The BIBLE and SLAVERY Explained! (Dr. Carmen Imes)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- Does the Bible Endorse Slavery? Does the Bible allow beating slaves? Dr. Carmen Imes is an Old Testament professor, writer, and biblical scholar at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. She is currently writing a commentary on Exodus, and thus spending a ton of time thinking about these issues. Today, she's here to address these tough challenges and more.
READ: Bearing God's Name: Why Sinai Still Matters (a.co/d/bjAZRjP)
WATCH: Genocide. Slavery. Polygamy: Dennis Prager on Tough OT Questions ( • Genocide. Slavery. Pol... )
*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (bit.ly/3LdNqKf)
*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for 25% off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (bit.ly/3AzfPFM)
*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (bit.ly/448STKK)
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter: / sean_mcdowell
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell
Instagram: / seanmcdowell
Website: seanmcdowell.org
This is good for everyone for sure, but as a black Christian this is brought up so much amongst my peers. Thanks for this.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@TrentonMabry1you believe the 18th century slavery where the worst type of slavery?
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.
This was great. Thank you both!!
For some reason, there's such a huge misconception that all the things in the Bible were "a-ok" with God.
I think his laws are okay with him are they not???? or is he a really bad lawyer???
@@madcatz990 It seems like you've missed my point.
@@e.m.8094Perhaps more specificity is necessary for your point to be made?
@@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.
@@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.”
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.
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.
Paul says we are all slaves of Christ, so this isn't really correct.
@@xarchist well that's pretty clearly metaphor. Not what we're discussing here.
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
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.
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.
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.
@@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?
@@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.
@@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.
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.
This one completely went off the rails at the end there when she seemingly started to justify killing pregnant women and killing children.
Not until the end?
Maybe god does what he wants?
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 RUclips attention span augmented with lousy public school education.
Pity.
This is great. PLEASE DO A FOLLOW UP. I am sure this will have lots of critiques and those will need to be answered.
Yes yes yes. With Dr. Kipp Davis or Dr. Joshua Bowen contributing. Not THAT would be well worth watching!
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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?
@@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.
Excellent content! I'm going to have to listen to it again...
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.
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.
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.
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
Let's interview more non-Christian historians on these issues. For a less biased view.
Perish the thought
How would a "non-Christian historian" give you a more accurate view on what the Bible teaches than an OT scholar?
@@cbrooks97OT scholars who are also apologists are automatically biased.
@@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.
@@cbrooks97 Because every outlandish claim should be assumed to be false until substantiated. That very basic epistemology.
That was the best interview I've seen with her yet! Thanks so much!!!
She’s AWESOME!
If this was the best, I shudder to think what the worst one was like
I've been waiting to see Carmen on here. About time ;)
Agreed!
I'm so glad you had Dr. Imes on. She's absolutely brilliant.
Slavery isnt just in the Old Testament, its the theme for the whole Bible. Saying that God doesnt speak against slavery is ludicrous. In the OT the Jews were slaves and God led them to freedom and He introduces laws which are leading the society towards freeing the slaves and in the NT we are all called slaves to sin in which Jesus leads us out to freedom and life. If the Bible thought slavery of any kind was good then He wouldnt compare it to sin which He hates.
And if He thought slavery was bad, why didn't He just say so? Would have only taken a sentence really. I've never understood that.
@@nickbrasing8786 Slavery in in of itself mightnt be necessarily bad, especially when it has different meanings to different people and cultures, like serventhood. The Bible usually pinpoints and describes the exact act as evil to be specific so to avoid confusion, such as, murder, causing harm to people or their property, lack of love, theft, idoultery etc. Which is all the things we dont like but imagine under what we think of as slavery. So he doesnt just use one sentence but whole passages to voice his distain for it.
@@hannahhannah5742 And where are those passages? Where is slavery called evil?
@@nickbrasing8786 There are reams of passages talking through all the punishments for crimes, just read the Old Testament, its all in the first 5 books also known as the Torah. The sentament is then continued in the New Testament but taken further, like Jesus saying, you have heard it said and eye for an eye but instead you should love your enemies and pray for them. Basically the whole Bible now. Sorry but there is no quick way to know what the Bible says but to read it.
