foreigners is because the only way to live inside the land is to be attached to an Israelite family" is true, how does she account for these foreigners becoming rich in Israel? And "There’s no way for a foreigner to come in and start farming". What? Of course there is, they simply can't own the land. But they CAN lease it. Why on earth does Dr. Imes think that foreigner didn't or couldn't lease land in Israel? I mean it's the whole purpose for the Sabbath and Jubilee laws after all. To return the land that had been leased to the original owners. This is simply a silly statement at best. Especially for an Old Testament scholar? This is simply way beyond any "charitable reading" frankly and into the world of wishful thinking. And is contradicted by ANE history, and the Bible itself. As to "buy" here also meaning "hire"? No it doesn't. The verses literally say they are owned as property forever and passed down as an inheritance. In what world would this possibly describe an employee? I enoyed some of her takes here, but on this? This is simply way too far.

[@Allen-L-Canada]

Agree. Also, I don't get the reason she gave for slavary. She said it's because they need to pay of their debts. But foriegners don't have debts, they are just poor. It's got be better explanation out there.

[@nickbrasing8786]

@@Allen-L-Canada I think she was talking debt in relation to Exodus 21 and the Hebrew indentured servitude. Which would be true. In her brief "discussion" of Lev. 25, I don't think she even mentioned this. Though of course some foreigners could have become lifelong chattel slaves because of debt for sure. They were just in for life, unlike the Hebrews.

[@madcatz990]

Absolutely spot on in your post. I am not an Old Testament scholar but even I know that beating a man or woman with a rod because my tea is too hot is wrong. Yet I watch these experts twist themselves into knots trying to justify the unjustifiable. What really gets my blood boiling, and it happens in every debate, is when you hear the scholar/PHD keeps hitting the point that Biblical slavery was different from the North American slave trade. Since Biblical slavery was so wonderful, I would challenge both Sean and Dr Imes if they would consent to become my slaves under the laws laid out in Exodus and Leviticus. Something tells me that all of a sudden God's perfect Laws won't seem so perfect anymore. It is easy to sit in your offices at Biola and tell us how great the laws in the Bible on slavery are, but when the rubber hits the road, would you live under those laws as a slave. I don't think Sean or Dr Imes would consent to that if they answered that question honestly.

[@Tim.Foster123]

@@madcatz990 help me out here.... where the heck do you get the idea in thr Bible that someone could be beat for having hot tea?? What the heck!!?? In the Bible, people are beat for crimes, including the crime of squandering the master's resources. (This applied to kids, servants and slaves alike, not just slaves.) Jesus was no stranger to the idea of people getting beatings, as clearly evidenced in his Temple cleansing, and half of his parables. You cannot like that if you want, but just because we've grown soft in this Century doesn't mean that they're wrong if *everyone* back then (servants included) agreed to that kind of treatment of people. Since you clearly seem to have no grasp on what the Bible has to say about slavery, why would anyone want to be your Biblical slave?

[@madcatz990]

​@@Tim.Foster123 Since you're clearly a biblical scholar, and I have no clue what I'm talking about when it comes to the Bible, maybe you can help me out by showing me in the bible (chapter and verse would be helpful) where it tells you which crimes are punishable by beatings and which ones you get a pass for. As a slave if you displease your master (for example, spill hot tea on your master) show me where in the bible it states you can NOT beat your slave for being clumsy. Now onto the point of Jesus clearing the temple, once again I'm not a biblical expert like yourself, so I know you are fully aware that this story is repeated in all four Gospels but only John specifies that Jesus made a whip out of cords to drive out the animals and the money changes. A few things here, One, why is something so poignant not even mentioned in the other three gospels, and secondly, no point does it mention Jesus actually whipping the money changers, contrary to popular beliefs and artistic renderings. It has been surmised that he used the whip to chase out all the animals. Once again, I default to your superior knowledge of the Bible, and I am sure you will show me the text where it states Jesus physically whipped the Money Changers. So I will stand by to be schooled on this and hopefully learn a thing or two so I'm not embarrassing myself on this particular thread. My last point and all joking aside, I find your post scary to be honest because you quote the bible as an excuse for beating kids with a rod as an accepted practice sanctioned by the Bible, but because we are soft in this day and age we don't do it anymore. So, by all means call me soft for not using a rod on my kids (You could have also quoted, "Spare the rod and spoil the child") but I'm sure people will be calling child services if this is how you treat your kids. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you would not take that literally and beat your kids with a rod because you are not Woke like I obviously am for thinking that we are better than this. Hopefully even if we disagree on everything else we can find common ground on this one point that beating kids with a rod is not ok.

[@moses9647]

Ive just started the video but for me this whole discussion/debate boils down to pretty simple and fundamental questions: 1) is it okay to own a human being as a slave? 2) related to the first question, but is there such thing as a good slave owner? 3) were rebellious slaves like Hariett Tubman wrong in their actions? I think people's problem with the strict biblical perspective is the answer to all these questions would be yes.

[@seaglass.jen86]

The sports analogy is golden! Using that.

[@cygnusustus]

Sports players are not slaves, and they are not bought and sold. Their contracts to play in any particular league are bought and sold. Frankly, comparing chattel slaves to highly paid athletes it not golden. It is disgusting.

[@seaglass.jen86]

@@cygnusustus it’s an analogy.. meaning there are similarities of connection to help better describe something. Nobody’s calling a pro ball player a slave. I plan to use the analogy. You’re welcome to your opinions.

[@cygnusustus]

@@seaglass.jen86 It's not an analogy. It's a fallacy. Sports players are not slaves, and they are not bought and sold. Their contracts to play in any particular league are bought and sold. Frankly, comparing chattel slaves to highly paid athletes it not golden. It is disgusting. "Nobody’s calling a pro ball player a slave." I've heard Christians do exactly that. "I plan to use the analogy. " Prepare to be embarrassed.

[@andrebrown9251]

Thou shall not own people as property. Period!!!

[@lauramikow2381]

Excellent content! I'm going to have to listen to it again...

[@TRFrench]

Good job Carmen. very good statement of the Law is none-legislative in nature.

[@shogiwar]

Nice nuanced discussion, I learnt some historical context I wasn't aware of before. There is a book in the New Testament which basically argues for a slave to be freed (Philemon). And of course Paul list slave trading as a sin. 1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law is good if a man uses it lawfully, 1Ti 1:9 knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous one, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1Ti 1:10 for fornicators, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and anything else that is contrary to sound doctrine, 1Ti 1:11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

[@chrisregas5045]

1:02:15 was chattel slavery really only practiced in the US and the UK?

[@dradelet]

Great points to add to our thinking on this topic! Just one point I thought wasn't touched on: the fact that slavery was ultimately a Judgement intervention in (fallen) human history. I think the first mention in the Bible of the word is in Gen.9:25, when Noah cursed Canaan, when he spotted sin in Ham. Slavery was always a judgement situation and the opposite of the ideal; God's whole redemption plan of mankind is to free us from the Slavery of sin, to free captives! God Bless 🙏

[@lindatroxell1460]

I so appreciate this. However, as an explanation to those attacking the Bible for supporting slavery, it's complicated, and most of them would not listen long enough to understand. But for my own edification, it is great. Thank you.🙏❣️

[@papayamusicofficial7941]

As a Latino, I’ve been constantly translating multiple readings in any form of literature ever since I came to this country, and let me tell you, it is a pain in the ear sometimes. It is crucial to find the accurate translation for any foreign language because there is a 70% chance one will not get the accurate translation leading towards misinterpretation.

