I love the comment that we are just guest on the earth and everything we have is His and we can be generous with all that He has put on loan to us. I also have a greater understanding, from this video, of the sabbath rest for the land Thank You, God, for Carmen’s sharing of her study of Leviticus
Thank you for this teaching. I’m a African American Christian. In our faith, the Hebrew Bible is included. I often wrestled with verses that appeared to condone slavery. This helps me understand it better.
I'm so glad to hear this was helpful to you! I have another longer lecture about the "slavery" passages in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy in case you're interested. Here's a link: ruclips.net/video/ZfJv0-l2gGE/видео.html
I want to watch your full lecture on the slavery laws, but had one preliminary question. Do you think that the allowance of a foreigner to be hired as a servant, and for their family to remain in a household across generations, could be seen as an example of being adopted into a household or "bet ab"? Thinking about this as a precursor to Gentiles being grafted into the family of God. Additionally, I just bought The Book of Leviticus: An Exposition by Charles R. Erdman and was wondering if you'd read it/would recommend it. Lastly, I saw on Twitter you accepted a faculty position at Biola, and I have a dream of auditing one of your classes there (I live in SoCal). Would that even be a possibility? haha :)
Yes, I think this is a strong possibility. I haven't read Erdman's book, so I can't comment on it. and yes, I'd LOVE to have you audit one of my classes at Biola!
@@CarmenJoyImesPhD guess I’ll be looking into what’s required to audit Biola classes! 😊😊😊 I’ve already learned so much from your videos and your book and would love to learn more from you in-person.
It helps to remember that we have been bought with a price, therefore we are not our own. If we are slaves of Christ, then we really don't own anything anyway. I know that we are also labeled as pilgrims or sojourners so we can, like Abraham and the saints of old say that this is not our home and that we are looking for a better place (Hebrews 11:13-16)!
The last sentence you said Carmen has a lot of sense: Nothing belongs to us, all we have are gifts from the Most High. But by putting into practice what we say in tribulations we are able to affirm like Job: God gives and God takes away blessed be the name of the Lord. Greed is the hook of the evil one that the Jews interpret as the Phoenician god of wealth called mammon. On the other hand, there is the result of greed, which is poverty. It is curious that the contemporaries of Jesus with the most greed were the most religious the Pharisees.
The insane lengths people will go to,when trying to soften the clear language of Lev 25:44-46 is disgusting. No. People were not hired, they were purchased and were considered property that could be bequeathed to the children of their owners AS PROPERTY
Actually, if you read the context of these laws, you'll find that there were many boundaries in place that prevented exploitation. The reason in this case that people could be "bequeathed" is that they had chosen to relate to that particular household permanently. If they outlived the head of household, they were not to be turned out on the street, but were able to continue to make their home there. I think this is easier to see in Exodus 20-23, where if you read the entire collection of laws it is evident that human trafficking was prohibited, that orphans and widows could not be mistreated, that servants were to be given a day off, that their service was to be temporary, etc. The difference in Lev 25 is that they are foreigners. That means there is no land available in Israel for them to inherit. The only way they can survive in the land is by becoming permanently connected to an Israelite family. It is their choice to live in the land, but it's only viable through connection to an Israelite.
Why are you stating that these slaves weren't slaves but hired workers. What is your motivation for reading something that clearly is not there into the text? Leviticus clearly states that those Israelites who fall upon hard times are treated as hired workers, not slaves. Slaves are to come from the surrounding nations and are slaves not hired workers. They become the property of their owner and can be bequeathed to the owner's children as their property. It seems incredibly dishonest to suggest that Leviticus is teaching that the slaves form the surrounding nations are not slaves but are hired workers like the Israelites who become hired workers when they fall on rough times.
It depends on how we define "slaves." You are correct that there is a difference between native born and foreign workers. However, it is not a difference in how someone is treated, but rather in whether their service is permanent. What I've shared in the video is one plausible reason why that difference exists, namely, the inability of foreigners to own land in Israel. They may serve in a household from generation to generation rather than being turned out on the street. That alternative is not stated in the text, but I am inferring it from all the other laws that mandate generous and merciful treatment of foreigners and other vulnerable people. To me, the word "slave" evokes inhumane treatment such as what happened to Africans forcibly brought to the United States. There are too many other laws in the Torah that prohibit that kind of treatment. This is why I think the translation "slave" is misleading.
I'm not getting the assumption of equal and nice treatment for the foreign slave, Ex 21:"20 “If a man beats his slave to death-whether the slave is male or female-that man shall surely be punished. 21 However, if the slave does not die for a couple of days, then the man shall not be punished-for the slave is his property. Apparently an Israelite can beat his slave to such an extent that he survives a couple days before dying, and it is no problem because he is his property. The dignity that you would like to ascribe to the foreign "workers" is very much like the African slaves from US history. The type of allowable treatment of the foreign slave permitted by scripture would allow for the most sever forms of harsh discipline and treatment of the slave.
