Does the Bible Condone Slavery? w/ Dr. John Bergsma
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- 📺 Full Episode: • YES! The Bible is Reli...
Dr. Bergsma answers the question of if Slavery is allowed in the Bible.
🟣 Join Us on Locals (before we get banned on YT): mattfradd.loca...
🖥️ Website: pintswithaquin...
🟢 Rumble: rumble.com/c/p...
👕 Merch: shop.pintswith...
🚫 FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔵 Facebook: / mattfradd
📸 Instagram: / mattfradd
We get a small kick back from affiliate links.
Many in our culture tend to conceptualize the ancient world as full of plantation owner's that treat their slaves like dirt because of their race. Thank you for helping to illustrate the truth!
"Many in our culture tend to conceptualize the ancient world as full of plantation owner's that treat their slaves like dirt because of their race. Thank you for helping to illustrate the truth!"...I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make is. If you treat a slave great instead of like "dirt", then is slavery morally acceptable in your opinion? If slavery is based on poverty instead of race does that make slavery morally acceptable? Since you seem to be defending slavery for some reason, I guess the best question to ask is...Do you personally believe it is EVER morally acceptable to be allowed to purchase another person and consider them property that can be passed on to your children as an inheritance?
@@GuessWhoAsks Friend, you are really putting words in my mouth and assuming a lot about my statement. When did I condone slavery in what I said? I'm simply pointing out that some tend to see the ancient world through a modern lens. All people have inherent dignity and value absolutely. I hold to everything Dr. Bergsma argues in this video.
@GuessWhoAsks yes, slavery can be morally acceptable. God is certainly ok with it. However, what happened in America is absolutely no morally allowed. Exodus 21 says anyone who steals a person and anyone who buys that person should be put to death. Slavery is a much broader term than our modern western culture understands. The Bible affirms, from the very first chapter, that everyone is made in God's image. We can't treat people as mere property. God allows people to "own" each other, but with huge asterisks. They must be treated as people. There is an understanding that although you "own" them, really you are both owned by God and anything or anyone you have must be taken care of and stewarded well. This extends beyond slaves. What about your children? "You can't tell me how to raise my kids." No, but God can. And he does. Again, anything or anyone under your authority you must treat as taking care of what belongs to God rather than you.
The Bible says you can't steal people, you must treat others as made in God's image, you can't be harsh with people, when your slave goes free you must send a ton of stuff with him so he's financially set for success.
The Bible turns our world upside down and defies what our culture says. Culture used to say its all good and now says its never good, but the Bible says it's fine as long as you follow this long list of stuff that ensures you aren't taking advantage of them or treating them poorly. If American slave owners has to follow the Bible in regards to slaves they'd just throw up their hands and say "not worth it, y'all just leave."
Those who follow Jesus are called his slaves, and yet it's the best deal ever.
So, you did not comprehend anything that was said in this video?@@GuessWhoAsks
@@GuessWhoAsks No so. And that is NOT the crux of the discussion in this video. Alas....
Deuteronomy 23:15-16
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.
Prior to that it is discussing of warfare between Israel and its *pagan neighbors. Those escaping slavery from *idol worshippers were seen as the rationale for not handing them back across enemy lines to be exposed to the fate of breaking of the command of God. (Just saying...)
B-U-T!!!!!!!!! NUMBERS: LEVITUCUS: DEUTERONOMY: GALATION: God Rewards you if you Sloter Mothers Solders Parents and the live Children?
you can keep for reward and do with them as you choose in your own private areas. rape molestations for reward in Scriptures confused .
READ IT IN CONTEXT AND WHY SO MANY WISE SMART INTELLIGENT HARVARD STUDENTS BECOME INSTENT ATHEIST AFTER READING A COUPLE TIMES IN CONTEXT.
They pray by parents starting out with praise asking for the Guidance from thy Holy Spirit becoming instant ATHEIST AFTER READING FULL CONTEXT OF THE SCRIPTURES. ALSO ONLY PROFIT OVER RIDES THE ALGORITHMIC and not the honest Churches of God in Jesus who are indoctrinated just because they can't read or see the book in Context. have no power in many places. MONEY DOES!! AND GOD LOVES MONEY. PROVING the hundreds of thousand still today God lets them suffer dying horrible hell is all they get and reading in context you know is foolish to think itwould offer a true honest loving heaven when Jesus builds a great lake of fire AFTER he forgives you in ROMANS TO CORINTHIANS. TO NURN FOR EVER AND EVER IN ETERNITY IN HELL FIRE BECAUSE HE LOVES YOU.