[@moses9647]

On the issue of condemnation vs regulation. The obvious question is why were certain "institutions" condemned (ex: prostitution) instead of regulated? Why was slavery just regulated and not condemned?

[@WePlugGOODMusic]

Question regarding foreign slaves - Dr. Imes shares that no money is being given to a third party, but doesn’t go on to explain how the slave is bought? If they are being bought against debt that they owe, wouldn’t that then mean that they are free after that debt is paid via their labour?

[@nickbrasing8786]

Well, she's simply wrong about there not being money exchanged. But in answer to your question, yes in the case of an Israelite indentured servant, but no in the case of a foreigner. They are never released. For the very reason she noted in the video. Because they owned no land in Israel, and could not own any land in Israel.

[@adamruuth5562]

It's not far off how you in the olden days paid the father for the daughter's hand in marriage. They weren't exactly for equality back in those days, even though they said words to that effect.

[@billbrock8547]

Exodus 21:20-21 "When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property." This passage applied to non-Jewish slaves of Jewish masters, and was used, along with other passages, by Christians to justify the cruelty of slavery in the Antebellum South.

[@fatfrankie]

Weird... I had a discussion with Dr Imes in the comment section under a video on slavery and I pointed out that Antebellum was based on the bible. The Massachusetts legislation even referenced "god's law" in the bible. Slavery of non-Hebrews had the following characteristics: - There were laws which protected slaves from abuse - The Hebrews were prohibited from kidnapping slaves themselves, except during war (Deu 20:10-18) - Slaves could be purchased from non-Hebrew owners (Lev 25:44-46). This mirrors exactly what happened during Antebellum slavery. Seems like she forgot it all

[@cygnusustus]

Actually, there were no laws protecting non-Hebrew chattel slaves from abuse. Every specific reference to foreign slaves in the Bible is to deny them rights and protections afforded to Hebrew slaves. The Hebrews kidnapped sex slaves many times in the Bible, and kidnapping non-combatants during war is still kidnapping. Everything else was correct. There were essentially no differences between Hebrew chattel slavery and Antebellum slavery. If anything, slavery under the Mosaic laws was worse.

[@cygnusustus]

"Do not mistreat of oppress a foreigner." Again, that only applied to free persons. Not to chattel slaves, who were considered property. The mere act of keeping a human being as a chattel slave for life is oppression, and thus the oppression of foreign slaves was allowed. In fact, according to Psalms 2:8, the enslavement of foreigners was God's gift to the Israelites.

[@TrentonMabry1]

Where are you getting this notion that the mistreating of foreigners only applied to free persons? You are making a division that the text itself doesn’t.

[@cygnusustus]

@@TrentonMabry1 Because Leviticus 25:44-46 explicitly allows them to mistreat foreigners. That is in the text. Derp.

[@TrentonMabry1]

@@cygnusustus do not mistreat a foreigner and Leviticus 25-44-46 does not entail an ignoring of the text above. That’s something you are importing into the text.

[@cygnusustus]

@@TrentonMabry1 Leviticus 25:44-46 says that you can keep a foreigner as a slave for life. How is that NOT mistreating him? Do you not consider chattel slavery to be mistreatment? That is something you are ignoring in the text.

[@Tim.Foster123]

@@cygnusustus You need to think outside of your box. In the ancient world where everything is an eye-for-an-eye, if you commit a crime against me and your damages are worth more than your life (30 pieces of silver), I get the choice to have you executed or make you an offer that you become my slave for the rest of your life. That's just ancient common sense. Here's another scenario: if your debt to me exceeds what you can pay in annual labor during the remainder of my lifetime, then I reserve the right to hand you down to my children as part of the inheritance until your debt is paid in full. Again, that's just common sense.

[@xarchist]

There are so many tough objections to Christianity. It's hard to say which is the toughest.

[@russellmiles2861]

God killing babies must be up in the top ten Then again, said babies are guilty of original sin and haven't accepted Jesus as Lord and Saviour Hard call?

[@SeanRhoadesChristopher]

Law on the Captive wife, booty “When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.” (Deuteronomy 21:10-14, KJV)

[@anon7222]

@@SeanRhoadesChristopher They were not supposed to marry a foreigner/pagan, but people did it anyway. Instead of just forcing themselves on a hot woman and then selling her off like other nations did, God commands they take good care of her and give her at least a month to adjust before marrying her. Marrying her, not just sleeping with her. If it doesn’t work out (such as they realize marrying a pagan was a bad idea lol), they can’t just sell her or dump her off somewhere. Basically God is commanding they treat foreign women like humans instead of property.

[@Tim.Foster123]

Go and learn what women did during war times when their men were away. It'll help make more sense out of the passage. (People who never study other cultures are doomed to misunderstand them)

[@abigailwhite4704]

I always assumed the Levirate law would only apply to single relatives and brothers, since the Scriptures assume polygamy is wrong. For instance, if the deceased had no relative to serve as a kinsman redeemer, his widow could not have been redeemed! It's certainly possible Boaz was a widower. Also, it's interesting to note that Boaz is recognized as David and Jesus Christ's ancestor, not her late husband.

[@russellmiles2861]

Is that the toughest question What about Elohim killing every man woman and child at Sodom (Genesis 19:24),ordering the ripping the unborn from their mother's womb (Hosea 13:16) slowly killing Beshebas's baby (2 Samuel 12 17) killing the Firstborn (Exodus 12:29) putting to death women, children and infants (1 Samuel 15:3), has 2 She bear kill boys (2 Kings 2:24), killing Jobs children (Job 1: 19) and all the other tales of God killing children

[@astrawboiii1853]

If those children grew up in those environment, they would have been in hell right now.

[@russellmiles2861]

@@astrawboiii1853 why not have Abraham adopt them if that was a concern ... We actually have nothing from the people of Sodom's perspective ... The Hebrews were taking the Amalek's land ... why wouldn't they defend themselves. And Hebrews took foreigners as slaves so what was the issue of Egyptians taking Hebrews as slaves. There are clearly other issues here, and God had a choice in killing the babies or not ... Unless you believe God has no Free will? Why was God that you worship so Evil?

[@astrawboiii1853]

@@russellmiles2861 Lol. “to the pure, you show yourself pure, and to the morally corrupt, you appear to be perverse” psalm 18:26 This verse is so fitting. And it doesnt matter even is He is evil in your standard, if God is real then you would have to bow down boy. So the question is not if He is evil or good, the question is if He is real or not and which one is telling the truth? Every knee will bow, and every tonughe will conffess that Jesus is Lord. HAHAHAHA

[@russellmiles2861]

@@astrawboiii1853 but why does your god kill babies when He does not have too? Why not adoption?

