@correctMe if I'm Wrong Yes, if the owner made any permanent damage. He must leave the slave free. Exodus 21: 26-27 26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
This video makes a number of false or misleading statements. The truth is that Hebrews were subject to indentured servitude while non-Hebrews were subject to slavery (which was similar to the type of slavery that applied to Africans in the Americas during the early 1800s). The speaker keeps confusing the types. Instead of arguing about the meaning of the Hebrew words for slave/servant in a particular verse, why not ask who it referring to". In many verses, the Bible is clear when it is referring to Hebrews or non-Hebrews as I will show below: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Buying foreigners as slaves Leviticus 25:45-46 (NIV): "You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." From the above verses we can see: -that the Hebrews were allowed to buy non-Hebrews -these non-Hebrews became permanent property (unlike indentured servitude which was temporary) -they could be passed down as inheritance -the Hebrews could not treat other fellow Hebrews this way which shows this wasn't talking about indentured servitude -the words "but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." says that non-Hebrews were subject to ruthless slavery, while Hebrews were not -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- War captives Deuteronomy 20:10-15 (NIV): "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. From the above verses we can see that: -it applied to foreign nations i.e. non-Hebrews -men should be slaughtered unless the enemy city surrenders -the women and children could be taken as plunder and could be subjected to forced labor i.e. they could be enslaved -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chattel slavery To summarize, foreign slaves and war captives (who were only non-Hebrews) were considered property of their masters. Unlike indentured servants foreign slaves didn't have to be released and were subjected to a type of slavery considered to be "ruthless". Also Exodus 21:20-21 allowed their masters to beat their slaves as long as they don't die within a day or two. This all sounds very similar to the slavery that existed in America in the 1800s! Man-stealing Deuteronomy 24:7 says that stealing a fellow Hebrew and then treating him as a fellow slave or selling him is a capital offense...it says nothing of non-Hebrews. Exodus 21:16 and 1 Timothy 1:10 condemns man-stealing (i.e. slave raiders who kidnapped and sold people people as slaves). It says nothing about slave traders or slave holders in general. Furthermore this only applied to kidnapping fellow Hebrews since Deuteronomy 20:10 says that when Hebrews attack foreign cities, they can take the women and children as plunder who can then be forced into labor (i.e. enslaved). These were non-combatants who are taken out their homes and forced to work for the Hebrews. I don't know about you, but this sounds just like man-stealing! Another reason why these passages didn't apply to foreign slaves is because Leviticus 25:45-46 explicitly says that foreign slaves could be bought. Returning runaway slaves Deuteronomy 23:15-16 concerns a slave who has escaped from his master in some foreign land and sought refuge in Israel. He could not be handed over to his master, and would gain full citizenship among Israelites. Some would argue that it also applied to slaves that escaped from Hebrew masters, which if true, just means Hebrew masters were likely to have kept their slaves chained up - it doesn't mean the slave was free to leave if he was abused. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion There is no verse in the Bible that is a blanket prohibition against slavery. It was permitted, but regulated by laws. Hebrews were subject to (mostly) indentured servitude while non-Hebrews were subjected to chattel slavery. In both cases there were rules that governed how slaves should be treated and when and if they should be released. One last point. The speaker keeps pointing out how well the Hebrews treated their servants/slaves compared to other societies. Surely how well the Hebrews treated their slaves is irrelevant to the morality of owning another person as a slave!. Slavery is always immoral regardless!
@@nastyHarry Are you familiar with the "ad hominem" fallacy? Do you believe completely unsupported and vague claims, like "don't believe this liar" and "he doesn't understand the Bible", to be generally credible? What specifically did he lie about? What doesn't he understand about the Bible? What is defective in his evidence / conclusions? What research should we do that would prove superior to this?
@@clearway The speaker spends half his time discussing how good the Hebrews were supposed to treat their slaves. This is a red herring for many reasons: it is irrelevant to the definition of slavery and some American slavery laws gave better protection to slaves than the bible did (e.g. limited work hours). But he conveniently ignores all these laws and instead focuses on those that were worse (kind of dishonest dont you think?). He also takes laws that explicitly applied only to Hebrew indentured servants and tries to pass them off as applying to non-Hebrews slaves, such as the 7 year rule (more dishonesty?). Also just because there were laws to protect slaves from abuse, that doesn't mean they were always enforced (such as was the case with American slavery). The bible clearly allows chattel slavery. Below I paste a summary I did to explain this. The first way chattel slaves could be obtained is through purchase: Leviticus 25:44-46 says that the Hebrews can buy non-Hebrew slaves as permanent property. This is in contrast to Hebrew indentured servants who entered into a contract with their masters for a set period (7 years). Indentured servants couldn't be bequeathed as inheritance because they were not considered permanent property. Also, notice that this passage makes a distinction between the treatment of Hebrews servants who are not to be treated ruthlessly like non-Hebrews were. The second way chattel slaves could be obtained is by attacking foreign cities and enslaving the inhabitants. This was probably the primary method by which slaves were obtained. Deuteronomy 20:10-18 says that when the Hebrews attacked a non-Hebrew city they made an offer to the inhabitants: (1) surrender and pay a tribute (i.e. they would be forced to work for the Hebrews) OR (2) the men would be slaughtered and women/children and livestock taken as plunder. In case (2), women and children are described as plunder, which is property that is (usually violently) acquired by the victor during a war. Here the Hebrews could march into a house of the conquered city and drag out any women and children and enslave them. These weren't combatants and posed little treat to the Hebrews, but they were of economic value.