FUNNY STRANGLY ? Numbers : say you can molest rape them for rewards after you killed the Solders and take their children and do as you choose with them in your own privacy because you have been rewarded. stinking ridiculous CONTRADICTIONS? Why a so many Harvard Students Reading a couple times in context seeking honestly from God Becoming instant Atheist after reading scriptures in context. Makes the gullible naive Stupid wake up a little.@@collegesuccess
please do not take the bible out of context to suit your selfish needs. that passage is referring to outsiders who were slaves from other lands. Not local slaves. please do not misrepresent the word
Leviticus 25:44
‘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.
Philemon 1:16
no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord
Read the Scriptures in Context and see how honest you are? ITS SUPPORTS RAPE MOLESTATIONS IN 4 OTHER BOOKS AND YOUR HONESTY PREVENTS YOU FROM READING THOSE. Why you can only cherry pick a couple little verse to help your sanity
. Not wasting my time any more because of the abuse from cultish behaviors and learning why Priest perverts molesters have 2 millions Dollars saved just to Protect them from Courts Indictment's. Our Tax Money keeps them out of prisons because such a loving God Condones in Many Books then Contradicts like in others Steeling the Honesty of its Humans is very Man of Empires of Inventions to indoctrinate the Masses .
Romulus Bible before the Scriptures hidden but forced out to the public because of new laws!! Empire of Rome and their Book Bible Named Romulus !! 2 brothers floating down the river in a basket then, drinking the milk from a dirty Wolf Dog. The King James 1000 years LATER WITH, The Scriptures Mosses Floating down the river in a basket rings a Big Bell Shaking the Brain with Vibrations if Honest ? Jesus Building the Great lake of fire TO BURN YOU IN HELL FOR EVER AND EVER ETERNITY AFTER GOD FORGAVE US IS WHAT THE SCAM STARTED BEING NOTICED. from romans: to Corinthians: Contradictions Galore was just the icing on the cake.
What if you’re not in the lord?
I didn't hear him comment on these verses, wish he did:
Leviticus 25:44-46,
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly."
Sounds like life-long slavery at first glance.
He also didn't say why one would choose the surrender his freedom at the end of his temporary enslavement. If the master gave the man a wife during the enslavement and his term was done, the former slave would be forced to either abandon his wife and children or declare his lifelong enslavement to his master. This is beyond cruel.
@@Charlotte_Martel I would’ve liked a more thorough treatment of the topic, for sure.
Because they completely undermine his bullshit argument
@@Charlotte_Martel From the understanding I've sought with this verse. It seems to point to a parallel of time stamps between couples who were enslaved. Examples: If the woman had served less time then the man and the man completed his servitude, he cannot just leave with the wife but only until she has completed her time as well as long with her children due to children being with the mother. Hope this helps man
@@TrickyLoud I honestly don't know where you're getting this interpretation. Even WLC admits that the slave's wife and kids are the lifelong property of the owner if given during the slave's period of servitude. Why in the world would a newly freed man commit himself to lifelong enslavement if he knew that his wife would be freed in a short period? Your interpretation makes no sense.
Thank you, I’ve never heard the Bible’s slavery stance so perfectly explained before.
Not close to perfect. Avoids the issue.
Right!! Read EXODUS 21: ? YOU CAN BUY AND OWN ALL THE PEOPLE OF ALL COUNTRIES AND NATIONS OF THE EARTH? YOU CAN BEAT THEM DAILY AS LONG AS THEY DON'T DIE IN 2 DAYS? AND GETS MORE GORY READING ON ABOUT OWNING THE CHILDREN IF THEY DIE AND DOING AS YOU CHOOSE WITH THEM IN YOUR OWN CONFORT. FOR A REWARD. RAPE.@@rickdockery9620
@@rickdockery9620 These people would probably burn witches and heretics if they were told they were doing good.
@@rickdockery9620?
jubilee is invented by man? Just like the Trinity is Invented by Man .
Firstly, no such words are in the Scriptures. Including (RAPTURE) Made up tales about Jesus plucking up people is not for our times but, was for the Immediate times of Jesus and His Disciples in 70AD only and not Today or the Future...
Why all the Decades in the Past 70 years These So Called Holy 'PREDICAMENTS' ?