[@hrvad]

There are several difficult questions, but you need to watch another show to investigate those. Don't forget the problem of suffering. From what I gather that's a big issue. But to your question I can't help look to Gaza and Lebanon, and perhaps Iran in a short while, depending on what Israel decides to do after the recent attack by Iran. Have you noticed how closely the current situation corresponds to the Caananite/Moloch issue in the Bible? The Caananites worshipped Moloch. To that effect they had forged a large, metal bull idol of Moloch. They would regularly put infants into a hollow part of the bull while fire roared below it. As such the babies would scream horribly as they sizzled on the glowing metal, and it was remarked that often they drummed harder during those sacrifices in order to drown out the screams of the babies. Apparently the parents didn't always like to hear the horror of their infants being grilled to death... The worshippers of Moloch also had other reprehensible practices. Such as possibly temple prostitution. These practices were considered abhorrent by their neighbors. Fast forward to today. Look honestly at Hamas and Hezbollah, and I think it's fair to say that they too have a human sacrifice strategy, which is accomplished by placing their military weapons directly in hospitals, near schools or in civilian residential zones. Just days ago images were captured of a Lebanese house where the roof could be retracted and rockets could be fired into the air towards Israel. Predictably, when Israel defends herself, civilians will die when the evil terrorist organizations force them into being involuntary martyrs for the greater cause of exterminating the Jews. But here's the big, big question: do you simply allow such evil to exist, if not flourish and expand? All those innocent civilian Palestinians and Lebanese are looking forward to a future where all that death is perpetuated forever and ever and ever. Even during WWII some pretty bad things happened ... to the Nazis. Like the firebombing of Dresden. The civilian death toll was extreme. Many cities were laid to waste like this. But do anyone truly think that the best solution would have been to let Nazism flourish and spread? Would it truly have been moral to ignore such evil? Biblically I think the answer is clear: sometimes, with God's blessing, evil needs to be put down - or else you won't have any good left in the world. The true evil aren't the unfortunate things that you're reluctantly forced to do in order to defeat an evil that is hellbent on maximizing human suffering and civilian deaths. The real evil is that which prompted the unfortunate responses by the morally righteous. I hear a lot of whining over Gaza, and now Lebanon. But the fact remains that those who whine the most are also the ones enabling this to go on forever. Why anyone would enable evil like that is for another day, but suffice to say that I don't want to perpetuate this forever, and that's despite the collateral damage that the beating down of evil will entail. And evil can be defeated, although admittedly we're bad at it, because so many sinful people take action to perpetuate it (like the people who love Communism and evil ... but I repeat myself). Nazism was defeated, and post-WWII it was stamped out so bad during the 1980s that somewhere in the 1990s only insignificant pockets of this evil existed. Some exist still, but they have no power to harm anyone.

[@vladtheemailer3223]

I don't know why any christian thinks that they are going to come out on top with regards to this topic. Two simple questions. Was it wrong to own someone as property back then? Is it wrong to own someone as property now?

[@user-bv4sj2gq7g]

On the issue of a slave choosing to stay with his master… if his master gave him a wife and they had kids, the master got to keep the wife and kids. Pretty strong motivation for the husband/ father to stay. I doubt he stayed because he loved his master. Ex. 21:4, 5

[@rejugeorge2863]

Very pertinent question which needs to be addressed. Look up William Wilberforce whose conversion to Christ caused him to lead a movement to abolish the slave trade and slavery in the British Empire.

[@dannylgriffin]

That is outside the scope of this discussion since modern day slavery was different.

[@cygnusustus]

@@dannylgriffin Modern day slavery (such as Antebellum slavery), was essentially the same as ancient chattel slavery under the Mosaic laws. But Danny's point is moot, since Wilberforce did not derive his opposition to slavery from any Biblical standards. The Bible condones chattel slavery. Wilberforce had to borrow from Humanism in order to oppose slavery.

[@KERTER21]

This was very interesting, great information

[@stephencrotts2417]

Ephesians says right after it says Children obey your parents it says slave serve your masters. If you want to look at the way Christians actually opposed slavery in both the Old and New Testament, you just have to read Charles Finney's systematic theology. He lived during the time of slavery and its abolition. His iron clad reasoning led many to oppose slavery and mass revivals. It also led those of his day to see that the Bible teaches only one law and that is the Law of eternal benevolence (the law of love). If you are a Christian, you must accept the concept taught in Jeremiah 31:31 that says the New Covenant is one in which no one will teach others, but they will all know God. Why is slavery a bad Ideal. It is because we know right from wrong, we vote on laws today and not rely on some book written so long ago. You can pretend that the Bible is some type of law book we should follow but to implement even the Ten Commandments would require those who did not follow the true God to be killed. And I thought that the New Testament said that women should not teach men. I guess to this professor that is not really what the Bible means. I am a Christian, but I believe in the way it is taught by Charles Finney and not NEW Evangelicals and modern Fundamentalist. I know that Jesus is the Word of God, and it is not a book. I believe that the Word of God is within me, and it is in Him that we live and move and have our being. I also believe in the Spirit which guides us into all truth. My understanding of the Bible is the basis of American society. You have to do mental gymnastics and take a non-fundamentalist way of looking at text. Any of these slavery text would be crazy to implement today no matter how you explain it. We are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses from the past. Look to them and you will get the correct answer.

[@horridhenry9920]

If this interview is anything to go by I’m really not looking forward to reading 700 pages of obfuscation. Bottom line, Hebrews 13:8 “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever”. Nowhere in the Bible does it state thou shalt not own other people as property. If Jesus had said that , whether people obeyed that commandment or not, at least we would have confirmation of express condemnation of slavery and apologists would not have to lie and obfuscate the facts.

[@Tim.Foster123]

...and nowhere in the Bible does it say 'Thou shalt not marry a 9 year old". You need to upgrade your reasoning skills. Seriously.

[@horridhenry9920]

@@Tim.Foster123 No, it allows you to marry a 9 year old or a 4 year old. You really need to read your Bible and learn about the social practices of the Israelites in biblical times,

[@WePlugGOODMusic]

This one completely went off the rails at the end there when she seemingly started to justify killing pregnant women and killing children.

[@nickbrasing8786]

Not until the end?

[@deshon3523]

Maybe god does what he wants?

[@Tim.Foster123]

Listen to it again. Not off the rails at all. I would add to her comments: don't forget that according to the Bible, all men everywhere stand guilty before God and are deserving of death. Even if all they did was eat a little piece of forbidden fruit. Start there. The Midianites in question were guilty of sexually seducing the Israelites. The Israelites (who were already guilty of disobedience and worthy of death. See Exod 32) were living on grace. And when the Midianites went to destroy them by seducing them, God was well within His rights to destroy them. The ones that were spared were the ones who didn't participate: the virgins. Sexually stoked perverts who watch too much porn will flip the script and say that God was telling the Israelites to go catch a bunch of sex slaves. It's the dumbest read of that passage. And it's what happens when people can't read context because they have a KZbin attention span augmented with lousy public school education. Pity.

[@fern450]

Carmen Imes, There is a push to get rid of the ownership structure in sports because of the slavery analogy, especially given that so many athletes are black. I hope that in your book, you don't use the sports analogy too much because it will weaken the argument for many, and even more-so whenever society makes the change. Then the book will be old and outdated.

[@adamruuth5562]

Let's interview more non-Christian historians on these issues. For a less biased view.

[@nickbrasing8786]

Perish the thought

[@cbrooks97]

How would a "non-Christian historian" give you a more accurate view on what the Bible teaches than an OT scholar?

[@adamhelgeson680]

@@cbrooks97OT scholars who are also apologists are automatically biased.

[@cbrooks97]

@@adamhelgeson680 By "biased" do you mean they assume it's true? How is that more biased than assuming it's not? But she's not an "apologist." She's simply an OT biblical scholar.

[@adamhelgeson680]

@@cbrooks97 Because every outlandish claim should be assumed to be false until substantiated. That very basic epistemology.

[@ManyaRidenour]

Isn't the debt repayment you describe what most credit card companies do?

[@ManyaRidenour]

Keeping debtors hopelessly in debt

[@nickbrasing8786]

Most credit card companies make you work for them for six years before they let you go? And keep the wife they gave you and your children when you're done? What credit card do you have?

[@midimusicforever]

It's quite different, since there was an upper limit for how many years the debtor would have to serve.

[@nickbrasing8786]

@@midimusicforever Not for foreigners. They were stuck for life. Generation after generation.