@@clearway Here are a few American Slavery laws that actually protected slaves from abuse better than those in the bible. - the 1739 South Carolina code limited the number of hours that slaves could be made to work and fined anyone who killed a slave £700. - The 1833 Alabama law code dictated, “Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offense had been committed on a free white person.” - Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave.... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was "convicted of cruel treatment," the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master - The South Carolina slave code was revised in 1739, with the following amendments: * No slave could work on Sunday, or work more than 15 hours per day in summer and 14 hours in winter. * The willful killing of a slave was fined £700, and "passion" killing £350.
William Wilberforce (1759-1833), the famous British abolitionist and Christian, is often brought up as an example of Christianity producing a movement against slavery. The main problem with this view is that nearly everyone in Europe and America was a Christian, the vast majority of whom were not against the practice. A very tiny amount of believers had opposed slavery in the 1500 years that Christianity had dominated Europe since the Emperor Constantine made this religion legal within the Roman Empire in 313 CE/AD. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, European abolitionists learned that biblical passages did not help their cause. They eventually began primarily using secular arguments by necessity. One major reason that it took Wilberforce 46 years to convince his countrymen to complete the abolition process in the British Empire was because a huge percentage of the clergy, government leadership, and the general public stood firmly on the view that slavery and racial inequality were natural, culturally normative, and biblical. Along with their Christian ancestors for hundreds of years that created and sustained New World colonial slavery with biblical justifications, the conservatives in Britain and America were among the main forces that resisted 18th and 19th century abolition laws. During Wilberforce’s sustained and rigorous efforts, it took 20 years (1787-1807) to get the slave trade legally ended and another 26 years (1807-1833) to make slavery itself illegal. Why would God provide such a misleading revelation? Or, in this case, is it more accurate to say that modern Christians developed a more heightened humanitarian sensibility because of the rise of Enlightenment humanism?
Your post with a link to your article was blocked as spam by RUclips. You might want to contact Peter Williams at Tindale House Cambridge in the UK directly. I doubt he would be monitoring posts on this video.
They took verses out to justify it, they had a slave Bible, they didn't even include the verses where the slavery they did was condemned in Exodus 20:16, and when Moses freed the slaves, when Jesus set the captives free, when Galatians verse said "we are all one in Christ, etc. They took verses out, which isn't right.
@@slattbandit5301 Jesus in Luke 4:18 and Paul in Galatians 3:28 referred to spiritual freedom, not a release from physical bondage. Moses and God led the Israelites to freedom and then instructed them how to buy and keep both indentured and chattel slaves (Exodus 21, Leviticus 25). I do not know why you quoted Exodus 20:16. It says, “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." What does this have to do with slavery? Maybe you meant to say Exodus 21:16, which forbids kidnapping. How a person enters the slave system is far less important morally than the fact that such an institution exists at all in a society governed by a supposedly just and loving God. The laws against kidnapping are in passages that discuss Hebrew slavery, not foreign slaves. Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 24:7 prohibit the stealing of a free Hebrew, to put them into slavery against their will. These verses provide nothing like a condemnation of slavery as an institution: "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession." (Exodus 21:16 NIV) "If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 24:7 NIV) As noted in Deuteronomy 20:10-18, many foreigners were enslaved during warfare by God’s explicit direction. That is kidnapping.
The point is, WW DID something on the basis of Christian commitment and that was consistent with the Scriptures...other Christians turned their back on the scriptures for convenience...as I'm sure we all do today for different conceptions of convenience! One could well go on to mention that while Britain was a slaving nation (along with all the rest, including the Africans who typically captured the slaves), it repented and became the great eliminator of modern slavery. One nation that put its naval power, its wealth and lives on the line because it considered it right to do so.
I don't think it's really right to judge the past with the present. For instance, you have to take in consideration all of us around today was born after the industrial revolution in a world of large amounts of technology which not only made our lives easier and more convenient it also produced lots of a substantual amount wealth which inturn created a substantual amount of employment opportunities. In the ancient world there was probably very little opportunity outside of farming. So if you didn't own land you were probably out of luck. So there was probably a very serious case of the haves and the have nots. So to volunteer yourself into slavery probably would have been the only option to survive you would have had. I don't think it was a lack of morality, it was a lack of opportunity. So I don't think because we don't have slavery today makes us morally superior. I just think it just shows that we just have a better way of doing things now. I mean after all this the ancient world were talking about. Even if the slave was set free, he doesn't own land. So what's he going to do? Get a job at Walmart? So I think what God was probably doing here is not so much endorsing slavery, he was just acknowledging it as the reality of time and showing his people the best way to deal with it.
Excellent it's just a pity that at the end he generalises about the value atheists may place on human life. He would have done better to consider their philosophical basis for valuation.
Slave or servant, who cares? Leviticus25:44-46 and Exodus21:20-21clearly allows you to buy slaves from surrounding nations, own them as property for life and beat them as long as they recovered in a day or two. Big difference between the way foreign bought slaves and Hebrew servants were treated. Hebrew servants were not to be treated as slaves but as hired workers and were released after 6 years(Exodus21:1-6). There hasn't been an honest apologist yet on biblical slavery.