Raptures Embarrassingly Failed every Time and unfortunately Many Suicides who Lost Their Faith. 1975 and the California's in 1995 Many Suicides.@@velkyn1
I want to give up but I keep faith because I know God will change my situation. Lord I’m sick of worrying. Please hear my prayers. I trust in you and keep faith even as I struggle to take care of my children. Like many single parents things are so hard on me. Both of my sons are autistic I’m overwhelmed. I’m constantly struggling to buy groceries and constantly struggling to pay rent and now that I’m home schooling my sons I’m struggling to buy their school supplies. But even in hard times we must choose to have faith. As christians that’s all we can do. No matter your struggle, we can turn to God. He knows us personally and can give us strength to overcome our challenges. The only reason I share my testimony is because we should always keep trust in our Lord he will always provide walk with faith and not by sight!
by accepting trinity christianity you are lost in this world and the hereafter. jesus like all prophets taught monotheism
God bless you, Tiff. You're doing great.
Busy = you are in great shape! Trust me, better yet trust God. The people that have time on their hands are the ones that are scheming. It may be difficult, but with each passing moment, know that every step you take is a righteous step and God smiles upon you. Nothing you have done, or will do is overlooked by God, but he is tallying each and every good deed you do to one day read them back to you.
If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.
Colossians 3:1-4 KJV
1. Hear the Gospel. (Romans 10:17, John 8:32)
2. Believe the Gospel (Hebrews 11:6, John 20:31)
3. Repent of past sins (Luke 13:3, Acts 17:30)
4. Confess faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:10, Matthew 10:32)
5. Be Baptized (Galatians 3:27, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38)
6. Be faithful unto death (Revelation 2:10)
Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
Romans 16:16 KJV
@@MastaE2288 too easy folks. jesus said beware of a sheep in wolf clothing coming after me teaching the opposite of my message ' greatest command is to worship our lord the one god only ' Paul ' god is 3 coequal godheads ' Muhammad ' god is one worship the creator only not the created '
@@etzelkaplan9677 I'll be honest. I am really not sure what you are trying to say.
This guy is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Moreover, there are three types of slavery referenced in the Bible. He's conflating all three and picking and choosing the parts he wants to make it more palatable. One of the types absolutely was chattel slavery and those slaves were inheritable property not subject to the year of jubilee practices.
I hear a lot of ignorance amongst a lot of new age american movements, whether the group is black, white, etc..., that The Bible condones slavery and we all know they think of the chattel slavery of the colonial and antebellum times. Thank you, Dr. Bergsma for this response and to Mr. Fradd for having him.
It does condone slavery
Leviticus 25: 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.
Just be mindful here: there are passages that do condone slavery; however they are all limited to the Mosaic law- which is temporary and not necessarily reflecting divine, moral law. These are among the laws that Christ said were given because of hardness of heart.
Muslims will often point to these passages as well in apologetics in order to relativize and disarm Christian critics of Islamic approval of slavery. The difference is that Muhammad elevated these beliefs to the level of eternal, divine law that is still valid today in every place. The Mosaic law no longer applies in the mind of Christianity- which takes Jesus as the standard of morality
@@amyrenee1361my dude did you even watch the video
It does not matter how you try and frame it. The men who wrote the bible were fine with slavery, it was normal to them.
A god would know better.... ipso facto the bible is not from a god.
@@roscius6204 The slavery of the OT times was completely different compared to modern slavery. You’re contextualizing old times with current slavery context.
It's crazy the intellectual dishonesty which has to occur for someone to pretend the Bible doesn't condone slavery. Interesting absence of Lev 25:44-46 here. Also, saying you can't have a permanent Israelites slave is definitely not the same thing as saying you can't have any slaves.
Furthermore, does a year of Jubilee erase the prior 6 years of slavery which just occurred for someone? Just admit God does not see slavery as immoral in all circumstances.
Bunch of liars.
Do the Jubilee laws pertain to foreign slaves as well re: Lev 25 : 44?
Well if you read entire old testament than yes it it hinted that foreign Slaves could also free themselves.
@@Hoe-numan5 I don’t think what you’re saying tracks or can be reconciled with Leviticus 25 : 44
@@WePlugGOODMusic it can be reconciled
@@Hoe-numan5 What Passages? Chapters? Verses? Or just take your word for it?
@@Hoe-numan5typical lying slavery apologist
I believe the Jubilee laws only applied to indentured Israelites. Even some of the apostles had slaves. For example, Peter’s household.