[@aletheiaquest]

This was great! We definitely want a Part 2. And, anyone who may disagree, they have all universally changed their opinion to match mine. Don't fact check me, just go with it. 😉

[@QuinnEdwards1]

No matter context or era, god himself directly commanded, put in the law or did not condemn slavery. And I am not just talking about being a bond servant. Below are passages I have read. God does not change. 1. exodus 21:2-11 - lots!! 2. Exodus 21:20-21 - lots!! 4. 1 Timothy 6:1-2 5. Ephesians 6:5-9 6. 1 Peter 2:18 - Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-4:1; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Tit 2:9-10; 1 Pet 2:18-20) blessing to have slaves Gen 12:16; 24:35; Isa 14:1-2. Ex21:21, 1peter2:18, Gen 16:3-4; Exod 21:8-11, levitus 19:20-21, Lev 25:44-46, Lev 19:20-22

[@DavidWilliams-cm4ow]

People should keep in mind that the OT was not written in a Capitalistic society, nor a Communist or socialist society. The whole idea of money was limited. Wealth was measured by different standards, land, animals etc. if you had debt but no money, land or animals servitude was merciful. You could pay off your debt with labor. In that way you could maintain your dignity in society ( not begging) and also eventually work your way into a higher bracket of society. This of course was much harder for a woman because their strength was less, but their value lay in their ability to produce children. They needed to be provided for until such time that they were married.

[@vladtheemailer3223]

Is it acceptable to own another human being as property?

[@wemf2]

Wait... did Dr Imes just say that corporal punishment is allowed in the Bible as long as there is no death or permanent damage?!

[@nickbrasing8786]

Yes, but in all fairness that's exactly what the Bible says.

[@MrSeedi76]

​@@nickbrasing8786😂 no it isn't. "The Bible" is a collection of multiple books. Last I checked, Christians don't follow OT rules (Acts 15). And you think "treat others as you would want to be treated" leaves room for any of the evil stuff atheists like to accuse Christians of? Nope.

[@nickbrasing8786]

@@MrSeedi76 I'm not saying the Bible says you can beat your slaves today. I'm simply pointing out that the OT said you could beat your slaves. It's pretty clear on the subject to be honest. So, yes it does. All you have to do is read it.

[@DavidWilliams-cm4ow]

Think about it this way; is there a place for servitude in modern society? I’m not proposing slavery as an institution but, if a person steals from another, shouldn’t they be required to pay back what they stole? In our society, people go to jail for theft. How does that help the person who lost property. Should insurance handle this? Well, insurance costs money and does not always cover loss. How are we to recoup loss due to another mistake or malicious act? Sometimes a persons wages are garnered. What if instead of garnering his wages, he came to work for you until he paid back his debt? Of course, that would be voluntary, but it might also seem necessary if he had no other way to pay it back besides going to jail. This in no way justifies cruel treatment. Anyone employed by another should be treated with the golden rule and the rule that Jesus said was second, love your neighbor as yourself. So, if I were in this situation, how would I like to be treated. I’m just saying, sometimes we are blind to the weaknesses in our own society and unfairly judge the societies of the past.

[@nickbrasing8786]

What you're describing is indentured servitude, not slavery. The issue here is lifelong, generational chattel slavery. Something very much different from paying restitution.

[@aliasgirl9]

I’ve never done this before but I am preemptively posting my comment based on the title/name of the video “The Bible and slavery explained!” If need be I will edit this comment or make a new one under this one if something arises from hearing this discussion. When, after context is provided and the Bible defines biblical definitions, each and every person who does not work for themselves, is a “slave” to a “master”(/employer).

[@Nutterbutter123]

God worked His way through one man anointed, who became a tribe, who became people, who became slaves, who were freed and became nations, who begot our Savior, so that all can be justified before our Holy Father. Glorious. “Slavery” allowed pagan worshippers to convert to ancient Israelite religion through relationship, outside of the servant hood aspect. Moses warned his people through law to keep their upcoming promised lands as holy as possible, as the next generations had to be reminded consistently that they too were slaves, therefore love God and stranger.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Currency, gold, silver, nor digital money will say, LORD, LORD, Lord! Keep watch!

[@judygranberg4018]

Also a serious issue in the prophets-- ex Jerm. 34:8ff-- although this specifically dealing with Israelite slaves

[@moses9647]

Coming to the end, its quite interesting how much this discussion parallels the rhetoric that gay affirming folks use to read in context to the "clobber passages" and give a "charitable" interpretation of words like "porneia". Its very much the same form of contextual interpretation, even changing plain words to other words. I think Sean takes a harder stance on gay affirmation because the stakes are higher, its a salvific issue. But i think its important to at least acknowledge whats going on

[@DrKippDavis]

It's just astonishing to me that no matter how much work scholars have done, and continue to do, on the biblical texts within their ancient Near Eastern context, no matter how much public view is drawn to this topic that apologists just go on ignoring what scholars are saying. It's disappointing, because I have to think that Dr. Imes is at a minimum familiar with the ongoing, lively academic discussions about slavery and the Bible, and yet, you would never know it to hear this interview.

[@nickbrasing8786]

Amen Kipp. "Buy" can mean "hire" in Lev. 25? They didn't actually use money? Please....

[@Allen-L-Canada]

@@nickbrasing8786 I didn't get that either.

[@cheanlamazing]

Someone with credibility has arrived 😅😅😅

[@benmlee]

Want to give an example of what contrary opinions scholars have.

[@nickbrasing8786]

Well considering Dr. Davis IS an OT scholar, and worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls, I'm sure he could provide any number of them here. Perhaps you could read one of his books, listen to a video (or the one probably coming on this video). But def read Dr. Josh Bowens scholarly books ("Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery") that address this exact subject at length. Referencing ad nauseam all the scholarly opinions. You know, if you're really interested in an answer?

[@oliverjamito9902]

What is currency, gold, silver, nor digital money? Remember all thy shared Feet in front! Why?

[@Jeddacoder]

That doesn't make sense. At 15:45-16:30 - Why do we have to read Leviticus in light of Exodus? They say different things. They're different books. How does reading Exodus just automatically smooth over what Leviticus says? That seems to be inserting your own preference about what the texts _should_ say. What am I missing?

[@jimyoung9262]

I'm so glad you had Dr. Imes on. She's absolutely brilliant.

[@erichodge567]

30:30 Dr. Imes' response to Sean's question here is what Mr. Deity calls "excusagetics".

[@zacharydavis3489]

"If we pretend words don't mean what they mean then we don't have a problem!!"

[@MrSeedi76]

"Mr. Deity" 😂😂😂.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Students shared "i" Am will say, HOSTS MEEKS and our BEAUTIFUL will say, remember all HIS shared Feet! All naught in front of our LORD!

[@vanessakarsa3220]

I'm not sure why this point has not been brought up. The whole issue of slavery is very straight forward. The reason why God and Jesus did not abolish slavery of man, is because Gods greater concern and priority is to a slavery of a different kind. The root of slavery of man is the slavery to sin that exists in the heart of every man. It is this greater slavery that God sent His Son to abolish. It is this type of slavery which is more concerning to God. Instead of looking at outward unjust situations, we need to look at the bandage that exists in our own hearts if we have not repented and put our trust in Jesus. This is where the greater emphasis needs to be. Because Father God and Jesus definitely did break that system.

[@Nazarene_Judaism]

What about christianity slaving africans In the Americas?

[@sienkiewiczmonika1161]

Jesus didn't condemn sex trafficking and domestic violence. And many other things.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Yes, as KING DAVID said, my LORD!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Slavery will say, LORD naught in front of thee! Why say? Lord thy Paradise cooperation unfamiliar unto many!