@@hannahhannah5742 Well, I have read it. But I have to ask again. Where does the Bible say slavery is a crime then? Yes, there are reams of passages that lay out punishments for "crimes" as you say. But where is lifelong chattel slavery called a crime, or has a punishment laid out for it? Because I don't see one. Not i the Pentateuch and not in the New Testament either? Where is this? That's my question.
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)
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.
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.
" 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.
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.
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.
There are so many tough objections to Christianity. It's hard to say which is the toughest.
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?
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.
Amen Kipp. "Buy" can mean "hire" in Lev. 25? They didn't actually use money? Please....
@@nickbrasing8786 I didn't get that either.
Someone with credibility has arrived 😅😅😅
Want to give an example of what contrary opinions scholars have.
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?
Jesus didn't condemn sex trafficking and domestic violence. And many other things.
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.
...and nowhere in the Bible does it say 'Thou shalt not marry a 9 year old".
You need to upgrade your reasoning skills. Seriously.
@@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,
"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.
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.
@@TrentonMabry1
Because Leviticus 25:44-46 explicitly allows them to mistreat foreigners. That is in the text.
Derp.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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)
@@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.
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)
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
If those children grew up in those environment, they would have been in hell right now.
@@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?
@@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
@@astrawboiii1853 but why does your god kill babies when He does not have too? Why not adoption?
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.
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 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. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life"
Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave (unalives) as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
The bible is explicitly clear what slavery is, and explicitly clear in its prescription of it. Stop with the spin and admit your book is monstrous.
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.🙏❣️
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?
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.
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.
Good job Carmen. very good statement of the Law is none-legislative in nature.
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.
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).
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).
30:30
Dr. Imes' response to Sean's question here is what Mr. Deity calls "excusagetics".
"If we pretend words don't mean what they mean then we don't have a problem!!"
"Mr. Deity" 😂😂😂.
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.
Isn't the debt repayment you describe what most credit card companies do?
Keeping debtors hopelessly in debt
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?
It's quite different, since there was an upper limit for how many years the debtor would have to serve.
@@midimusicforever Not for foreigners. They were stuck for life. Generation after generation.
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?
Excellent video..
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. 😉
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!!!
So I watched this whole thing, and I have to say I am appalled and disappointed.
Dr. Imez did not address many of the points brought up by Sean, and instead focused on lies and obfuscation to twist slavery into something non-negative. She continually conflated verses specifically dealing with Hebrew slaves with those for neighboring peoples. She blamed the victims of Canaan by saying all the non-virgin women were evil and deserved to die. And she tore down her fellow woman by conflating slave ownership to woman ownership (but only to say the idea of ownership is not that bad).
I would say I’m surprised, but when you work for an academy that requires you to state: “The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind.” Or be fired, I guess I shouldn’t be too shocked to see this amount of apologetic twisting.
I really hope some women in Dr. Imez’s life see this and recognize the damage this causes.
And Sean, you can do better. Why don’t you bring on Dr. Joshua Bowen or Dr. Jennifer Bird or Dr. Kipp Davis? They would be able to actually answer some of the questions you posed without justifying human ownership.
Dr. Kipp and I would be happy to help.
Well yes, and the "rescue" of the Hebrew peoples entails killing the first born of Egypt... What did the babies do to deserve such suffering. Wasn't the Hebrews beef with Pherod... Give him boils or something
@@russellmiles2861 Didn't you watch the video? Babies in Egypt were just "little Egyptians." They posed an existential threat to the survival of Israel.
@@DrKippDavis so might makes right according to the Christian god
I'll keep that in mind
I was about to put the comment: “I would love to see Sean arrange an interaction between my favourite ancient New Eastern / OT RUclipsrs” but you’ve done that. And not only that, they replied! I watched a video of Dr Kipp responding to Allan Parr’s response to Kristi B just last night (the rebuttal was excellent!)
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??
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.
Also a serious issue in the prophets-- ex Jerm. 34:8ff-- although this specifically dealing with Israelite slaves
Sports players are not "owned", liars. Neither are they purchased or traded. Their contracts are owned, purchased, and traded. Not themselves.
The South in the past would say the slave is not owned, just the contract is traded.
@@benmlee
No, they would not say that. They would say the slave is owned.
Stop lying.
@@cygnusustus If they are still around today, they would not say we own slaves, they would come up with creative talk like we just trade the contract.