I actually believe that that's a poor translation of Exodus 21:20-21. I explain why in my longer teaching video on the "slavery" laws which is linked in the description above. In short, a man who beats a servant to death is subject to the death penalty (that is the prescribed punishment for manslaughter), which means that the full humanity of the servant is recognized. Verse 21 must be read in context of the preceeding verses about loss of labor for injury. Since the master already bears the penalty ("it is his loss" -- the Hebrew reads "it is his silver," saying nothing about the servant) if he beats a servant so badly they are unable to work, he does not have to pay the penalty for loss of work (he would be paying it to himself). In other words, "the man shall not be fined [for loss of labor] for it is his own loss." Essentially, if a master mistreats a servant, he is shooting himself in the foot.
@@CarmenJoyImesPhD I'll defer to your better understanding of the text because my Hebrew reflects one semester of learning from 1982--however I cannot ignore the number of Bible translators who have a different understanding. Thanks for being so gracious in your responses.
Thanks for the conversation. One thing I didn't use to realize is how much metaphorical language there is in biblical law. (I have an article on the topic in BBR, vol. 29, no. 3). The translation process is not quite as straightforward as it seems like it should be. The translators are doing their best to make sense of the text as we have it, but inevitably our pre-commitments color how we render it. "It is his silver" is ambiguous -- who or what is the silver? and what does it mean to be the silver? There is room for disagreement here. I'm simply trying to make sense of the passage in its wider context, taking into consideration all the other laws (guardrails) as well as historical context / practice. Texts like this one are often a stumbling block to people of faith, but I believe that if we keep pressing in to understand them in their historical and literary contexts, that they do not have to be a barrier to faith. If 2 Tim 3:16 is true, then every Old Testament scripture has something useful to teach us that reflects the character of God as revealed in Exodus 34:6-7.
I love the comment that we are just guest on the earth and everything we have is His and we can be generous with all that He has put on loan to us.
I also have a greater understanding, from this video, of the sabbath rest for the land
Thank You, God, for Carmen’s sharing of her study of Leviticus
Thanks for your enthusiastic feedback. It's always encouraging to know when this labor is bearing fruit!
Thank you. I hope you have a great week too.
Thanks, Bruce!
Thank you for your teaching I appreciate it and learned much ❤
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you for this teaching. I’m a African American Christian. In our faith, the Hebrew Bible is included. I often wrestled with verses that appeared to condone slavery. This helps me understand it better.
I'm so glad to hear this was helpful to you! I have another longer lecture about the "slavery" passages in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy in case you're interested. Here's a link: ruclips.net/video/ZfJv0-l2gGE/видео.html
So appreciate your teachings.
Thank you for your faithfulness.
Enjoy your summer sabbath Dr. Carmen
Thank you! Much appreciated!
Thank you, Carmen. I look forward to these sessions every week, and I hope that you will be able to continue them as you move on to Biola.
I hope so too!
Great podcast as always! 🙏🏻🕊
Glad you enjoyed it!
Such a good word! I hope more people will be exposed to such good teaching. Thanks!
Thanks, Lauren!
Torah Tuuuuuessssdaaaaaayyy!!!
I want to watch your full lecture on the slavery laws, but had one preliminary question. Do you think that the allowance of a foreigner to be hired as a servant, and for their family to remain in a household across generations, could be seen as an example of being adopted into a household or "bet ab"? Thinking about this as a precursor to Gentiles being grafted into the family of God. Additionally, I just bought The Book of Leviticus: An Exposition by Charles R. Erdman and was wondering if you'd read it/would recommend it.
Lastly, I saw on Twitter you accepted a faculty position at Biola, and I have a dream of auditing one of your classes there (I live in SoCal). Would that even be a possibility? haha :)
Yes, I think this is a strong possibility. I haven't read Erdman's book, so I can't comment on it.
and yes, I'd LOVE to have you audit one of my classes at Biola!
@@CarmenJoyImesPhD guess I’ll be looking into what’s required to audit Biola classes! 😊😊😊 I’ve already learned so much from your videos and your book and would love to learn more from you in-person.
It helps to remember that we have been bought with a price, therefore we are not our own. If we are slaves of Christ, then we really don't own anything anyway. I know that we are also labeled as pilgrims or sojourners so we can, like Abraham and the saints of old say that this is not our home and that we are looking for a better place (Hebrews 11:13-16)!
Well put!
The last sentence you said Carmen has a lot of sense: Nothing belongs to us, all we have are gifts from the Most High. But by putting into practice what we say in tribulations we are able to affirm like Job: God gives and God takes away blessed be the name of the Lord. Greed is the hook of the evil one that the Jews interpret as the Phoenician god of wealth called mammon. On the other hand, there is the result of greed, which is poverty. It is curious that the contemporaries of Jesus with the most greed were the most religious the Pharisees.