[@oliverjamito9902]

HE even adopted wise and Scribes of this world as Sons!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Shalom comes with rejoicing in front of HIM Saul to Paul knows Who?

[@biaberg3448]

What’s worse, have to work for someone as a slave or be put in jail for years, maybe the rest of your life? OT people might think our prisons are extremely inhuman. And often it is.

[@cygnusustus]

It's completely irrelevant whether or not the laws were legislative. It's completely irrelevant whether of not the laws were casuistic. The Bible condones and promotes chattel slavery. Chattel slavery is defined as "the enslaving and owning of human beings and their offspring as property, able to be bought, sold, and forced to work. Another definition is: "The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude." Leviticus 25 explicitly describes and condones chattel slavery. "44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." Under Mosaic law, foreign slaves were chattel slaves. They could be bought, sold, separated from their families, beaten, raped, killed, kept for life, and passed down as inherited property. Every specific reference to foreign slaves in the Bible is to deny them rights and protections afforded to Hebrew slaves. The treatment of foreign slaves was every bit as bad, or worse, than slavery in the Antebellum south.

[@Tim.Foster123]

You literally did not listen to the interview.

[@cygnusustus]

@@Tim.Foster123 I literally did. You literally failed to refute my post. Dismissed.

[@Tim.Foster123]

@@cygnusustus and you missed the whole basketball part too, I suppose. Usually I find the people who have the hardest time understanding the Bible on the topic fall into two categories 1. They don't want to listen and they don't want to understand 2. They have never lived in third world countries and have no clue how the rest of the world operates outside of their cozy little Ivory Tower. For those of us who were born in third world countries, we have a much easier time seeing how the Bible's view of "slavery" bears no resemblance to antebellum chattel slavery. Or Greco-Roman slavery, for that matter. And once you get to that point, you can see that the Bible's view of "slavery" is no different than what you actually currently approve of in your country. And yes, I'm serious. (probably better actually, because you don't believe in letting everyone out of prison after 7 years) Step outside of your cozy ivory tower sometime. Sure, you'll break a fingernail here and there, but you'll find the education to be worth it. ( and no, I'm not going to take the time to refute your comments. If you're not going to spend the time to listen what's right in front of you, I'm not going to bother typing it out for you. Listen to the interview again, end this time, listen with your thinking cap on)

[@Tim.Foster123]

But I'll start with this... In the Bible, anyone found in possession of a kidnapped person was to be executed. That right there negates the entire Antebellum slavery situation. But you didn't see that factoid because you don't want to see it. ...Proving once again that there are none so blind as those who will not see.

[@cygnusustus]

@@Tim.Foster123 Basketball is not relevant to the topic of slavery, child. Usually I find the people who have the hardest time understanding the Bible on the topic fall into two categories: 1. Liars 2. Dodgers "For those of us who were born in third world countries, we have a much easier time seeing how the Bible's view of 'slavery' bears no resemblance to antebellum chattel slavery." How was it different? Under Mosaic law, foreign slaves were chattel slaves. They could be bought, sold, separated from their families, beaten, raped, killed, kept for life, and passed down as inherited property. Every specific reference to foreign slaves in the Bible is to deny them rights and protections afforded to Hebrew slaves. Those of us who are educated understand that chattel slavery in Ancient Israel was as bad, or worse, than slavery in the Antebellum south. Get educated. "and no, I'm not going to take the time to refute your comments." Then I know how to classify you. You are a dodger. I accept your concession of defeat. The Bible condones and promotes chattel slavery

[@oliverjamito9902]

Lord have given New eyes to see! Can see clearly! These who am I masters with arrogance have humiliated and plucked out all our feathers NAKED IN FRONT OF THEE!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Why say?

[@e.m.8094]

For some reason, there's such a huge misconception that all the things in the Bible were "a-ok" with God.

[@madcatz990]

I think his laws are okay with him are they not???? or is he a really bad lawyer???

[@e.m.8094]

@@madcatz990 It seems like you've missed my point.

[@BigIdeaSeeker]

@@e.m.8094Perhaps more specificity is necessary for your point to be made?

[@e.m.8094]

@@BigIdeaSeeker If you reread my original comment, it should be pretty easy to decipher. Just because something is written in the Bible does not mean that God was SUPPORTIVE of what was going on.

[@BigIdeaSeeker]

@@e.m.8094 That is clear, but only a generalization. So “bashing infants heads upon rocks” being a good thing may not be approved of by Yahweh, though it’s in the Psalms. But in this case, slavery regulation is five *BY* Yahweh. I think that calls for you to be a bit more specific in this instance. If God says that Levite priests must burn their daughters if they’ve played the harlot, it seems that Yahweh approved of burning whorish offspring. One may justify or explain, but cannot simply wave away these things with “God doesn’t approve of everything.”

[@MrSparkums]

Excellent video..

[@mikehutton3937]

It might just be me, but I have very little time for the “let’s bash the Bible because it condones slavery” crowd. To me this either ignorance or hypocrisy made manifest, judging the societies of the past while glibly ignoring the fact that 300 years ago we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Point 1: you cannot blindly judge the past by the social morals of the present. We’ve only been free of widespread slavery for less than two hundred years. A hundred years before that if you had mentioned the idea of abolishing slavery you’d have been laughed at or treated as a dangerous fool in every country worldwide bar one (England, where slavery didn’t exist as such). As such it is worth investigating WHY slavery might have come into existence, why it became unacceptable, and how the transformation occurred. But, of course, those who want to use slavery as a stick to beat the Bible with have no interest in that whatsoever. Ignorance in that regard is most convenient. Point 2: slavery is a human construct which predates the bronze age - and thereby its earliest reference in the Bible - by millennia. As such it is not promoted as a societal good by the Bible, but rather is managed as a feature of the human societies of the time. We already know that societies had not evolved along ideal lines, either by modern morals or those put forward in the OT. This is hardly surprising. But then, in the context of bronze age civilization, why did slavery appear, and what was it supposed to achieve? My contention here is not that slavery is admirable, but that in Biblical times the alternatives were worse. Far worse. I have repeatedly asked critics of the Bible who cite slavery as an objection for improvements on slavery which would have worked at the time, and everyone has drawn a blank. Which is also hardly surprising. If one presumes that societies follow evolutionary principles, in that only the best functioning ones tend to be the ones which survive and transform into others, and one also presupposes that slavery was likely to be endemic as long ago (according to the anthropologists) as 10,000 BC, then the preponderance of slavery among bronze age societies, not to mention societies following them for another 12,000 years, then slavery itself must have proved useful either as a societal good or as a bulwark against something which was worse. I’m not going to bother going down the road of claiming slavery is a societal good. Modern developments have shown that it is not in the modern context. So what was slavery better than? Slavery comes in three contexts. 1. People are kidnapped and then bought and sold as property. 2. People, be they combatants or non-combatants, are captured as a by-product of war. 3. Those who are destitute throw themselves on the mercy of another, and become slaves by their own volition. Type 1 (kidnapping) is condemned by the Torah, on pain of death. You can’t bash the Bible for that one. It’s worth noting that quite a bit of the transatlantic slave trade, not to mention the East African slave trade, largely worked on this basis, in that the African tribes selling slaves to Europeans obtained those slaves simply by attacking their neighbours with no other intention than capturing people and making slaves of them. Type 2 (war captives) was endemic in the Bronze age because of global tribalism and geopolitical conflict. Capturing enemy fighters and non-combatants was inevitable and widespread. What do you do with all these people? You can’t just let them go because the nation you’ve just beaten is just going to use these people to fight you again. The realistic alternatives seem to be that either you put them to work for you as slaves, or you kill them. The former because you don’t want them to be a drain on your civilization, so if they’re going to live among you then you need to control them and make them productive for your civilization, and the latter because the only other option is to let them go which would just be stupid as you’ll have to fight them again next year. Type 3 (voluntary) existed in a number of states including Akkad and Israel. It’s effectively a business contract, where you agree to work for the person you’ll be accepting food and lodging from, with no guarantees that you will be able to leave, or even a minimum expectation of how you will be treated other than you will be given food and shelter in return. The conditions for this are harsh, and there is an expectation that you could be mistreated and treated in ways you find difficult to deal with. This could mean beatings or rape or both. But the point is that this is not supposed to be a Good Option for you. It’s something you do as a last resort, not unlike the reason why the Workhouse in Victorian England was made as unpleasant a place to be, as otherwise it might be seen as anything other than a last resort before you starve to death. To summarize, option 1 (kidnapping) is wrong. The alternatives to the other situations is slaughter or starvation. Which then poses the questions to those who want to bang on about slavery in the Bible: Which is worse? Slavery, or slaughter and starvation? Given that we’re talking about bronze age civilizations, are there any better alternatives which God could have proposed to the people of Israel, which would have been practical and would not have seriously undermined or weakened the state of Israel as a nation? I'm still waiting for a reasonable answer to this one. The next question is what conditions are necessary in global society in order for type 2 and type 3 slavery to be unnecessary, and when in human history were those conditions met in the majority of the world? Answer those questions honestly and I might start taking the critics seriously. Most tend to try to sidestep these questions because they know the answers, and it shows their high-handed critique to simply be down to their not having thought through the issue carefully enough.