Just like abortion, they say is a freedom of choice.
Language can be manipulated to justify anything.
@benmlee
Yes, they would, liar.
If you have to make up lies to protect your beliefs, it is time to get new beliefs.
Did she not say that it was the "labor", not the person, who was owned in ancient Israelite slavery?
I'm sorry. This is really an unacceptable justification . . . As a child of evangelical missionaries, a fervent evangelist myself for many years, I am being told that the Bible can only be properly understood after an extensive understanding of the historical context.
This was never taught in my entire evangelical experience - or in the fundamentalist Bible School I attended. The Bible was presented as the eternal, inerrant word of God - to be taken absolutely literally. There was never any nuance introduced . . .
Now all these nuances are being introduced to counter serious problems with the Bible - slavery being only one of them.
So here is my take . . . Why in heaven (or earth) would God embody his eternal truths in a set of books that were transmitted in very different times and require such incredible 'massaging' to make it relevant or ethical to a contemporary audience.
Surely Yahweh could have delivered a book that speaks directly to all people and all times - that doesn't require such fancy footwork to justify.
It is just so obvious that the books of the Bible are very human documents, heavily conditioned by the times and places in which they were written. This does not mean that these books do not contain wonderful truths and insights and inspirations. But it certainly means that it cannot stand as Divinely inspired truth for all times and all places.
Apologists want it both ways. They want the Bible to be literally true when it suits them but want to introduce all kinds of historical context and nuance in problematic areas - such as slavery.
Just ask yourself: If slavery is absolutely immoral, why is there not a single, unambiguous condemnation of it in the entire Bible?? As it is, apologists are very busy saving the Bible from itself!
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.. 🤓
The typical mental gymnastics to me this is very cut and dry
By admitting that the laws in the Bible were most likely never enforced throws the whole argument that Biblical slavery is so much better under the bus. It also explains why so many helpless civillians were abducted and abused by the Hebrews and why debt slavery was not voluntary in Israel as in JHeremiah 34 described. In last consequence the chattel slavery in the Bible is not much different for a single individuum compared with the antebellum South chattel slavery.
This is wild
Come on Carmen, you're a PHD so a very smart woman, and you are suggesting that slavery was a great way of keeping people from becoming homeless. Maybe you should become an advisor to Gavin Newsome and help him sort out California's homeless problems.😀 I think you admit your built-in bias when you say I try to read this in a charitable way because I'm a Christian. I'm sorry but as a regular viewer of Sean's content I have to admit this one was particularly irritating to me as a person of colour comparing slavery to a basketball player was brutal. Anybody in this thread would trade financial places with Lebron James, how many would trade places with Kunta Kinte. Be Honest
NBA players can quit anytime, and no need to pay debt.
"We have to read Levitucus 25 in light of Exodus 22."
Nope. We have to read Exodus 22 in light of Leviticus 25.
How is this substantively different?
@mikehutton3937
The two contradict each other unless you understand that one verse is meant for free persons, and the other is meant for slaves.
@@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?
@@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.
> read Levitucus 25 in light of Exodus 22
Which was written first?
(Clearly you are totally uninterested in thinking things through)
Wait... did Dr Imes just say that corporal punishment is allowed in the Bible as long as there is no death or permanent damage?!
Yes, but in all fairness that's exactly what the Bible says.
@@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.
@@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.
The beginning of Matthew 19 is very important for understanding why some laws are there. The slavery laws in the Old Testament actually protect the weak and poor against the rich and strong.
By enslaving some of them? I fail to see the logic in that.
@@nickbrasing8786 Because you're a modern.
@@Shane_The_Confessor We all are. So therefor what? Are you suggesting that we can't read the Bible because it's ancient and we're modern? Or are you picking and choosing the parts that we should and shouldn't read based on what they say? Should we not read the 10 commandments then? Or the Golden Rule you quoted? Because we're modern? This is a meaningless response frankly.
@@nickbrasing8786 Yeah, there's no logic.
Why? Because Christians are told to take care of the poor, without owning the people they help.
Also, prayer allegedly helps (not the slaves, though).
So the arguments Christians use to DEFEND SLAVERY, just makes them look horribly immoral in my eyes.
@@nickbrasing8786 You're not reading the text in it's ANE context. You're reading the text as a westerner in 2024. Context should not have to be explained to you.