The "slavery" of the ancient Mediterranean world and the "slavery" as practiced in the 1600s-1800s in New World colonies are so different that we should probably have different words for them. The chattel slaves in the Caribbean and Antebellum South had no legal rights, and an owner could do whatever he wanted to do to one. The slaves in the ancient Mediterranean were really more like what we would call servants - paid, able to own some property, having legal rights. They were just stuck with the same job unless they were freed, as they could be in Israel. As Dr. Bergsma said, they were members of the household. They were not reduced to livestock, as was legally the case in the Caribbean and Antebellum South.
like how we have murder and manslaughter.... though one is unintentional...
@@Giantcrabz it was a way to get rid of debt. Can you really say the homeless situation in these American and Canadian cities is a better system?
Nope. Foreign slaves under Mosaic law had no protections. They could be bought, sold, separated from their families, beaten, raped, killed, kept for life, and passed down as inheritance. Their treatment was every bit as bad, if not worse, than slave treatment in Caribbean and Antebellum South.
Bergsma lied when he said "True slavery is outlawed for Israelites.' and "The other people around Israel could be enslaved, but only temporarily."
Leviticus 25 says different:
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 YOU SHALL TAKE THEM AS INHERITANCE FOR YOUR CHILDREN, to inherit them for a possession; THEY SHALL BE YOUR BONDMEN FOREVER: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
If you have to lie to protect your beliefs, it is time to get new beliefs. Your religion condones slavery.
@@Jeff55369
"it was a way to get rid of debt"
It was not. Chattel slaves were obtained by conquest or birth, and they were kept for life.
Stop lying.
"Can you really say the homeless situation in these American and Canadian cities is a better system?"
Than chattel slavery? Absolutely.
@@cygnusustus I was speaking of slaves under mosaic law, not chattel slavery.
As for your other comments, you can't take one verse and separate it from the context of the rest. All of them together form the guidelines of the societal rules listed in the text. You're also reading a translated work, and not everything has been translated properly.
Furthermore, there are special instances, like the earing the speaker in the video mentioned, that prolonged the slave's "employment" from 7 years to a lifetime indenture. However, that was a voluntary position, not something to place someone into against their will.
He literally says about a minute in (after pretending "endentured servitude" isnt slavery) you can have foreign slaves. Thats the end of it as far as im concerned. Thats like saying your a vegetarian but its ok to eat chicken.
For a period of time, 7 years, i believe, he said, and maintaining the rights of any other human. You must have missed that part. Oops.
@@KevinSmile yes you are right. It doesn't count as slavery if it's only 7 years.
@@KevinSmile Only for Hebrew Slaves. Non-Hebrew slaves can be left for life!!!
Terminology. Servant, slave were the same thing. Servants felt safe. Think about it while doing your menial tasks at work making money for your master, boss excuse my wording. Are you a slave to corporations?
@@GergKowvit do you really think working at a job you can freely walk away from at any time is slavery? I suggest looking up modern slavery and then tell me it just like any other job, I guess you also say women are prostitutes if you buy them dinner so why complain about sex trafficing. No I am not a slave because I have a paid job that has been recognised in law giving me a lot of rights and protections. for instance I get a national minimum wage (not as good a s a living wage) i can quit any time, I won't be physically punished, I have legally mandated breaks...if me and my family were unable to leave for SEVEN YEARS then yes I would be a slave.
Yes he did.
Peter 2:18
Levictus 25:44-46
Colossians 3:22
Deuteronomy 20:11
Ephesians 6:5
Exodus 21: 20-21
Exodus 21: 7-11
American slaveowners used the bible as a tool to justify slavery and there are many books written by slaveowners why slavery is right because of the bible
Some good these passages actually reinforced slavery
The bible not only condones slavery but gives exact instructions on how to beat them. Awful awful morality of scripture, yet again.
This guy is either mistaken about what the biblical texts say about slavery or he is blatantly dishonest. I assume that since he is talking authoritatively about those texts that he is not mistaken about what they say. therefore...
I'm not sure selling the biblical exegesis here of "job security" or downplaying how awful even indentured slavery was is working for modern audiences. It was something more than slavery to set Israel apart but it was still slavery. You want to waste away seven years of your life for debt?
He lied about foreign slaves, them and their children could be inherited to the next master descendant. He switched Israel with foreigners in his example.
Your guest is unfortunately unaware, apparently, of the last 70 years of scholarship on this particular topic.
