The prohibition against kidnapping in Exodus 21 applied only to Hebrews. ALL of Exodus 21 is dealing with how Hebrews are supposed to treat fellow Hebrews. Foreign slaves could be obtained by purchase without regards to provenance, by kidnapping, and by birth.
This is an issue I got interested in a few years ago and dove in deep. And with all due respect to Rev. Boot, I don't think he's answered the real question here? And has made a couple possible big errors? Bear with me here. To me, the real issue is in the different rules for the foreigners verses the Hebrews when it comes to slavery. Laid bare in the verse you raised in Leviticus 25:44-46. Rev. Boot seemed to go on for about 10 minutes on how ubiquitous slavery was in the Ancient Near East, and I agree. But that doesn't seem to explain why the Bible condoned the slavery it did? I mean he kept claiming that the "property" mentioned in these verses meant owning a persons labor, and not owning them. Which the passage, even in the original Hebrew absolutely does not say. It's the same word for a house or an ox. You don't own an oxes labor, you own the ox. No, this means exactly what it says if you look into it. Owning a person as property, so long as they were a foreigner. That's the issue, and it seems to me you can't try and just explain it away by calling it "owning their labor"? Something it most definitely does not say. But Rev. Boot claimed that a foreigner could convert to Judaism and therefore be subject to the release from slavery on the Sabbath and Jubilee years. And this is simply 100% not true at all. It really shows a misunderstanding of the whole reason for the Jubilee law. Even though he talked about it correctly later? This really confuses me. Only native Hebrews who owned land in Israel were released back to their land during the Sabbath and Jubilee years. And as the Rev. said, that land could never be sold to anyone outside of the descendants of the original tribes granted that land. So no, converting would not at all allow them to be released from slavery. As Leviticus said, they were slaves forever. As to "bondservant" being a better translation? I don't think this is really true either. I've learned some Hebrew to figure exactly this out. And while "Eved" can mean many different things, in Lev. 25:44-46 it means a lifelong chattel slave. The passage specifically says this by definition. To somehow claim that "Eved" means "bondservant" is to argue that the Hebrews were not really slaves in Egypt. They were only "bondservants". Something Rev. Boot specifically says is not true in this video. Because it's the same word? And the law against kidnapping someone and making them a slave was a law just about every nation back then had. So unless there was no slavery in the Ancient Near East at all, this isn't really relevant I don't see? And Rev. Boot seemed to leave off his list of how people became slaves one of the most common ways. To simply be born a slave. Because that was true in the Bible, just as it was in the surrounding nations. Israel was no different in this regard. No debt, no war, no crime. Just born a slave. Something else I've never been able to wrap my head around? And he said that slaves in pagan nations had no rights, and not eligibility for release too. I've actually looked into this, and it simply isn't true. They did have rights, and could be released. In fact, in the law of Hammurabi at the time, if you became a debt slave, you were released after only 3 years, as opposed to the 6 in the Bible. I'm not sure he's looked into this sufficiently? No judgement, it took me years, but I do have a better understanding of it all now. And it just isn't as simple as it's being made out here it seems to me? It's just a real issue for me personally.
Historically, could you put the scripture into context for me? Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies 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 Atlantic slave trade] has nothing to do with what the Bible talks about as bond servitude" But it is exactly what the Bible talks about as the chattel enslavement of non-Hebrews. 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.
"The idea that the Bible provides no basis for opposition to slavery is utterly absurd." Nope. It's completely true. The Bible explicitly condones chattel slavery, and not once does it condemn slavery. If you have to lie to defend your beliefs, it is time to get new beliefs.
Yes, Exodus is the story of the Israelites being freed from slavery. And then being told they could own other people as slaves. It's almost as if the Israelites didn't want to be enslaved, but wanted to own slaves, so they invented a God that didn't want them to be enslaved, but wanted them to own slaves. Coincidence?
"Both of those thoughtless critics are out of their depth. Immediately they've made completely false statements." Nope. They were both correct. As I have shown, YOU are out of your depth, and have made completely false and thoughtless statements.
"They don't take any time to define what they mean by slavery." Here you go: 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 without wages" 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." Satisfied now?
More of this kind of content. Looking forward to the next in this series 🔥 👌
The prohibition against kidnapping in Exodus 21 applied only to Hebrews. ALL of Exodus 21 is dealing with how Hebrews are supposed to treat fellow Hebrews.
