Відео

I submit that the Bible does not endorse a slavery where a person is property. When the Bible speaks about slavery in Israel, it is always treating the slave as a human being and not property (e.g. Exod 21:26-27; Pmn 15-16). The basic concept today that owning people as property is immoral comes from concerned Christians in the modern era. This is why Christian nations were the ones which abolished slavery and led the world to do the same.

@@hopeevangelicallutheranchu4572 I submit the Scriptures are not lying. I Submit you are not being truthful. Here : Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version 44 “‘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, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. Noticed the word "PROPERTY ! 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. And let's not forget the non-Hebrew slaves you know the slaves that were for life. Their children were slaves and newborn was automatic slave. These were known as chattel slaves. Of course, this is all endorsed by the god of the Bible . how immoral how sick and how cruel !!!

Thanks be to God. If you want to talk about God, just let me know. My contact info can be found on the church website. hopevictoria.lutheranchurchcanada.ca/

Thanks be to God that you find joy in them.

The Trinity is itself based on scripture on how God reveals Himself in three persons. Is there anything in particular you find incoherent or puzzling?

The Law is fulfilled by Jesus, yes (Matthew 5:17). What Jesus gives us in the new covenant of his blood is greater than the covenant given to Moses (John 1:17; Hebrews 8-10). This includes: the Word of the Gospel superseding the Word of the Law, baptism into the Holy Spirit replacing circumcision under the Law, and the body and blood of Christ replacing the flesh of beasts eaten following sacrifices. These new things make us holy and we honour them as holy.

I'm afraid I do not understand your comment. Zionism deals with the push to support Israeli occupation of the land of Israel and establish an ethnically Jewish state. The War in the Ukraine deals with Putin trying to reclaim Ukrainian territory that was once controlled by the former USSR, as prompted by the Ukraine's interest in joining the European Union for economic and political stability. These things are not related.

The flip side to your comment is that even Nazis had the sense to recognize abortion as murderous. Nazis also had laws against murder, rape, and theft; that does not mean we should abandon those laws either. However, they would, like abortionists, target a group of people of certain definable characteristics which they thought to lack humanity and therefore attempted to terminate that group and experiment on it. On a related note, do you believe in Jesus Christ as Lord?

Hello Josiah, This is Pastor Chandler. Thank you for watching the video (I recall this one being a little disconnected in thought, so thanks for sticking through it). The holiness of the bread, I would say, is dependent on it being set aside for the purpose of offering from the people in sacrifice to God. The incense is definitely an indication of this. The type of incense involved in worship is holy (in the sense of being set apart) and cannot be used for any purpose except worship (Exod 30:34-38). Unadulterated bread (without yeast or honey) would also have limited applications.

@@hopeevangelicallutheranchu4572 alright, thanks

Hello, This is Pastor Chandler from Hope Lutheran Church. I would say that the easiest way to address the topic of salvation is to go to the texts in scripture which are directly addressing the issue. One of the most concise texts I would recommend is Eph 2:8-10. Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. In this text, we see that grace through faith in Christ Jesus our Lord saves as completely apart from our works. The role works play is that, now that we have been saved in Christ and re-created in him, now we are to do the good works for which God purposed us. Therefore, good works do not save but are the natural outworking of the salvation we receive completely by grace. We can also see this in Ezek 18 although this text is directed more towards our relationship to God's Law than to His grace in the Gospel. The thesis statement of Ezek 18 is, "the soul that sins is the soul that dies," (18:6) since God is addressing the accusation that He is not being just in His actions (He addresses the same complaint in the same manner in 33:10-20). God corrects this by declaring everyone's sin is their own and they will be personally punished for it. The son for his sins and the father for his (18:10-18). Similarly, the one who does what is righteous will continue in life (18:6-9, 19-20). Here we see that doing works (being righteous) is not the same as salvation, it is simply doing what God has ordained for you to do. The Law which commands works can only condemn you for violating it, not giving you life. However, this does not address the accusation God is trying to address just yet. The idea that God is unjust is that He does not demand death from every sinner. There are some who sin but yet live. God clarifies that if anyone "turns" from his wickedness toward what is right, then God will not "remember" their sins but according to their righteousness (18:21-24). Here I think is your confusion on the matter. The term "turn" here (shuv in Hebrew) is the word for "return" and "repent". The people who turn from wickedness are not simply now doing good works for salvation, that would mean that you could pay your debt to the Law with good works. That would be false since, according to 18:6-9, 19-20, these were the things you were supposed to be doing already. The people turning are repenting of their actions in not only action but (as unmentioned in Ezek 18 since it is not primarily focused on the Gospel but a question regarding the Law) in heart. They remove themselves from wickedness to be righteous. God not "remembering" their sins is a way to state that He has forgiven the sinner who has repented. God knows all things, including past sins, but He actively does not recall them against us to judge as according to them. The close of the chapter (18:25-32) is God declaring that the Israelites are sinful, they need to repent, and that He will have a new heart and a new spirit. That is more salvation language. God repeats the reception of a new heart and new spirit in 11:19-20 and 36:26-27 where He clarifies that He is the one giving the new heart and new spirit. The people do not perform works to make themselves new. God places a new heart in the people (turning it from stone to flesh) and puts His Spirit into them *in order that* they may perform His statutes and rules. Therefore, God's work of salvation (grace) precedes works which result from faith in someone who has been regenerated. If you like, I can point you to, quite literally, dozens of videos on this channel where I explain the relationship of faith, salvation, and works in sermons, devotionals, and Bible studies. God bless.