Firstly, the only reason why the non-Hebrew servants of the surrounding nations like the cannanites, the amorites, the perizzites the jebusites etc. were taken as servants for life and had no option of freedom like the Hebrew servants had, is because if they were left to themselves, they might return to thier pagan practices like idolatry, bestiality and child-sacrifice, and might even plot a rebellion against the Israelites to destroy them, secondly, God NEVER gave a specific command anywhere in the bible to the Israelites to "beat" any "slave", there's NO such verse as "thou shall beat thy slave, it's ok to beat thy slave" in those exact words, you won't find such a command ANYWHERE in the Bible, infact, the command in Exodus 21:20 is a WARNING from God that IF IN CASE anyone does it, the man will be severely punished for killing his servant, the only penalty in the Bible for killing someone is the death penalty (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12 , Leviticus 24:17). Do you not think this was a severe incentive to make sure that people did not beat their servants? Again, the law in this was proscriptive meant to make people think of the consequences of their actions and impose penalties on violation. To imply that this encourages masters to restrain their beating only to the point that the servant didn’t immediately die is nonsense. The very fact that the master will be put to death for killing his servant, itself proves that God values the life of the master just as much as the servant, since they're both made in the image of God (Genesis 9:6) therefore, their lives have equal value, but if incase the servant suffers any serious injury, God commands the master to let him go free without the Servant having to pay anything ( since the servant owes the master money and is working off his debt in a contractual indentured servitude). “If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth Exodus 21:27 So no matter how big the amount that he owes is, in case of any injury the servant doesn't need to serve that master anymore and can leave him and go free without having to pay him back anything.
@@reginaldking9906 Leviticus25:44-46 told them to buy their slaves from nearby nations, could own them as property for life, passed to children as inheritance and could be beaten as long as the slave recovered in a day or two(Exodus21:20-21). The slaves were the foreigners because they weren't allowed to treat fellow Hebrew servants as slaves but as hired workers and released them after 6 years(Exodus21:1-6). Significant difference between the way foreign bought slaves and fellow Hebrew servants could be treated don't you think?
@@todbeard8118 It was STILL Voluntary, and not Forced, the people of the surrounding nations had to willingly offer themselves as servants to the Israelites, because kidnapping and trading of human beings was prohibited and punishable by death Exodus 21:16, and as I said earlier that God does not "allow" but discourages the beating of servants since it can risk thier deaths and thus incur the death penalty and risk them losing the servant, and the masters could not hurt a non-hebrew servant in anyway, because God reminds them that they themselves were slaves in Egypt for 400 years and God commands the Israelites in Exodus 22:21 "Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt". Exodus 23:9 "Do not oppress a foreign resident, since you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners; for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt". Leviticus 19:34 "You must treat the foreigner living among you as native-born and love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God".
@@reginaldking9906 Purchasing a slave wasn't kidnapping, it was purchasing a slave as property and owning the slave for life. Buying slaves was legal, kidnapping wasn't. Big difference between the ways the bible allowed you to treat a foreign bought slaves vs Hebrew servants. And you think someone would volunteer to be owned as property for life and beaten when his owner felt like it? Remind me what verse in the bible stated the slave volunteered? Good luck with that one. And in what verse does it state the foreigner was a slave? Good luck with that one too. The tap dances you have to do to try to sugarcoat biblical slavery huh?
@@todbeard8118 No one was ever forced to be servants to the Israelites, those people had to willingly offer themselves to be purchased or willingly run away from thier foreign land and come to israel, there is no other option, and there is no command from God to force someone to be thier servant, because offering themselves as servants to the Israelites meant that they can receive shelter, food and provisions, and I keep repeating that just because there may be instances where a master might beat a servant, God still does not command it nor condones it, on the contrary God discourages it, and commands the Israelites to treat ALL foreigners equally, INCLUDING thier servants because God reminds them specifically what they were in Egypt, they were nothing else but slave foreigners, therefore they had to be treated equally as a native-born and they had to love the servants as themselves, these biblical laws are designed to protect servants, there are also laws where the servants can even have a day off in a week (sabbath day), just as thier masters (Exod 20:10, Exod 23:12; Deut 5:14-15), they enjoyed the same freedom as thier masters, and they could take part in thier ceremonies and festival celebrations like the grain harvest festival etc. just as thier masters, the Torah demands that servants be treated equally to any other resident alien, these laws are unique in the ancient near east.
I definitely have more research to do, but so far it appears that Peter's proposal is more faithful to the context and ancient background that the authors of the OT were writing in.
@@ryansoulReaper Corrupt biblical inspired by Man who will feel every thing he caused by the true Loving Creator because Man likes the heat of the fire but not the light witch the True Christ Holly Created.
@@Resenbrink what happened to the link to the weasel song from wind in the willows I sent you? A mystery. I have exactly the same question as you is that not enough for Sam Harris, being created by a loving God in his image? Does he have to remind everyone of the Chief Weasel in the Wind in the Willows, musical version?
"Does the Bible Support Slavery ?" Of course it does, so does Almighty God, the Lord Christ, and his obedient servant/s [Strong's : SLAVE] the Apostles. Learn to live with it......Where is your faith?
Where does it say in the bible that you are NOT allowed to own people? Because there are dozens of passages that clearly support people owning people. Maybe you should read your book.