Thanks, Felix!
The insane lengths people will go to,when trying to soften the clear language of Lev 25:44-46 is disgusting. No. People were not hired, they were purchased and were considered property that could be bequeathed to the children of their owners AS PROPERTY
Actually, if you read the context of these laws, you'll find that there were many boundaries in place that prevented exploitation. The reason in this case that people could be "bequeathed" is that they had chosen to relate to that particular household permanently. If they outlived the head of household, they were not to be turned out on the street, but were able to continue to make their home there. I think this is easier to see in Exodus 20-23, where if you read the entire collection of laws it is evident that human trafficking was prohibited, that orphans and widows could not be mistreated, that servants were to be given a day off, that their service was to be temporary, etc. The difference in Lev 25 is that they are foreigners. That means there is no land available in Israel for them to inherit. The only way they can survive in the land is by becoming permanently connected to an Israelite family. It is their choice to live in the land, but it's only viable through connection to an Israelite.
Why are you stating that these slaves weren't slaves but hired workers. What is your motivation for reading something that clearly is not there into the text? Leviticus clearly states that those Israelites who fall upon hard times are treated as hired workers, not slaves. Slaves are to come from the surrounding nations and are slaves not hired workers. They become the property of their owner and can be bequeathed to the owner's children as their property.
It seems incredibly dishonest to suggest that Leviticus is teaching that the slaves form the surrounding nations are not slaves but are hired workers like the Israelites who become hired workers when they fall on rough times.
It depends on how we define "slaves." You are correct that there is a difference between native born and foreign workers. However, it is not a difference in how someone is treated, but rather in whether their service is permanent. What I've shared in the video is one plausible reason why that difference exists, namely, the inability of foreigners to own land in Israel. They may serve in a household from generation to generation rather than being turned out on the street. That alternative is not stated in the text, but I am inferring it from all the other laws that mandate generous and merciful treatment of foreigners and other vulnerable people. To me, the word "slave" evokes inhumane treatment such as what happened to Africans forcibly brought to the United States. There are too many other laws in the Torah that prohibit that kind of treatment. This is why I think the translation "slave" is misleading.
I'm not getting the assumption of equal and nice treatment for the foreign slave,
Ex 21:"20 “If a man beats his slave to death-whether the slave is male or female-that man shall surely be punished. 21 However, if the slave does not die for a couple of days, then the man shall not be punished-for the slave is his property.
Apparently an Israelite can beat his slave to such an extent that he survives a couple days before dying, and it is no problem because he is his property. The dignity that you would like to ascribe to the foreign "workers" is very much like the African slaves from US history. The type of allowable treatment of the foreign slave permitted by scripture would allow for the most sever forms of harsh discipline and treatment of the slave.
I actually believe that that's a poor translation of Exodus 21:20-21. I explain why in my longer teaching video on the "slavery" laws which is linked in the description above. In short, a man who beats a servant to death is subject to the death penalty (that is the prescribed punishment for manslaughter), which means that the full humanity of the servant is recognized. Verse 21 must be read in context of the preceeding verses about loss of labor for injury. Since the master already bears the penalty ("it is his loss" -- the Hebrew reads "it is his silver," saying nothing about the servant) if he beats a servant so badly they are unable to work, he does not have to pay the penalty for loss of work (he would be paying it to himself). In other words, "the man shall not be fined [for loss of labor] for it is his own loss." Essentially, if a master mistreats a servant, he is shooting himself in the foot.
@@CarmenJoyImesPhD I'll defer to your better understanding of the text because my Hebrew reflects one semester of learning from 1982--however I cannot ignore the number of Bible translators who have a different understanding.
Thanks for being so gracious in your responses.
Thanks for the conversation. One thing I didn't use to realize is how much metaphorical language there is in biblical law. (I have an article on the topic in BBR, vol. 29, no. 3). The translation process is not quite as straightforward as it seems like it should be. The translators are doing their best to make sense of the text as we have it, but inevitably our pre-commitments color how we render it. "It is his silver" is ambiguous -- who or what is the silver? and what does it mean to be the silver? There is room for disagreement here. I'm simply trying to make sense of the passage in its wider context, taking into consideration all the other laws (guardrails) as well as historical context / practice. Texts like this one are often a stumbling block to people of faith, but I believe that if we keep pressing in to understand them in their historical and literary contexts, that they do not have to be a barrier to faith. If 2 Tim 3:16 is true, then every Old Testament scripture has something useful to teach us that reflects the character of God as revealed in Exodus 34:6-7.
Just subscribed. 🙏🏽🫶🏽🕊️
Welcome aboard!