Speaking for myself, I am saddened when people reject the truth of the Gospel. May the Lord be with you.

@@hopeevangelicallutheranchu4572 It's not true. We know it's not true. You know god will never heal an amputee, you know you will never believe Jesus when he said his followers would duplicate his miracles or do greater ones, you are just living with a delusion and your god is no more real then a magical unicorn you talk to. Just sad.

Thank you Diug. May God give you His peace. Amen.

I am assuming you are referring to Lev. 25:44-46. "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly." A few initial observations: 1. The Israelites are buying people who are already classed as slaves. 2. There is no stipulations to treat them as "chattel." The fifth commandment which also implies upholding your neighbours in their lives still applies. 3. There is no mention of these slaves ever being part of the household of Israel, which makes them a particular social class of sojourner (someone who travels with Israel but is not of Israel). The entire chapter of Lev 25 needs to be examined to understand the complexity of property laws and redemption. As I remarked in the devotional reflection, the word in Hebrew for "slave" and "servant" is the same. The difference between a Hebrew slave and a non-Hebrew slave was not over treatment or status but of longevity. A Hebrew slave is redeemable, but a non-Hebrew slave is not, because the Israelites are God's slaves whom He paid the price for by bringing them out of the land of Egypt (Lev 25:55). The contract for a Hebrew worker can only be temporary because a person is paying for something which is ultimately God's. The same is true of the land of Israel (25:23) which is owned by God but used by specific families by His direction. Any selling of land must result in it being given back because God initially gave it to the family to have as their inheritance forever (cf. 25:24-28, 34). A sojourner/non-Israelite's slave does not have a redeemable status because they are not part of Israel. They are not God's in the sense that He did not pay a price for them like deliver them from Egypt. Unless these slaves become members of Israel (by entering into their family lines as believers), there is no reason to remove the status of slave from them, especially when the Israel master is giving them room and board in a day before standardized labour laws. Otherwise a slave who is freed would probably to rely completely on gleaning for the rest of their life, which is not easy. Becoming part of Israel is being part of the initial payment God made for Israel which would give them status as His beloved people. This transition is also easier when the slave is made property to inherit forever so they not only have stable employment but can hear the Word of God so they may have faith and enter into the nation of Israel. In the New Testament, Jesus pays the redemption price for all of us with his blood. Now all people can belong to God and the centralization around a Hebrew nationality is no longer needed. A detailed study of Philemon can be fruitful to understanding slavery in light of Christ as a social issue. I hope this helps you understand the situation a bit better. If not, feel free to ask more questions which I didn't cover. God bless.