Foreign slaves could be obtained by purchase without regards to provenance, by kidnapping, and by birth.
This is an issue I got interested in a few years ago and dove in deep. And with all due respect to Rev. Boot, I don't think he's answered the real question here? And has made a couple possible big errors? Bear with me here. To me, the real issue is in the different rules for the foreigners verses the Hebrews when it comes to slavery. Laid bare in the verse you raised in Leviticus 25:44-46. Rev. Boot seemed to go on for about 10 minutes on how ubiquitous slavery was in the Ancient Near East, and I agree. But that doesn't seem to explain why the Bible condoned the slavery it did? I mean he kept claiming that the "property" mentioned in these verses meant owning a persons labor, and not owning them. Which the passage, even in the original Hebrew absolutely does not say. It's the same word for a house or an ox. You don't own an oxes labor, you own the ox. No, this means exactly what it says if you look into it. Owning a person as property, so long as they were a foreigner. That's the issue, and it seems to me you can't try and just explain it away by calling it "owning their labor"? Something it most definitely does not say.
But Rev. Boot claimed that a foreigner could convert to Judaism and therefore be subject to the release from slavery on the Sabbath and Jubilee years. And this is simply 100% not true at all. It really shows a misunderstanding of the whole reason for the Jubilee law. Even though he talked about it correctly later? This really confuses me. Only native Hebrews who owned land in Israel were released back to their land during the Sabbath and Jubilee years. And as the Rev. said, that land could never be sold to anyone outside of the descendants of the original tribes granted that land. So no, converting would not at all allow them to be released from slavery. As Leviticus said, they were slaves forever.
As to "bondservant" being a better translation? I don't think this is really true either. I've learned some Hebrew to figure exactly this out. And while "Eved" can mean many different things, in Lev. 25:44-46 it means a lifelong chattel slave. The passage specifically says this by definition. To somehow claim that "Eved" means "bondservant" is to argue that the Hebrews were not really slaves in Egypt. They were only "bondservants". Something Rev. Boot specifically says is not true in this video. Because it's the same word?
And the law against kidnapping someone and making them a slave was a law just about every nation back then had. So unless there was no slavery in the Ancient Near East at all, this isn't really relevant I don't see? And Rev. Boot seemed to leave off his list of how people became slaves one of the most common ways. To simply be born a slave. Because that was true in the Bible, just as it was in the surrounding nations. Israel was no different in this regard. No debt, no war, no crime. Just born a slave. Something else I've never been able to wrap my head around?
And he said that slaves in pagan nations had no rights, and not eligibility for release too. I've actually looked into this, and it simply isn't true. They did have rights, and could be released. In fact, in the law of Hammurabi at the time, if you became a debt slave, you were released after only 3 years, as opposed to the 6 in the Bible. I'm not sure he's looked into this sufficiently? No judgement, it took me years, but I do have a better understanding of it all now. And it just isn't as simple as it's being made out here it seems to me? It's just a real issue for me personally.
Historical context is important to grasp slavery indeed!
Historically, could you put the scripture into context for me?
Exodus 21:20-21
New International Version
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies 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.
"You can cite out-of context verses."
In what context does Leviticus 25:44-46 NOT describe and condone chattel slavery?
"[The Atlantic slave trade] has nothing to do with what the Bible talks about as bond servitude"
But it is exactly what the Bible talks about as the chattel enslavement of non-Hebrews.
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.
"The idea that the Bible provides no basis for opposition to slavery is utterly absurd."
Nope. It's completely true. The Bible explicitly condones chattel slavery, and not once does it condemn slavery.
If you have to lie to defend your beliefs, it is time to get new beliefs.
Yes, Exodus is the story of the Israelites being freed from slavery. And then being told they could own other people as slaves.
It's almost as if the Israelites didn't want to be enslaved, but wanted to own slaves, so they invented a God that didn't want them to be enslaved, but wanted them to own slaves.
Coincidence?
"Both of those thoughtless critics are out of their depth. Immediately they've made completely false statements."
Nope. They were both correct. As I have shown, YOU are out of your depth, and have made completely false and thoughtless statements.
"They don't take any time to define what they mean by slavery."
Here you go:
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 without wages"
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."
Satisfied now?