Yes, the bible condones slavery and NEVER explicitly condemns it. I'm not talking about indentured servitude either as you cafeteria Christians like to believe. You pick and choose the parts of the bible that make you feel nice inside but forget about the ones that make you queasy. Leviticus 25: 44-46 - As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever.
And the New testament Jesus talked about setting people free in loving each other has your brother and sister the Bible does not condone slavery now why would God son talk about setting people free
“Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession." Exodus 21:16 (About as explicit as it gets) The concept of forced enslavement is radically different from the forms of slavery made permissible in the ancient Israelite context. God bless:)
@@christiang4497 That is a property crime. The person was put to death because they took someone else's property (slave). The bible clearly condones the owning of other people as property FOR LIFE that you can beat almost to death.
As an honest Christian, I'll admit that slavery is generally one of those practices which have been confirmed as a moral law in the New Covenant, so even though such practices as slave-trading or unfair treatment of the war-captives/criminals are immoral in Christianity, still the slave-labour as a method of compensation, and use of force against a slave are moral options, or in some cases even a necessity for a Christian.
You can’t be serious. Slavery - specifically American slavery - is wildly unbiblical. What part of the gospel and the teachings of the Bible say it’s ok to kidnap children, rape women, and destroy families to make money? Thanks
and the True Creator will burn your words in the hell fire with no light. Though the true creator has Created the Light of the Hell fire. You will see this some Day bending your knees for a short SLAVE Period as you believed Such a Loving God would Manipulate a dirty corrupt book of control using Man to grow there profit beating the honest all most to death as long as they don't die in 2 day's Genesis:21 Exudux You Feared Dishonstly because your Cowardness drove you INSPIRED BY MAN OF BOASTING GODS.
Valiant effort Peter, but sorry, just as everyone before you who's tried to put a good face on the 'slavery' thing..... you failed! There's just no way to put a positive spin on this. I don't get why believers feel they have to artificially attach 'goodness' and 'righteousness' to something so blatantly evil. I'm a believer too! But I'm also a realist who can admit the brutal honest truth; and say 'well, this part of the old testament is a hot-mess, inside a dumpster-fire, inside a train-wreck. It's not only morally irreconcilable, it's just downright hideous. The day you finally admit that there's just some stuff in scripture that just cannot pass the smell-test, and learn to separate the roses from the thorns, you'll be a much happier person indeed.......just sayin!
Are you open to the possibility that you, prima facie, misinterpreted some parts of the OT, an ancient text? I have more research to do, but Peter's proposal is so far more faithful to the entirety of the OT text, and to its ancient background in my eyes.
@@reasonwlove8071 I'm open to anything; including the understanding that putting lipstick on a pig doesn't change the fact that it's still a pig. I hope YOU are open to that possibility! Which is exactly what's going on here and was the point of my original comment.
@@illinoisgospelfan650 " I hope YOU are open to that possibility!" I completely am friend (though with slight biases that plague the both of us). Proverbs 18:2 "Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions." After reading your comment, I am entertaining the possibility that you read some of the aforementioned texts, were greatly disturbed, and then concluded that any attempt to rationalize is springs from desperation (of Christians) and slight dishonesty (not denying that this is often the case or even mostly the case). That is, after all, how I use to think myself. This of course would be a greatly erroneous thought process. You didn't even try to interact with his points, which attempted to show (successfully if you ask me but I need to do more research to be sure) that reading slavery as we know it into the OT is actually a far more awkward and unreasonable interpretation of these texts, when the entirety of the text is scrutinized. You just went to claiming failure and then to talk about pigs and lipstick, quite pointless and only further obfuscates the truth through rhetoric.
@@illinoisgospelfan650 If you're insinuating that I am using rhetoric, my response is no not really lol. I am simply pointing out that 1) you made no attempt to deal with any of Peter's points, and just went straight to shaming him, and that 2) despite you implying that Peter is doing this out of bias and desperation, you have done NOTHING to vindicate yourself from this. Therefore your comment was void of any useful purpose. Enjoy your today sir!
Hey! how many of you are here after watching David Wood's video from Act17apologetics.
Yep.
@@ReformedR did you find the evidense
@@Gamer-zq5eb Did you really watch it? Surely you didn't miss the part of the video that begins just before 26:00, then?
@correctMe if I'm Wrong
Yes, if the owner made any permanent damage. He must leave the slave free.
Exodus 21: 26-27
26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
Link? I like DW
Excellent exposition, thanks for uploading this.
This video makes a number of false or misleading statements. The truth is that Hebrews were subject to indentured servitude while non-Hebrews were subject to slavery (which was similar to the type of slavery that applied to Africans in the Americas during the early 1800s). The speaker keeps confusing the types. Instead of arguing about the meaning of the Hebrew words for slave/servant in a particular verse, why not ask who it referring to". In many verses, the Bible is clear when it is referring to Hebrews or non-Hebrews as I will show below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buying foreigners as slaves
Leviticus 25:45-46 (NIV): "You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
From the above verses we can see:
-that the Hebrews were allowed to buy non-Hebrews
-these non-Hebrews became permanent property (unlike indentured servitude which was temporary)
-they could be passed down as inheritance
-the Hebrews could not treat other fellow Hebrews this way which shows this wasn't talking about indentured servitude
-the words "but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." says that non-Hebrews were subject to ruthless slavery, while Hebrews were not
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
War captives
Deuteronomy 20:10-15 (NIV): "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
From the above verses we can see that:
-it applied to foreign nations i.e. non-Hebrews
-men should be slaughtered unless the enemy city surrenders
-the women and children could be taken as plunder and could be subjected to forced labor i.e. they could be enslaved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chattel slavery
To summarize, foreign slaves and war captives (who were only non-Hebrews) were considered property of their masters. Unlike indentured servants foreign slaves didn't have to be released and were subjected to a type of slavery considered to be "ruthless". Also Exodus 21:20-21 allowed their masters to beat their slaves as long as they don't die within a day or two. This all sounds very similar to the slavery that existed in America in the 1800s!