@@hopeevangelicallutheranchu4572 You are correct, I'm referring to the passage in Leviticus. But while agree with some of what you're saying here, I disagree with other things. I agree that in the passage in Leviticus the Israelites are buying people who are already slaves. But they're still slaves, which is the whole question after all. How did they become slaves? It mostly wasn't voluntary. The two most common ways to become a slave were as prisoners of war, or to be born into it to slave parents. And God Himself commanded the former. The latter was just how slavery worked in the ancient near east. Your second statement on "treatment" is confusing. Leviticus says they were chattel, or property. Treatment is a different issue. But your video said they were not considered as property, which is just not true. The Bible disagrees with you on this. They could be inherited as property. The Bible calls them property, so I'm not sure where you're getting this. And I understand that these foreign slaves were not Israelis. That's why they're called "foreigners" after all. And why they could be enslaved and Hebrews could not. Again, that's the question. And you're right on the meaning of the word "ebed" in ancient Hebrew. And let me say here that I do not consider Hebrews as slaves. They were not owned as property for their entire lives like foreigners could be. Hebrews were indentured servants who had to be released after six years of service. This is completely different from chattel slavery. So, at least to me, there is not such thing as a Hebrew "slave" unless they chose to be. I'm only talking about foreigners. And as you said, "a non-Hebrew slave is not redeemable". That's what makes them a slave. My question was, and is, why does the Bible allow slavery at all? We now consider it immoral and a sin. But not because of what the Bible says on the subject. The Bible says Israel CAN own slaves. This is what I'm trying to understand. And the book of Philemon does not answer this. I hear this brought up a lot. The book of Philemon is not the Bible or God coming out against slavery. Heck, it isn't even Paul himself coming out against slavery. I mean he sent Onesimus back to Philemon after all. It's about everyone being equal in the eyes of Christ. And Paul wanting his convert to be free. Which I could point out he was before Paul sent him back to his owner. Something else I've never quite understood since Paul himself said that slaves should gain their freedom if they could. It all gets so complicated, but I did not hear an answer in your last comment. But I would love one!

@@nickbrasing8786 Hopefully I can clear up some of this confusion. Honestly, the Bible does not disagree with me about chattel slavery. The concept that you are describing is reading a modern narrative into the biblical text. Even Hebrew slaves are described as money/property (Exod 21:21). In terms of treatment, the Hebrew slaves and non-Hebrew slaves still receive the same compensation and rights with the exception of the former being redeemable. God has already paid their redemption price, but this is not true of the other nations. Not being redeemable does not define "slavery" in this time period. That is a modern definition which does not apply to ancient systems of slavery. (You seem to echo this shift to the modern perspective in "We *now* consider it immoral and a sin.") The modern equivalent to the ancient practices would "wage slaves," everyday workers who have a limited ability to gain their freedom by "striking it rich" somehow. Unless you understand what redemption means to the Israelites and to the biblical narrative as a whole, nothing about slavery in scripture will make sense. In the Old Testament, slavery is typified with the slavery in Egypt. The Israelites could not live in the way proper to God. God freed them from slavery to live as His people in a land He gave them. God redeemed them, which meant they now belong to God. The New Testament is the fulfilment of what came before. The slavery in Egypt represents the slavery of each person to sin. Only through the redemption we have in Christ Jesus can we be freed from sin and made children of God. Because we are in Christ, we are now slaves of righteousness, following our master to freely do his will (Rom 6). The foreigner slaves in the OT would be like people who have no faith in Christ (and therefore have not been redeemed) but come to church services, functions, etc. Without the grace of God given to them, they are still slaves of sin unto death, instead of those in Christ who have life in his name. The physical/secular condition reflects the spiritual reality. I never pointed you to Philemon to showcase the Bible against slavery. Philemon features a recognition of biblical ethics where the social structure at the time is maintained, with the further understanding that treating people as fellow believers elevates them across status. Onesimus was a runaway slave, which means he was not free but a fugitive. According to Roman Law, he should have been put to death. Christians are called to follow the governments in place (Rom 13:1-7) even when that means being oppressed by it because Christ submitted in the same way (1 Peter 2:13-25). If we suffer unjustly in this world, then we receive justice in the world to come. In the meantime, we can still show each other love and mercy. Philemon was going to receive Onesimus as a brother in Christ, forgive Onesimus' sins, and not hand Onesimus over to death. Paul urged Philemon to welcome Onesimus back not in secular terms (slave) but a as a brother in Christ. Paul never tells Philemon to free Onesimus. The theme is closer to Gal 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." or 1 Cor 7:21-24 which you mentioned. When Paul says slaves should gain their freedom (1 Cor 7:21), he's talking about slaves earning enough money to buy their freedom. This was a standard practice in the ancient world. Many slaves did not remain slaves their entire lives. (Sorry for writing a tome in response. May God bless you through it.) God's peace, Pastor Chandler