[@nickbrasing8786]

Well just to start, the Bible isn't presented as the people of Israel, or the society's laws. These came from God. Any judging that goes on is based on that. If you simply said the Bible was written by people doing their best 3500 years ago, I think most people would shrug their shoulders and just say, well that figures. But Gods morality is not supposed to change. You're missing that here. And I don't know what you mean by slavery coming in three "contexts", but you seem to be listing the ways people could become a slave. And you left one of the most common ways completely off your list, as most people do. And that's simply being born into it. Not kidnapped, wasn't in a war, and isn't destitute. Just the bad luck of parentage. And there they are, lifelong chattel slaves. Including in the Bible. Why did you leave this off? Speaking personally, I don't comment on the morality or immorality of it all. But the errors, omissions, half truths, misinformation and outright lies one hears on this topic is an epidemic these days. And we need to at least all agree on what exactly the Bible condones and does not condone on this subject. That's my purpose anyway. To correct incorrect information. People can draw their own conclusions on what it means to them, but shouldn't they at least know the facts? Because right now videos like this are not presenting them accurately. You're putting the cart before the horse.

[@mikehutton3937]

@@nickbrasing8786 Sadly you're falling into the pattern of low-resolution wishful thinking that is endemic among Bible critics. Mosaic law is part of the covenant between God and Israel. If they follow the laws, Israel will be blessed. That's the way it works. I was not saying that the Bible was written by people doing their best. I'm saying that the Biblical interventions in human society with respect to slavery in the Torah centre on the formation of the nation of Israel, and starts deals with Israeli society as it is at that point in time. I never said God's morality had changed. What I am implying is that God's intervention in human society meets us where we are and transforms us from there. The morals are there, constant and unchanging, but we are not expected to turn 180 degrees overnight as a society, but rather learn what we can do better and so conform with God's moral principles. If we can learn anything from the record of the Torah it is that human societies don't change easily, and often lurch in unexpected and sometimes destructive directions. That pattern goes for individuals too. So what we can expect then is a progression of instruction where the underlying divine moral principles are made clearer, once individuals and societies are able to adopt them without compromising the stability of the society or the psychological capabilities of the individual. For example, Mosaic law allows divorce and remarriage, and Jesus clarifies this by reiterating the original principle from Genesis 1 that marriage should be permanent. What he doesn't do at that point is to outlaw divorce, but rather re-marriage, and does so with the clarification that this is going to be too difficult for some people. But the principle stands. You just have to want to follow it. Contexts / ways of becoming a slave. Whatever. Being born into slavery doesn't mean you "become" a slave. You just start off as one. The process which determined your status as a slave happened to your parents, or possibly theirs. I left this off as it doesn't really inform on the central questions I posed in my post, addressing on why slavery became endemic in early human societies and remained a societal constant almost worldwide for over 12,000 years. which I note you conveniently sidestepped. Which is better, slavery or slaughter / starvation? Care to answer that?

[@nickbrasing8786]

@@mikehutton3937 Sadly, you're failing to recognize the context and history into which these laws are given to the future Israelites. You said; " the Biblical interventions in human society with respect to slavery in the Torah centre on the formation of the nation of Israel, and starts deals with Israeli society as it is at that point in time. " Except Israel society at that point in time didn't own slaves, and hadn't owned slaves for over 400 years. They had been slaves themselves in Egypt remember? It wasn't a part of their society. It was condoned in the future society once Israel arrived in the promised land. Israel was meant to be the example to the rest of the nations of the time. You sadly miss this. "So what we can expect then is a progression of instruction where the underlying divine moral principles are made clearer" And where is this done when it comes to slavery? Never is a word said against the institution of slavery in the rest of the Bible. Not in the rest of the Old Testament, and hardly anything in the New Testament. People keep saying it's progressive revelation, but no one can show where that's done that I've spoken to. "Mosaic law allows divorce and remarriage, and Jesus clarifies this by reiterating the original principle from Genesis 1 that marriage should be permanent. What he doesn't do at that point is to outlaw divorce" Correct. And where is this for slavery? It isn't anywhere, that's the point. I'm suggesting "outlawing" it as you put it. Just something simply saying it was wrong, immoral, a sin, or against the will or plan of God. I think there are valid reasons to say it wouldn't have worked to outlaw it outright. I agree for the most part. But nothing against it other than who they should and shouldn't be? And how to treat them? You at least have to understand why people for the next 3,000 years didn't think the Bible was against slavery right? One sentence,, just one sentence would have been all it took. Less than that if Jesus would have thrown slavery into the discussion in Matthew. Your argument just falls flat to me. "Whatever. Being born into slavery doesn't mean you "become" a slave. You just start off as one" WTF? I don't even know how to begin to respond to such a nonsensical statement. I'll just let it stand on it's own for anyone who's following along. You don't think the breeding of slaves is at all one of the reasons that slavery, in your words above became "endemic in early human societies"? Really? I don't think it's me who's sidestepping the issue here. As to "Which is better, slavery or slaughter / starvation? Care to answer that?". Well, I'd leave that up to each individual slave to answer for themselves. I suspect you'd get different answers from different people. History is littered with the writings and stories of slaves that would rather die than remain a slave. What would you say to them, if I could ask a question back at you? You seem to be answering for all of them here.