"No, you're wrong." **leaves** are my favorite type of comment lmao
Leviticus 25:44-46. it is right there.
When it comes to the issue of slavery God is either immoral by permitting it through rules or a trickster God hiding the truth from everyone by telling people they are permitted to practice slavery and then later saying it was always immoral. All the unnecessary suffering from slavery only to find out it was always immoral to begin with.
Man-Stealing is Condemned.
When you have a educated person who understands the oldest common chain in modern human history i.e. religions, but also have a keen understanding of perceptions related to time periods as well as just a good perception on on modern world yeilds some of the highest level conversation possible.
We are literally perceptual time traveling with conversation like these where old texts are viewed theu their perception of reality of the time and not apply modern perceptions to past perceptions
Okay, but why didn’t these guys talk about the church endorsing certain acts of slavery? Popes in the 1400s declared that heathens on the Canary Islands could be enslaved by the Spanish. Was the pope theologically mistaken? Or is slavery only forbidden for fellow Christians?
Sicut Dudum
Cite your source. Don't just make unsupported statements. Popes prohibited enslavement in the New World. See Pope Paul III "Sublimis Deus".
@@nicolamcostello Dum Diversas
@@nobey1kanobey don't forget about Sublimis Deus.
So you're not saying the Bible condemns slavery outright but just a harsh form of it? Also, the trans-atlantic slavers justified their form of slavery using the Bible. They cited Noah's curse of his son Ham and grandson Canaan after Ham exposed Noah's nakedness. See Gen 9:13. I would say slavery is condemned in the new Testament when Paul says there is no slave or free in Christ. See Gal 3:28.
This last part is a good point. Although I'm not necessarily agreeing with you (Paul also tells slaves to obey their masters, but I'm not saying that's an affirmation of slavery necessarily.), I do think it's always critical to recognize the differences between the Old Law and the New Law of Christ. This video pretty much just focuses on the Old Law, which has been fulfilled.
That well-rounded recap at the end is perfect, I can't explain it better myself. That's what people from a modern worldview cannot fathom. You can't grab someone who for their whole lives, sometimes being an inheritance like our founding fathers in the US had at times, have known only how to be told how to do things, have no education, can't write, can't read, don't know how to formulate their own lives, aren't aware of the stark contrast free life is to complete servitude, and just throw them into the world to go figure everything out on their own. Again, often times we apply this horrendous lens to slavery when people don't understand that ownership of slaves is not a casual simple thing any man goes and does. You want your slaves to live and continue being healthy for as long as possible because these are literally financial assets that you need to stay afloat. Throwing them into the free world is like throwing them to the wolves, they will get chewed up quick and could even end up dead, maybe even get YOU in trouble. The process of emancipation is a very very slow and deliberate process that should be considered prudently, because the last thing you would ever want is a bunch of ex-slaves running around stealing, and hurting others just to simply get by. Our founding fathers had this same understanding. I've always read these sections about respecting one's master in this light as a result, it's basically saying- "Because these systems have to exist for now, this is the way that you must behave towards one another."
Are you freaking joking? The Founders didn't ban slavery because they cared about the slaves and didn't want them to hurt each other? 🤣🤣🤣 So selfless. It clearly had nothing to do with the fact that many of them owned slaves and would lose their fortunes if these people were freed, right?
Can't wait for your defence of Nazism.
You are basically arguing for the pernicious effects of slavery on the human person. It renders them incapable of freedom and the responsibilities that come with it. Through progressive revelation in the best sense, the Church has come to understand slavery is intrinsically evil.
Please define when the jubilee years were. Both in the essene calendar method or the Hebrew calendar method
Leviticus 25:44-46a KJV - 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. 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. 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*
You say temporary, and the Bible says forever. I'll stick with Scripture.
Yes, if you would search a little further, you would understand that "for ever" does not mean what you think it does in our conception. Often the translation "for ever" from Hebrew simply means something like "for this age." As in, not literally an eternity, but while the current age exists in the structure it does. Look it up.
@TheBanjoShowOfficial Verse 40 says that fellow Israelites are to be kept as bondmen only until the year of the jubilee, whereas Verse 46 (above) states that strangers may be kept as slaves forever. These ideas are clearly contrasted, and foreign slaves are not let go at the jubilee as claimed in the video.