@@hopeevangelicallutheranchu4572 The Bible does disagree with you that they were property. Sorry. The verse in Exodus 21:21 you referenced is not talking about Hebrew servants. It's talking about foreign chattel slaves. I don't know why you would think it was talking about Hebrews. It's just not. You said "the Hebrew slaves and non-Hebrew slaves still receive the same compensation and rights with the exception of the former being redeemable", and "The modern equivalent to the ancient practices would "wage slaves". This is confusing. Hebrew servants (not slaves mind you) were "compensated" in that they were normally working off a debt they owed. So the wages they would have received went instead to pay down their debt. The foreign slaves had no debt. They were just slaves. But you said they were "compensated"? How? They were not paid. And you're second comment I quoted even equates them to earning slave wages in our modern terminology. Again, they were not paid at all, anymore than American slaves were paid a wage. If you're talking about room and board, then that same argument could be made to slaves in America who were also provided that. I don't think you're going to argue that they were the same. And so we're back to the treatment of each. Which I pointed out is a different issue. Yes they were treated better than American slaves. But they were still slaves and that's my question. You just seem to be insisting that the word "property" doesn't mean property. But it's the same ancient Hebrew word that used to describe owning a house, an ox or land. It means exactly what it says. And I'm sorry but being a slave to sin or righteousness and an actual chattel slave to a master are two different things. I understand the theological argument, trust me I do. I've heard it many times. And your point about Hebrews coming out of Egypt vs. foreigners is perfect. The Hebrews were God's chosen people. He owned them just like He owned the land He sent them to just as you said. But this is why the Bible says they could no longer be slaves to another man. Foreigners could though, and that's still the question you haven't answered. Why? Why was it ok for the Israelites to own slaves? An interesting point on the Cor. passage though. I'll have to think about that one, so thank you for that! And no problem on the "tome". I do the same thing and have the same concerns. It's nice to know I'm not alone in that! Cheers!

@@nickbrasing8786 Hello Nick, Exod 21:21 is in a portion of laws about slaves (21:1-11) and murder (21:12-33). Slaves being Hebrew is explicitly mentioned in 21:2, 8. There is no shift in terminology between the portion of slavery and murder (nor in any part of the laws outlined in 20:22-23:19). The word for slave remains the same. If you want to make the claim that there is a shift in terminology between 21:1-11 and 21:12-33, the burden of proof is on you to find why there must be a shift. Otherwise, you can take the definition for "slave" used in scripture which is a position where you are another's property and lack socioeconomic autonomy. The concept of "chattel" as you define it simply does not appear. You need not take my word for it. I encourage you to find historical works that delve into the definition of slavery through the ages. The 18th century definition you are using for American slavery does not translate back to the ancient period. All credible historians and Bible scholars affirm this. Ancient slaves usually became slaves because they owed a debt. Non-Hebrew slaves were sold into slavery (by themselves or others) because they were indebted. Most ancient cultures allowed slaves to buy their freedom. When people sold slaves (in basically any ancient culture or between cultures), the "debt" that the slave owes to purchase freedom is transferred from the former master to the new master. God giving laws that automatically freed slaves was unheard of in the ancient world. Although, again, the concept of redemption in God's law as representing deliverance from the oppression of sin and evil of this world is essential to understand why God allowed that for His people. I think you are confused my use of the word "compensated." Compensation is not the working off the debt. The compensation slaves received was their room and board. These are the fundamentals of life a master must give a slave to ensure they are taken care of. This is due to Hebrew and foreign slaves without question. Minimum wage in the modern day is trying to provide the same basics of life: food, shelter, clothing, etc. You appear to be confused about my use of the word "property." I never said that a slave was not conceived of as property, in the sense they have a master. What I have been saying is that slaves are treated as human beings under the protection of the commandments of God. They are not seen as inhuman as an ox, house, or piece of land; though I think that's how you are using "property." The word "property" expresses a relation, not a denotation of something's substance. The relation is one of ownership. It is not an ontological statement that a slave is as inhuman as an ox or needs to be treated like one. Take the use of "inheritance" in the Old Testament. An inheritance is used of land, animals, wealth, and children. This does not mean children are as inhuman as land or animals. It is a relation between the one who has an inheritance and that which is an expression of inheritance. Let's try using an analogy to talk about your question "Why was it ok for the Israelites to own slaves?" For the sake of argument, let's say you own a factory and need some workers. You have an idea of what your profits will be and the wage you can pay your employees. Your employees are not paid the same because of education requirements, previous experience, etc. You hire enough people to work in your factory. Many are paid minimum wage but every single employee depends on your factory to support themselves. Other jobs are not easily found. If you lay someone off, they may or may not find new work. Is it okay to keep people employed indefinitely? Is it okay to instruct them to work according to the standards you set for the company? Is it okay that some are in higher positions than others depending on qualifications? While this analogy is not perfect, hopefully it gives you some idea about what is being presented within historical cultures. There was no great job market. There were no competitive salaries. Slavery was not a monolithic thing. You can look at Joseph who was sold as a slave to Potiphar in Egypt and managed the entire household as a slave, which he did willingly and honourably (Gen 39:1-9). Many slaves in the ancient world lived better than freemen, and could only do so as slaves. God bless.