Man-stealing
Deuteronomy 24:7 says that stealing a fellow Hebrew and then treating him as a fellow slave or selling him is a capital offense...it says nothing of non-Hebrews. Exodus 21:16 and 1 Timothy 1:10 condemns man-stealing (i.e. slave raiders who kidnapped and sold people people as slaves). It says nothing about slave traders or slave holders in general. Furthermore this only applied to kidnapping fellow Hebrews since Deuteronomy 20:10 says that when Hebrews attack foreign cities, they can take the women and children as plunder who can then be forced into labor (i.e. enslaved). These were non-combatants who are taken out their homes and forced to work for the Hebrews. I don't know about you, but this sounds just like man-stealing! Another reason why these passages didn't apply to foreign slaves is because Leviticus 25:45-46 explicitly says that foreign slaves could be bought.
Returning runaway slaves
Deuteronomy 23:15-16 concerns a slave who has escaped from his master in some foreign land and sought refuge in Israel. He could not be handed over to his master, and would gain full citizenship among Israelites. Some would argue that it also applied to slaves that escaped from Hebrew masters, which if true, just means Hebrew masters were likely to have kept their slaves chained up - it doesn't mean the slave was free to leave if he was abused.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
There is no verse in the Bible that is a blanket prohibition against slavery. It was permitted, but regulated by laws. Hebrews were subject to (mostly) indentured servitude while non-Hebrews were subjected to chattel slavery. In both cases there were rules that governed how slaves should be treated and when and if they should be released.
One last point. The speaker keeps pointing out how well the Hebrews treated their servants/slaves compared to other societies. Surely how well the Hebrews treated their slaves is irrelevant to the morality of owning another person as a slave!. Slavery is always immoral regardless!
He isn't a pastor, cherub.
And if you maintain that he is a pastor you have already admitted that he is christian and not a jew.
Manny no he doesn’t admit they were chattel
CJFCarlsson Ensign I removed the word “pastor” from my comment. Anything else you disagree with?
Very well elaborated. I was thinking of some of the same points as I was listening to the talk.
The atheists in this comment section usually deny history prior to 1500 AD
Excellent lecture! Thanx Mark for making these possible.
Don't believe this guy, he is either lying or doesn't understand the bible. Rather do your own research
@@nastyHarry Are you familiar with the "ad hominem" fallacy? Do you believe completely unsupported and vague claims, like "don't believe this liar" and "he doesn't understand the Bible", to be generally credible? What specifically did he lie about? What doesn't he understand about the Bible? What is defective in his evidence / conclusions? What research should we do that would prove superior to this?
@@clearway The speaker spends half his time discussing how good the Hebrews were supposed to treat their slaves. This is a red herring for many reasons: it is irrelevant to the definition of slavery and some American slavery laws gave better protection to slaves than the bible did (e.g. limited work hours). But he conveniently ignores all these laws and instead focuses on those that were worse (kind of dishonest dont you think?). He also takes laws that explicitly applied only to Hebrew indentured servants and tries to pass them off as applying to non-Hebrews slaves, such as the 7 year rule (more dishonesty?). Also just because there were laws to protect slaves from abuse, that doesn't mean they were always enforced (such as was the case with American slavery).
The bible clearly allows chattel slavery. Below I paste a summary I did to explain this.
The first way chattel slaves could be obtained is through purchase: Leviticus 25:44-46 says that the Hebrews can buy non-Hebrew slaves as permanent property. This is in contrast to Hebrew indentured servants who entered into a contract with their masters for a set period (7 years). Indentured servants couldn't be bequeathed as inheritance because they were not considered permanent property. Also, notice that this passage makes a distinction between the treatment of Hebrews servants who are not to be treated ruthlessly like non-Hebrews were.
The second way chattel slaves could be obtained is by attacking foreign cities and enslaving the inhabitants. This was probably the primary method by which slaves were obtained. Deuteronomy 20:10-18 says that when the Hebrews attacked a non-Hebrew city they made an offer to the inhabitants:
(1) surrender and pay a tribute (i.e. they would be forced to work for the Hebrews) OR
(2) the men would be slaughtered and women/children and livestock taken as plunder.
In case (2), women and children are described as plunder, which is property that is (usually violently) acquired by the victor during a war. Here the Hebrews could march into a house of the conquered city and drag out any women and children and enslave them. These weren't combatants and posed little treat to the Hebrews, but they were of economic value.
@@clearway Here are a few American Slavery laws that actually protected slaves from abuse better than those in the bible.
- the 1739 South Carolina code limited the number of hours that slaves could be made to work and fined anyone who killed a slave £700.
- The 1833 Alabama law code dictated, “Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offense had been committed on a free white person.”
- Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave.... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was "convicted of cruel treatment," the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master
- The South Carolina slave code was revised in 1739, with the following amendments:
* No slave could work on Sunday, or work more than 15 hours per day in summer and 14 hours in winter.
* The willful killing of a slave was fined £700, and "passion" killing £350.
@@clearway what ad hominem fallacy did Stanley commit? I dont think you know what such a fallacy is
Great lecture. I appreciate his point of view and knowledge.
Did anyone find the evidense that david talking about
William Wilberforce (1759-1833), the famous British abolitionist and Christian, is often brought up as an example of Christianity producing a movement against slavery. The main problem with this view is that nearly everyone in Europe and America was a Christian, the vast majority of whom were not against the practice. A very tiny amount of believers had opposed slavery in the 1500 years that Christianity had dominated Europe since the Emperor Constantine made this religion legal within the Roman Empire in 313 CE/AD. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, European abolitionists learned that biblical passages did not help their cause. They eventually began primarily using secular arguments by necessity. One major reason that it took Wilberforce 46 years to convince his countrymen to complete the abolition process in the British Empire was because a huge percentage of the clergy, government leadership, and the general public stood firmly on the view that slavery and racial inequality were natural, culturally normative, and biblical. Along with their Christian ancestors for hundreds of years that created and sustained New World colonial slavery with biblical justifications, the conservatives in Britain and America were among the main forces that resisted 18th and 19th century abolition laws. During Wilberforce’s sustained and rigorous efforts, it took 20 years (1787-1807) to get the slave trade legally ended and another 26 years (1807-1833) to make slavery itself illegal. Why would God provide such a misleading revelation? Or, in this case, is it more accurate to say that modern Christians developed a more heightened humanitarian sensibility because of the rise of Enlightenment humanism?
Your post with a link to your article was blocked as spam by RUclips. You might want to contact Peter Williams at Tindale House Cambridge in the UK directly. I doubt he would be monitoring posts on this video.
They took verses out to justify it, they had a slave Bible, they didn't even include the verses where the slavery they did was condemned in Exodus 20:16, and when Moses freed the slaves, when Jesus set the captives free, when Galatians verse said "we are all one in Christ, etc. They took verses out, which isn't right.
@@slattbandit5301 Jesus in Luke 4:18 and Paul in Galatians 3:28 referred to spiritual freedom, not a release from physical bondage. Moses and God led the Israelites to freedom and then instructed them how to buy and keep both indentured and chattel slaves (Exodus 21, Leviticus 25).
I do not know why you quoted Exodus 20:16. It says, “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." What does this have to do with slavery? Maybe you meant to say Exodus 21:16, which forbids kidnapping.
How a person enters the slave system is far less important morally than the fact that such an institution exists at all in a society governed by a supposedly just and loving God. The laws against kidnapping are in passages that discuss Hebrew slavery, not foreign slaves. Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 24:7 prohibit the stealing of a free Hebrew, to put them into slavery against their will. These verses provide nothing like a condemnation of slavery as an institution:
"Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession." (Exodus 21:16 NIV)
"If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 24:7 NIV)
As noted in Deuteronomy 20:10-18, many foreigners were enslaved during warfare by God’s explicit direction. That is kidnapping.
The point is, WW DID something on the basis of Christian commitment and that was consistent with the Scriptures...other Christians turned their back on the scriptures for convenience...as I'm sure we all do today for different conceptions of convenience!
One could well go on to mention that while Britain was a slaving nation (along with all the rest, including the Africans who typically captured the slaves), it repented and became the great eliminator of modern slavery. One nation that put its naval power, its wealth and lives on the line because it considered it right to do so.
This confused me so much. Is he saying the Jews WEREN'T slaves in Egypt??
I don't think it's really right to judge the past with the present. For instance, you have to take in consideration all of us around today was born after the industrial revolution in a world of large amounts of technology which not only made our lives easier and more convenient it also produced lots of a substantual amount wealth which inturn created a substantual amount of employment opportunities. In the ancient world there was probably very little opportunity outside of farming. So if you didn't own land you were probably out of luck. So there was probably a very serious case of the haves and the have nots. So to volunteer yourself into slavery probably would have been the only option to survive you would have had. I don't think it was a lack of morality, it was a lack of opportunity. So I don't think because we don't have slavery today makes us morally superior. I just think it just shows that we just have a better way of doing things now. I mean after all this the ancient world were talking about. Even if the slave was set free, he doesn't own land. So what's he going to do? Get a job at Walmart? So I think what God was probably doing here is not so much endorsing slavery, he was just acknowledging it as the reality of time and showing his people the best way to deal with it.
God came in to provide protection for that person inorder for him/ her to work n earn a living without being mistreated.
The eternal and unchanging God simply bowed to the culture of the time. Great explanation.
What about Lev 25.44?
Er . . .
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Eeeeerrrrrr.......????
@@kliniac3564 Exactly.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu 😂😆🤣😆😂
Excellent it's just a pity that at the end he generalises about the value atheists may place on human life. He would have done better to consider their philosophical basis for valuation.
Slave or servant, who cares? Leviticus25:44-46 and Exodus21:20-21clearly allows you to buy slaves from surrounding nations, own them as property for life and beat them as long as they recovered in a day or two.