Regarding the Hebrew word rendered "for ever" in Verse 46, it is "olam" (Strong's h5769), and I am very familiar with it. In this context, it actually does mean forever, or for life. If you check various English translations of the verse, you will see that they consistently translate "olam" here to mean forever.
@Pedant_Patrol
Plus on top of that, the phrase
"for your children after you"
implies generational/perpetual ownership. It amazes me how many Christians try and skirt away from the text plain reading. The accusation..."fundamentalist" is boring....presuppositionally, everyone is a "fundamentalist"
@christianparks3370 Funny your name is Christian. In my experience, most Christians don't actually care about the Bible or the God of the Bible. They only care about their eago and their vanity.
Voluntary servitude is a completely different situation. Voluntary servitude arises when a person becomes so poor that they cannot make a living, cannot provide for themselves, and sell themselves into a relationship with a person who has money and can provide for the poor person. The Hebrew word for this is “ebed.” meaning servant, or bondman. The Bible describes Israel as the Lord’s bondservant, or slave, the same word ebed.
You quote the following:
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.” (Leviticus 25:44-46)
You have plucked this verse out of context and we must look at the whole context.
“If any Israelites living near you become so poor that they sell themselves to you as a slave, you shall not make them do the work of a slave. They shall stay with you as hired workers and serve you until the next Year of Restoration.” (Lev. 25:39-40)
The issue of poverty was one of the reasons that people sold themselves as servants. There were also provisions for freedom. They could be bought back by a relative, or by their own money. Working for someone else did not mean that they received nothing. “By their own money” (v. 49) meant a certain freedom to gain money and buy their own freedom.
We have no reason to believe that the same was not true for the foreigners in the land. The verse says, “purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land,” and these were probably people like the Hebrews who fell on hard times and were poor. Being a servant in another household was better than starving. The rights are spelled out for the Hebrews but they would also apply to the foreigners who were welcomed into the land. The people were taught: “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner; remember that you were foreigners in Egypt. Do not mistreat any widow or orphan.” (Exodus 22:21-22)
“Suppose a foreigner living with you becomes rich, while some Israelites become poor and sell themselves as slaves to that foreigner or to a member of that foreigner's family. After they are sold, they still have the right to be bought back. A brother or an uncle or a cousin or another close relative may buy them back; or if they themselves earn enough, they may buy their own freedom. They must consult the one who bought them, and they must count the years from the time they sold themselves until the next Year of Restoration and must set the price for their release on the basis of the wages paid hired workers. They must refund a part of the purchase price according to the number of years left, as if they had been hired on an annual basis. Their master must not treat them harshly. If they are not set free in any of these ways, they and their children must be set free in the next Year of Restoration. Israelites cannot be permanent slaves, because the people of Israel are the LORD's slaves. He brought them out of Egypt; he is the LORD their God. (Lev. 25:47-55)
It may be that the foreigners living in the land who became poor would not have relatives around to buy them back. The issue of voluntary selling oneself in servant hood is important. The year of Restoration and the Sabbatical years were important to the Hebrews since it restored people to their original property allotted to them when they entered the land. It offered a fresh start again. However, the foreigners who lived in the land did not have land allotted to them. The only option would have been to expel them from the land which could have had dire results for them.
In the case of the foreigner who became poor the economic advantage of living with a wealthy person brought security. This arrangement entered into voluntarily was better than poor employment, low grade and bad pay when one did have a job. Remember that in 1200 BC one was limited in terms of work for pay.
The central issue here is that slavery was initiated BY the slave, NOT by the owners. What was involved was the economic relief of poverty of the poor person who sought to be taken in by some person of wealth.
The passage about inheritance needs some caveats. First, the verses says “you may” pass them on to your children, not that it was automatic, necessary, expected, or standard practice. It may be that the prosperity changes could have reduced the owner’s ability to support the slave. Second, this may well refer to servants who did not want to go free as expressed in Exodus 21.5, “But if the slave declares that he loves his master, his wife, and his children and does not want to be set free,” there was a ceremony at the place of worship for declaring him to be a slave for life. There is a similar procedure described in Deuteronomy 15:16 in which a person could become a slave for life because “he may love you and your family and be content to stay.” Third, given the fact that slaves could earn money, they could buy their own freedom.-- “if they themselves earn enough, they may buy their own freedom.” (Lev. 25:49)
Ezekiel 47:22 (ESV) states:
"You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the sojourners who reside among you and have had children among you. They shall be to you as native-born children of Israel. With you, they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel."