[@mikehutton3937]

@@nickbrasing8786 "these laws are given to the future Israelites." Yes, and up to fairly recently (like, 300 years ago) there were observant Jews who owned slaves. But the practice died out because the base causes of slavery (other than kidnapping) died out. And Jews know they're not allowed to go around kidnapping people and enslaving them. "Except Israel society at that point in time didn't own slaves, and hadn't owned slaves for over 400 years. " You can't be sure about that. At the start the Jews were well-treated and held in high esteem. Slavery was common in Egypt so it's no major leap to presume that the Jews hadn't been able to own slaves for a large part of this period. It was only later (possibly the last 100 years in Egypt) that reserntment caused the Egyptian state to subjugate the Jews, at which point we can then presume they would have been barred from owning slaves. But not necessarily. "Correct. And where is this for slavery?" Simple answer, which is the second question I posed: What conditions are necessary in global society in order for type 2 and type 3 slavery to be unnecessary, and when in human history were those conditions met in the majority of the world? Hint - those conditions had not been met in 33AD. Not even close. Your comment about breeding slaves is odd. The Bible describes what to do if slaves have children, but nowhere does it describe or promote the idea of baby farms. Nor do we have examples of this sort of practice in history. Rather - if the East African slave trade is anything to go by - the practice would more likely be to discourage slaves from having children except as a special concession. indeed, later ion the practice tended to be to castrate the male slaves so they couldn't reproduce. No, the Bible specifically prohibits this practice, but we know it happened in the tribes around Israel. And yes, you were sidestepping... "As to "Which is better, slavery or slaughter / starvation? Care to answer that?". Well, I'd leave that up to each individual slave to answer for themselves. I suspect you'd get different answers from different people." Another sidestep. We're not talking about things at an individual level here. We're talking about nations who find themselves landed with a few hundred people because they won a battle. Do you really think this is a case of expecting the nation to go take a poll of the captives to see what they want to have done to them? Maybe you do kill those who would rather die. But what do you do with the rest? The ones that want to live (which is likely to be the majority)? Get real. You're evading the question. This is a societal issue, not simply a case of individual rights. Human rights weren't invented for thousands of years after this. As for those who voluntarily sell themselves into slavery, the choice is there. Sell yourself or die. I suspect the majority will not choose starvation. You need to try harder and come up with alternatives to slavery which would have been practical alternatives which would have worked in the bronze age. If you can.

[@Tim.Foster123]

And I can bet you that many of the people turning up their noses at Biblical "slavery" have no problem with killing babies. Me, personally, I'd rather be enslaved Biblically than aborted.

[@cygnusustus]

Nope. The laws were only intended to restrain the actions of the slave master in regards to fellow Hebrew indentured servants. There were no restraints upon the abuse that could be inflicted on non-Hebrew chattel slaves. Under Mosaic law, foreign slaves were chattel slaves. They could be bought, sold, separated from their families, beaten, raped, killed, kept for life, and passed down as inherited property. Every specific reference to foreign slaves in the Bible is to deny them rights and protections afforded to Hebrew slaves. The treatment of foreign slaves was every bit as bad, or worse, than slavery in the Antebellum south.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Hosts Meeks will say, remember among HIS shared "i" Am knows belongs?

[@oliverjamito9902]

Slavery will say, LORD as ye speaks unfamiliar unto many!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Satellites come here in front and remind! Lord imitating Thee! Ascending and descending. Keep watch!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Currency, gold, silver, nor digital money come here in front and remind!

[@Kristy_not_Kristine]

Jesus works with people where they are. The Bible isn't just a to-do manual. It's also a precautionary tale (slavery and polygamy in particular). I appreciated the thoughts shared in this video. So many people are reading scripture with new eyes and coming out of false religions (all) for a personal relationship worth God ❤ Where Levirate marriage is concerned, there is nothing that says a MARRIED man would marry his brother's widow. God's law on marriage would still be in force. If there was an UNmarried brother, he'd be required to marry his brother's widow. Be careful, Levirate marriage is one of the things polygamists (those in practice and those who practice it in their hearts and look forward to practicing it again one day-Brighamite religions) point to. But they are wresting ALL the other scriptures to make their point. It's ALWAYS an abomination, gross crime, adultery, sin (as Joseph Smith taught, actually, but Brigham was an impostor and took over the church without authority and changed the order of marriage, tithing, and so many other things. This is the cult I came out of over a year ago after learning the truth of the history. I was a seventh generation member, full in. My ancestors followed Brigham to Utah! yuck! But we all must let go of the false traditions of our fathers and repent and turn to Christ and have a personal relationship with HIM. Only He can save us. Not a church. Not a pope or prophet or king). Also, I wonder how much confusion and errors on these subjects are a result of the Deuteronomists and the changes they made to the text??

[@oliverjamito9902]

Therefore dead will bring forth in front!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Who sitteth upon all my waters looking day and night!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Who is that? So familiar! Who HE holding?

[@Nero-Caesar]

The typical mental gymnastics to me this is very cut and dry

[@brettlovett6011]

There are a number of commenters here likening the servanthood described in the OT law to chattel slavery. No, that's incorrect. Chattel slavery is involuntary -- people are kidnapped, bought, and sold as property for labor with no rights. That's early American type slavery. The 'slavery' that God was condoning and regulating was voluntary servanthood -- poor people and PoW's were taken in as servants instead of letting them starve to death. We know it was voluntary because the servant was free to leave whenever he wanted to - Deut. 23:15-16 "You do not imprison a servant unto his master that is delivered unto you from his master. With you he dwells in your midst in a place that he chooses - within one of your gates where it is pleasing to him. You do not oppress him." -- Of course most wouldn't leave their master right away since they wouldn't be able to survive on their own - that's why they became servants to begin with. Foreigners who became servants, who didn't want to leave, could be kept as servants indefinitely - even passed down to the original master's children (Lev. 25:46). Hebrew servants, however, were expected to go out on their own after 6 years (Ex. 21:2) although exceptions could be made (Ex. 21:5-6).

[@nickbrasing8786]

Well first, voluntary or involuntary is has nothing to do with whether something is chattel slavery or not. You're just wrong there. Nothing to do with kidnapping either. You can easily, and usually, have chattel slavery without kidnapping. Debt, war, or simply being born into it for example. All of which are acceptable in the Bible. As to American slaves "having no rights"? Yes they did. More similar to Biblical law than you would think if you bothered to look into them. But again, rights have absolutely no bearing on whether something is chattel slavery or not. You may want to look up the definition before making statements like you are? And the slavery is not always "voluntary" as you claim. Certainly sometimes it was. But usually? Not so much. Please explain to me how a baby born into lifelong chattel slavery in Israel somehow "volunteered" to become a slave? You're confusing laws ONLY for native Israelites with laws for foreigners. Not the same laws. A foreign lifelong chattel slave was not "free to leave whenever he wanted to" as you claimed. Heck, not even a Hebrew indentured servant could do that. You're either misinterpreting something, or simply making that up. Probably the former based on your quotation of Deu. 23. This law was for foreign slaves theat escaped to Israel, and not to slaves within Israel. Read some commentaries or pretty much any work around this and you'll learn that. It's a common mistake. "Foreigners who became servants, who didn't want to leave, could be kept as servants indefinitely" Where does the Bible say "if they didn't want to leave"? I'll give you a hint. It never once says this. You're wishing it did, but it does not. And wishing don't make it so. Sorry

[@brettlovett6011]

@@nickbrasing8786 Incorrect. The term 'chattel slavery' means they are considered personal property with no freedom or legal rights. That means it's involuntary. This is not what God was condoning, and regulating. It's very simple - "You do not imprison a servant unto his master that is delivered unto you from his master." (Deut. 23:15). This means they are free to leave (and must be harbored - v.16) if they don't like the situation. It's voluntary, and this command ensures it. My phrasing - 'if they didn't want to leave' is based on this clear and simple command from God, and is therefore valid. If anyone was born into servanthood this command still applied to them, therefore no one was "born into lifelong chattel slavery" as you say - not according to God's law anyway, which says "do not imprison". And it does not say "foreign slaves" - you're just making that up. It just says "a servant" - that means ANY servant.