Big difference between the way foreign bought slaves and Hebrew servants were treated. Hebrew servants were not to be treated as slaves but as hired workers and were released after 6 years(Exodus21:1-6).
There hasn't been an honest apologist yet on biblical slavery.
Firstly, the only reason why the non-Hebrew servants of the surrounding nations like the cannanites, the amorites, the perizzites the jebusites etc. were taken as servants for life and had no option of freedom like the Hebrew servants had, is because if they were left to themselves, they might return to thier pagan practices like idolatry, bestiality and child-sacrifice, and might even plot a rebellion against the Israelites to destroy them, secondly, God NEVER gave a specific command anywhere in the bible to the Israelites to "beat" any "slave", there's NO such verse as "thou shall beat thy slave, it's ok to beat thy slave" in those exact words, you won't find such a command ANYWHERE in the Bible, infact, the command in Exodus 21:20 is a WARNING from God that IF IN CASE anyone does it, the man will be severely punished for killing his servant, the only penalty in the Bible for killing someone is the death penalty (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12 , Leviticus 24:17).
Do you not think this was a severe incentive to make sure that people did not beat their servants? Again, the law in this was proscriptive meant to make people think of the consequences of their actions and impose penalties on violation. To imply that this encourages masters to restrain their beating only to the point that the servant didn’t immediately die is nonsense.
The very fact that the master will be put to death for killing his servant, itself proves that God values the life of the master just as much as the servant, since they're both made in the image of God (Genesis 9:6) therefore, their lives have equal value, but
if incase the servant suffers any serious injury, God commands the master to let him go free without the Servant having to pay anything ( since the servant owes the master money and is working off his debt in a contractual indentured servitude).
“If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye.
And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth Exodus 21:27
So no matter how big the amount that he owes is, in case of any injury the servant doesn't need to serve that master anymore and can leave him and go free without having to pay him back anything.
@@reginaldking9906
Leviticus25:44-46
told them to buy their slaves from nearby nations, could own them as property for life, passed to children as inheritance and could be beaten as long as the slave recovered in a day or two(Exodus21:20-21).
The slaves were the foreigners because they weren't allowed to treat fellow Hebrew servants as slaves but as hired workers and released them after 6 years(Exodus21:1-6).
Significant difference between the way foreign bought slaves and fellow Hebrew servants could be treated don't you think?
@@todbeard8118 It was STILL Voluntary, and not Forced, the people of the surrounding nations had to willingly offer themselves as servants to the Israelites, because kidnapping and trading of human beings was prohibited and punishable by death Exodus 21:16, and as I said earlier that God does not "allow" but discourages the beating of servants since it can risk thier deaths and thus incur the death penalty and risk them losing the servant, and the masters could not hurt a non-hebrew servant in anyway, because God reminds them that they themselves were slaves in Egypt for 400 years and God commands the Israelites in Exodus 22:21
"Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt".
Exodus 23:9 "Do not oppress a foreign resident, since you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners; for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt".
Leviticus 19:34
"You must treat the foreigner living among you as native-born and love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God".
@@reginaldking9906
Purchasing a slave wasn't kidnapping, it was purchasing a slave as property and owning the slave for life.
Buying slaves was legal, kidnapping wasn't.
Big difference between the ways the bible allowed you to treat a foreign bought slaves vs Hebrew servants.
And you think someone would volunteer to be owned as property for life and beaten when his owner felt like it?
Remind me what verse in the bible stated the slave volunteered?
Good luck with that one.
And in what verse does it state the foreigner was a slave? Good luck with that one too.
The tap dances you have to do to try to sugarcoat biblical slavery huh?
@@todbeard8118 No one was ever forced to be servants to the Israelites, those people had to willingly offer themselves to be purchased or willingly run away from thier foreign land and come to israel, there is no other option, and there is no command from God to force someone to be thier servant, because offering themselves as servants to the Israelites meant that they can receive shelter, food and provisions, and I keep repeating that just because there may be instances where a master might beat a servant, God still does not command it nor condones it, on the contrary God discourages it, and commands the Israelites to treat ALL foreigners equally, INCLUDING thier servants because God reminds them specifically what they were in Egypt, they were nothing else but slave foreigners, therefore they had to be treated equally as a native-born and they had to love the servants as themselves,
these biblical laws are designed to protect servants, there are also laws where the servants can even have a day off in a week (sabbath day), just as thier masters (Exod 20:10, Exod 23:12; Deut 5:14-15), they enjoyed the same freedom as thier masters, and they could take part in thier ceremonies and festival celebrations like the grain harvest festival etc. just as thier masters, the Torah demands that servants be treated equally to any other resident alien, these laws are unique in the ancient near east.
Excellent
This is excellent
It's a good thing their secular moral instincts lead them to not simply follow a plan reading of their holy text.
What on earth is a secular moral instinct?
How Christians are able to worry if the Bible supports slavery.
How is that the case?
I definitely have more research to do, but so far it appears that Peter's proposal is more faithful to the context and ancient background that the authors of the OT were writing in.
@@ryansoulReaper Corrupt biblical inspired by Man who will feel every thing he caused by the true Loving Creator because Man likes the heat of the fire but not the light witch the True Christ Holly Created.
The main point is that Sam Harris IS a weasel.
I thought he was one of those created by a loving God in his image?