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.
You literally did not listen to the interview.
@@Tim.Foster123
I literally did.
You literally failed to refute my post.
Dismissed.
@@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)
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.
@@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
Jeremiah 7:8 take bread for the queen of heaven
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?
@@RuthNovak-n3i I think the Hebrews were the invaders ...
Why do you even discuss this when teh Bible was written by humans and redacted over and over again? OT a human books. NT is human biographies. If you lie of course you will be challenged.
The Holy Spirit directed the writing of God's Word
Look at Genesis 1-2 and the end of Revelation, that is God's view on slavery: there is none.
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
I am shocked by the lengths some people will go to justify and rationalize immoral acts. In Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25, the Bible supports one form of slavery for Jews and another form of permanent servitude, where non-Jewish slaves were considered property to be passed down to their masters' children. Framing this as an employer-employee relationship is an extreme example of intellectual dishonesty. I need to take a bath after listening to this.
What is your measuring stick for what is immoral?
When you take a bath,wash your dusty tendency of teleporting modern slavery into biblical times as well.🙃
I am sure there are better explainatioins for slavery, she just didn't explain it well.
I always find it funny how conservative apologists will go to great lengths to claim biblical slavery is something totally benign and unproblematic and incomparable to how we understand slavery today, but when they talk about issues such as
... say... homosexuality, then the text is very clearly referring to something that is definitely the same thing we observe in modern times with no ambiguity or nuance.
It really goes to highlight the fundamental hypocrisy in their hermemeutics and apologetics.
@@mrmcduck4902 totally benign? You’re reaching new heights of exaggeration with that one. They were enslaved in Egypt….for one. That context matters and the fact that this was life in BC land does not help your case at all.
“Do not mistreat foreigners “ they are not talking about foreign slaves. There were foreigners who were not slaves. Exodus 21 talks about male Hebrew servants length of service. Six years service and in the 7th he shall go free. If he came in with a wife his wife can leave with him. However , if his master gave him a wife and she bore him children, the wife and children belong to the master. If the man does not want to leave his wife and children behind his master can bring him before the judges, his master can bore his ear through with an “aul”and he shall serve him forever.
L0l0ppp
P0pp00ppp0p00p0p
L
P
It's always disgusting to watch Christian conflate chattel slavery with the purchase and trading of sports contracts.
Truly disgusting.
Have you ever lived in a 3rd world country where social categories extend beyond the posh ivory towers of 1st world living?
@@Tim.Foster123
I've visited 3rd world countries. Your question is irrelevant. Derailing attempt: dismissed.
Have you ever read the Bible, which explicitly condones and promote chattel slavery?
@@cygnusustus I asked "have you **lived in** third world countries. You replied that you've visited. Cute, But not the same.
As a visitor, your mind is still in tourist mode, not survival mode. Try again.
1st world westerners have no clue how wealthy they are compared to the rest of the world, let alone the rest of human history. When you're that wealthy, all your categories of 'need', 'want', and 'luxury' change radically. To try and impose your modern standards on people living in a radically different culture is as decent as them imposing their anti-abortion standard on you.
Which do you think would crimp your style more: your being Biblically enslaved or your being aborted? (hint: if you're enslaved, you have a chance at freedom. If you're aborted, you don't have a chance at life)
Lots more could be said.
> Have you ever read the Bible, which explicitly condones and promote chattel slavery?
I've read it multiple times, from Genesis to Revelation and every chapter in between. I've done paper-and pen studies of most books of the Bible, been to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Turkey and Greece as part of various Bible study stuff. I can also articulate the differences between Hebrew slaves and Greco-Roman slaves ..and yes, even antebellum slaves (the differences are vast). So yes, I'm very familiar with all these passages in the Bible that talk about 'slaves'.
And by the same token, I'm even familiar with the slavery that you have in your country that you yourself endorse. (I'm using the Biblical definition of 'slavery').
If you're not familiar with the differences between Hebrew slaves and Greco-Roman slaves, then this conversation is over your head. You have lots more homework ahead of you. No offense.
@@Tim.Foster123
"You replied that you've visited."
I also said that is was irrelevant, child. The facts of the matter do not depend on where I was born. Fallacy: dismissed.
"I've read it multiple times, from Genesis to Revelation and every chapter in between."