[@nickbrasing8786]

@@brettlovett6011 Well obviously you didn't go and read any commentary or anything on the passage in Deu. 23. So let me bring them to you. Barnes' Notes on the Bible- "The case in question is that of a slave who fled from a pagan master to the holy land. It is of course assumed that the refugee was not flying from justice, but only from the tyranny of his lord" Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary- "evidently a servant of the Canaanites or some of the neighboring people, who was driven by tyrannical oppression, or induced, with a view of embracing the true religion, to take refuge in Israel" Matthew Poole's Commentary- "Of the servants of strangers, because it follows, Deu 23:16, he shall dwell with thee, even among you, which shows that he had dwelt with and belonged to another people. Of such as belonged to the Canaanites, or other neighbouring nations" Or I beg you, do your own reading. It most certainly does not mean what you are claiming. Listen to what Christian Biblical scholars say on this passage. Or read the Hebrew if you can. I am not incorrect here, you are. As to "The term 'chattel slavery' means they are considered personal property with no freedom or legal rights. That means it's involuntary"? Ok, so you're arguing that America did NOT have chattel slavery. That all the black slaves volunteered to be slaves because they had some rights. Are you sure you want to take that position? And remember, kidnapping has nothing to do with whether it's chattel slavery or not. And no, children born to foreign slave parents in Israel also become permanent slaves. The Bible is full of this, and a word is never said contrary to it. As to it "just saying servant"? It does not say that. It says "עֶבֶד" (eved). Because when you're talking about lifelong slaves, those have to be foreigners. So yes, it's foreigners.

[@brettlovett6011]

@@nickbrasing8786 Yeah, I'm not interested in playing the 'my commentator versus your commentator' game. I'm just going by what the Bible plainly says. These verses are simple, clear, and easily understood - no commentators needed. You, and unfortunately those churchmen, are adding qualifiers to these simple verses in an attempt to alter the meaning. Deut. 23:15-16 "You do not imprison a servant unto his master that is delivered unto you from his master. With you he dwells in your midst in a place that he chooses.." That's "a servant" meaning any servant - no qualifications mentioned. That's "his master" meaning his master - no other qualifications mentioned. Any commentator who makes more of it than that is just speculating. And no, regardless of your understanding of 'chattel', American slavery was not voluntary. American slaves were considered property, were abused, and were hunted down and recaptured or killed if they escaped. This would not have been possible legally under the rules of these verses in Deuteronomy 23. This passage is too simple and plain to continue arguing about, so I'll leave it at that. But thanks for your perspective.

[@nickbrasing8786]

@@brettlovett6011 Yeah, these aren't just "commenters" like you think. This are Hebrew speaking Christian Biblical scholars. So the consensus of Christian Biblical scholars, reading it in Hebrew, have come to the conclusion I've told you. If you would like to explain to them why they're wrong you're free to do so. But if you bother to look into this at all, you'd understand there are very good reasons they say this. But it's up to you if you would like to learn or not.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Unto all casting HIS JUDGMENTS have no relations. Can alive yet dead have relations nor have sincere conversations in front?

[@cygnusustus]

"We have to read Levitucus 25 in light of Exodus 22." Nope. We have to read Exodus 22 in light of Leviticus 25.

[@mikehutton3937]

How is this substantively different?

[@cygnusustus]

@mikehutton3937 The two contradict each other unless you understand that one verse is meant for free persons, and the other is meant for slaves.

[@mikehutton3937]

@@cygnusustus Contradict? How? Where in either passage is any clarification between slave and free made? To be clear, Exodus 22:21 says: "Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.". Leviticus 25:44-45 says "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." You are seeing the contradiction because you equate slavery with oppression. In the Bronze age that attitude would have seen you ridiculed as an idiot. If an Israelite buys a slave from another nation, the slave's position has not deteriorated, and nor does this guarantee the slave would be mistreated in any way. If anything, the curbs on treatment of slaves under Mosaic law might well have meant that the slave's life would have improved as a result. The equivalence between enslavement and oppression is a relatively new invention. 300 years ago it is not an argument that would have even occurred to you. So why do we now regard slavery as oppression? Well, it's because the only practical means by which one becomes a slave in modern societies is by being kidnapped. Which is oppressive. The other, historical, routes to being enslaved were either becoming a captive of war, or by volutarily enslaving yourself in order to stave off starvation and death. These latter reasons for becoming a slave no longer exist in civilized modern societies, either as a result of international treaty or via welfare systems. So kidnapping is the only likely method of being enslaved. Guess what the punishment for kidnapping someone is under Mosaic Law?

[@cygnusustus]

@@mikehutton3937 "Contradict? How?" Child, Deuteronomy 22 says "Do not oppress a stranger", and Leviticus 25 says "You can own foreigners as chattel slaves, but don't oppress your fellow Israelites this way.". If you can't see the contradiction there, you are too stoopid to engage in this conversation. Do you see the contradiction, or don't you? "You are seeing the contradiction because you equate slavery with oppression." Thanks for confirming that you are too stoopid to engage in this discussion. "If an Israelite buys a slave from another nation, the slave's position has not deteriorated" Therefore what, child? "the curbs on treatment of slaves under Mosaic law might well have meant that the slave's life would have improved as a result" Wow. How are you folks so ignorant of your own scriptures? There were no "curbs" on the treatment of non-Hebrew slaves under Mosaic law. They could be bought, sold, separated from their families, beaten, raped, killed, kept for life, and passed down as inherited property. Every specific reference to foreign slaves in the Bible is to deny them rights and protections afforded to Hebrew slaves. The treatment of foreign slaves was every bit as bad, or worse, than slavery in the Antebellum south. "The other, historical, routes to being enslaved were either becoming a captive of war, or by volutarily enslaving yourself in order to stave off starvation and death. " Or begin born. You forgot about being born into chattel slavery, Christian.

[@Tim.Foster123]

> read Levitucus 25 in light of Exodus 22 Which was written first? (Clearly you are totally uninterested in thinking things through)

[@RuthNovak-n3i]

This is so interesting! Thank you. When Israel was at war with some groups, their idol worship included temple prostitutes or other sexual practices. When you brought up the fact that idol worship was a family affair, I have to wonder if the societies with sexual worship practices included small children, and if so, would those sexually active small children have brought pedophilia into Israel?

[@russellmiles2861]

@@RuthNovak-n3i I think the Hebrews were the invaders ...

[@joshuawolford1972]

This is wild

[@MrSparkums]

If you ever speak with Prager, ask him if he knows who owned most of the Ships, who dominated the trade throughout the Americas, the Mediterranean, the Arabian Sea and elsewhere.. 🤓

[@john-pauldewalt7284]

Is modern-day employment similar to biblical slavery? I would say Yes.

[@nickbrasing8786]

100% not similar at all.

[@vladtheemailer3223]

If you terminate an employee do you get to keep his wife and kids?

[@JJFrance]

To me its the geneologies with age and the census numbers.

[@LindeeLove]

Gee Sean, you would feel like a failed dad? That is your first thought? Your first thought wouldn't be, this is horrible, me selling my daughter, and not only selling her, but selling her to be someone's slave. This is horrible for my daughter. My poor daughter, I have done something horrible to her and I feel bad about it!!!

[@oliverjamito9902]

For many came before HIM! Came before their time. Results rebellious House.

[@Kristy_not_Kristine]

Slavery and polygamy. Twin barbaric actions. Polygamy is slavery for women and children, as she said the vulnerable. Men will be held accountable for taking advantage of women in this way.

[@QuinnEdwards1]

Lev 19:20-22 is the law from god and contains slavery, rape, misogyny, injustice and adultery! This is a damning passage

[@oliverjamito9902]

Shared "i" Am HOSTS MEEKS and HIS Beautiful will say, our Names exist in front of HIM!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Offsprings preserve will say, HIS shared "i" Am=