@@Resenbrink what happened to the link to the weasel song from wind in the willows I sent you? A mystery. I have exactly the same question as you is that not enough for Sam Harris, being created by a loving God in his image? Does he have to remind everyone of the Chief Weasel in the Wind in the Willows, musical version?
It seems backward for the translators to try to make it less archaic and going from servant as translation to slave.
First Timothy 1:10.
Exquisite intellectual contortions ..........
Yea... what he said
"Does the Bible Support Slavery ?"
Of course it does, so does Almighty God, the Lord Christ, and his obedient servant/s [Strong's : SLAVE] the Apostles.
Learn to live with it......Where is your faith?
YES!
"democracies get the government they deserve!" 😂
this cut has similar sentiments to San Francisco anti war sounds. it could use a boost in volume. ruclips.net/video/e1C2qz-j8Fg/видео.html
No it doesn't.
Where does it say in the bible that you are NOT allowed to own people? Because there are dozens of passages that clearly support people owning people. Maybe you should read your book.
Yes, the bible condones slavery and NEVER explicitly condemns it.
I'm not talking about indentured servitude either as you cafeteria Christians like to believe. You pick and choose the parts of the bible that make you feel nice inside but forget about the ones that make you queasy.
Leviticus 25: 44-46 - As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever.
TheJimtanker Did you watch (or listen) the presentation? He addresses this very verse.
Unity&Diversity people who already think they know everything don’t listen.
And the New testament Jesus talked about setting people free in loving each other has your brother and sister the Bible does not condone slavery now why would God son talk about setting people free
“Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession." Exodus 21:16 (About as explicit as it gets)
The concept of forced enslavement is radically different from the forms of slavery made permissible in the ancient Israelite context.
God bless:)
@@christiang4497 That is a property crime. The person was put to death because they took someone else's property (slave). The bible clearly condones the owning of other people as property FOR LIFE that you can beat almost to death.
Such a lot of time to explain away slavery
If prisoners had to be paid minimum wage for the hours they worked, the prison systems would dramatically decline in short order.
Do these prisoners also have to pay for their food, clothes, and housing?
As an honest Christian, I'll admit that slavery is generally one of those practices which have been confirmed as a moral law in the New Covenant, so even though such practices as slave-trading or unfair treatment of the war-captives/criminals are immoral in Christianity, still the slave-labour as a method of compensation, and use of force against a slave are moral options, or in some cases even a necessity for a Christian.
You can’t be serious. Slavery - specifically American slavery - is wildly unbiblical. What part of the gospel and the teachings of the Bible say it’s ok to kidnap children, rape women, and destroy families to make money?
Thanks
and the True Creator will burn your words in the hell fire with no light. Though the true creator has Created the Light of the Hell fire. You will see this some Day bending your knees for a short SLAVE Period as you believed Such a Loving God would Manipulate a dirty corrupt book of control using Man to grow there profit beating the honest all most to death as long as they don't die in 2 day's Genesis:21 Exudux You Feared Dishonstly because your Cowardness drove you INSPIRED BY MAN OF BOASTING GODS.
Valiant effort Peter, but sorry, just as everyone before you who's tried to put a good face on the 'slavery' thing..... you failed! There's just no way to put a positive spin on this. I don't get why believers feel they have to artificially attach 'goodness' and 'righteousness' to something so blatantly evil. I'm a believer too! But I'm also a realist who can admit the brutal honest truth; and say 'well, this part of the old testament is a hot-mess, inside a dumpster-fire, inside a train-wreck. It's not only morally irreconcilable, it's just downright hideous. The day you finally admit that there's just some stuff in scripture that just cannot pass the smell-test, and learn to separate the roses from the thorns, you'll be a much happier person indeed.......just sayin!
Are you open to the possibility that you, prima facie, misinterpreted some parts of the OT, an ancient text?
I have more research to do, but Peter's proposal is so far more faithful to the entirety of the OT text, and to its ancient background in my eyes.
@@reasonwlove8071 I'm open to anything; including the understanding that putting lipstick on a pig doesn't change the fact that it's still a pig. I hope YOU are open to that possibility! Which is exactly what's going on here and was the point of my original comment.
@@illinoisgospelfan650 " I hope YOU are open to that possibility!"
I completely am friend (though with slight biases that plague the both of us). Proverbs 18:2 "Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions."
After reading your comment, I am entertaining the possibility that you read some of the aforementioned texts, were greatly disturbed, and then concluded that any attempt to rationalize is springs from desperation (of Christians) and slight dishonesty (not denying that this is often the case or even mostly the case).
That is, after all, how I use to think myself.
This of course would be a greatly erroneous thought process.
You didn't even try to interact with his points, which attempted to show (successfully if you ask me but I need to do more research to be sure) that reading slavery as we know it into the OT is actually a far more awkward and unreasonable interpretation of these texts, when the entirety of the text is scrutinized.
You just went to claiming failure and then to talk about pigs and lipstick, quite pointless and only further obfuscates the truth through rhetoric.
rhetoric? Hmmm, touched a nerve!
@@illinoisgospelfan650 If you're insinuating that I am using rhetoric, my response is no not really lol.
I am simply pointing out that 1) you made no attempt to deal with any of Peter's points, and just went straight to shaming him, and that 2) despite you implying that Peter is doing this out of bias and desperation, you have done NOTHING to vindicate yourself from this.
Therefore your comment was void of any useful purpose.
Enjoy your today sir!