Great. Then you know it condones chattel slavery.
"and yes, even antebellum slaves (the differences are vast)."
Articulate these vast difference, child.
The Bible condones chattel slavery every bit as bad, or worse, than slavery in the Antebellum South.
Try again.
@@cygnusustus > I also said that is was irrelevant
Except it's not.
As the old saying goes, "Culture is a curious thing: if you're in it, you can't explain it, and if you're outside of it, you can't understand it."
You're trying to understand a culture you've never visited, let alone lived in. And because you've never lived in two radically different cultures, you ill-equipped to deal with the vast differences that are allowed in various cultures, nor are you capable of understanding the rationalizations behind those differences. You're a tourist.
Go back to your cushy ivory tower, and embrace your cultural ignorance. Thank the Good Lord that He's been kind enough to you that you are utterly clueless about what life is like for the rest of the world and the rest of human history before your mommy put that silver spoon in your mouth.
There is no point talking to someone so blind that he refuses to see.
Take care.
Interestimg concepts. Worlds apart through the centuries. Reference to Brazil makes sense of treatment of others and the finite inheritance laws of that nation and its ppl. Much to think through and consider. I can't understand much of the killings and slaughter in my current era, however much can be learned when we apply Christ Jesus interpretation of the law and live by The Holy Spirit's guidance.
S Israel not Brazil. Dumb AI
14:30 gods not god ,stolen title
The word slavery is obed in the bible which means servant
@greatfilmmaker What's the Hebrew word for "property"? Are "servants" generally owned as property?
@@robertcarlyle6102 rekhush and again the word slave is obed which means servant, no place in hebrew, does the word rekhush come up as slave
The word is actually "עֶבֶד" generally spelled as "ebed". And it can mean many things, including both "chattel slave" and "servant", depending on the context. And when it's talking about someone owned as property for their entire life, and made to work without pay? It means "slave" and not "servant". Go to Stongs Concordance at least?
@@nickbrasing8786 if you look, it does mean servant every time. The Bible uses that word slave. If you look it up in the hebrew dictionary, it comes out servant, not many things like you said
@@greatfilmmakeroh if you look up the Hebrew the Bible was written in-are you in for a big surprise
The bible isnt moral...the god of the universe would be better or we are all alone
What are you basing that statement on?
Carmen is GREAT to listen to and read! Does anyone happen to know which commentary "series" her Exodus volume is being written for?
Yes, who would have thought to describe sexual assault, buggery and beating as a bit "icky"
This is disgraceful. Totally disgraceful. Carmen Imes’s deplorable“interpretation" of slavery in the Bible amounts to the deepest deception. Sadly, she is a perfect example of just how warped Christianity can make someone thoroughly compromise their moral integrity when having to try to wrangle some decency from what is clearly a deeply flawed teaching. Sean should also be ashamed of himself for putting out videos like this. He should know better. On a more positive note, apologetics like this play a huge role in turning decent people away from Christianity.
6:30ish in the video you say "God wasn't speaking to us 4000 years ago, he was speaking to people who only respected power and might"
Is that the what you think a god is? A yes man who conforms to whatever the cultural zeitgeist happens to be? Who just tells people whatever they respect at the time?
Well people respect gay marriage now, maybe Paul was speaking the truth of god 2000 years ago but now god has "updated" his message for a more enlightened people and you just arent enlightened yet?
You play these games sean and you expose what a house of cards your religion is. You're amputating your leg to try and save your foot. You are destroying the bibles authority as you try to sugarcoat its teachings.
As much as your double standards and hypocrisy infuriate me, you are doing an excellent job at repelling from your cult anyone who possesses a shred of intelligence or honesty.
Dr. Imes fails to mention about Exodus 21 is after the seven year period if the slave has a family while under the contract the family belongs to the master (land owner as the apologist describes). The passage then describes how the slave can declare his love for master, permanently branding the slave by piercing his ear with an awl, then he may remain with the master and his family. This clearly shows the family are slaves and how these contracts can be used to gain permeant slaves through coercion. It is a flatly false claim that legislation is about "release" and "not encouraging the acquisition" of slaves.
If people had slaves, I don’t see how that is the fault of Jesus. He spent his entire life rebuking and criticising the Jews and Romans for all their misdeeds. The problem is the Bible itself, it’s not an accurate source of information.