This verse is part of a larger passage in the book of Ezekiel describing the division of the land among the twelve tribes of Israel. It emphasizes the inclusive nature of the inheritance, extending it to both the native-born children of Israel and the sojourners residing among them. The idea is to treat those living among the Israelites as equal participants in the distribution of land.
"Sojourners" in biblical terms typically refer to foreigners or strangers residing in a land temporarily. These individuals are not native to the place where they are living but are there for various reasons such as travel, work, servant/slave or seeking refuge. The concept of treating sojourners justly and integrating them into the community is often emphasized in biblical teachings, promoting hospitality and fairness in their treatment. The verse from Ezekiel 47:22 underscores the idea that sojourners, along with native-born individuals, should share in the inheritance and be considered as part of the community.
Foreigners became Jewish
Try to read the entire old testament
What of war captives? How are they to be treated
as slaves
IM SORRY ABOUT THIS.
Isnt it possible as well that God knowing the hard hearts of men allowed it but regulated it to the point of near impossibility
The way he did with divorce?
Unfortunately, slavery was widespread in the ancient world.
Exodus 21:7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.
Exodus 21:8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again.
The Bible allows fathers to sell their daughters into sexual slavery.
How does one respond to chattel slavery within the Roman Empire? For example Onesimus was a runaway chattel slave sent back to the master by Paul.
Philemon 1:16 : "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord."
@@Hoe-numan5that's only one specific pers
the mental gymnastics these guys put themselves through to defend their favourite fiction text is astounding.
I get that he’s trying to say that biblical slavery was an attempt to make slaves out to be more like some sort of legitimate career path for some and may have helped people live peacefully. But I just don’t buy that. The question was does the Bible condone slavery, he answered no, then never gave any support to how the Bible doesn’t condone it. The Bible very clearly and explicitly, in multiple books of the old and New Testament, not only condones it but lays out rules on how to properly own slaves. Everything said in this video is an explanation as to how the Bible attempts to advocate for “nice” slavery. But slavery is slavery, there is no nice way to deny another human their rights and freedom. In a book that is supposed to lay out objective morality from an omnisciencent being, it clearly gets this wrong and any justification that tries to wiggle out of this inconvenient fact is a clear lie.
Is it freeing slavery or firing slaves?
Ear lobe thing... if the slave goes FREE he dont get to keep his wife and children! Exodus 21: But if the servant 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 the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground
Interesting how it doesn't mention ruling over other men, since that was not the original intention.
@@Giantcrabz The people of Israel demanded Monarchs in imitation of the pagan nations around them and God conceded to their demand with a warning that the Kings would abuse their authority. Therefore, God set limitations on monarchical authority to prevent abuse of the people's rights. See Deuteronomy 17:14-20.
Oh wow, UA-cam put this on Autoplay after watching a Dan McClellan video on a similar subject and I didn't notice that the video changed... I was wondering why it was taking so long for Mr. McClellan to chime in.
Dr. Michael Heiser did a better job of explaining this. Human slavery is going to be abolished like every other evil. Maybe it would help to distinguish the law of Moses vs the Divine Law. To me this is like when the Pharisees questioned Christ on divorce in Matthew 19.
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Jesus said Moses permitted them to divorce their wives, but this was not the will of God.
Even in our modern society we tolerate things that are clearly immoral.
I've never seen this as a contradiction of the greatest commandment in Mark 12:28-34.
I have a question. You briefly brush on the differences on the Slavery of the Americas and the slavery of the ancient Mediterranean. What then is the difference between the successors of Judea, Palestine, in the institution set by the Moslems' Arabo-Semitic Sharia Law and the Old Levantine Semitic Law of Moses?
You can’t have a brain and a religion at the same time. Choose one
I don't know, man. I think I have a brain. Because you know, if I didn't, I would probably die.
Is looking up religious channels to find a video on Christian ethics just to go into the comment section to make a wife sweeping comment that you are implicitly more intelligent and reasonable than the entire religious world a behavior someone with a brain would partake in?
He seems to be very confused about the context of the scripture he has read and who it is referencing, as he kept conflating the treatment meant for Hebrews to the treatment for non-Hebrew. The best question to ask him would be to provide the scripture then have him explain who the scripture is talking to and about in order to see if he can catch his mistake...
I heard the jubilee year also erased debts as well.
You need to do more reading.
@@AallthewaytoZ2did you
@@Hoe-numan5 You reply to a two month old comment? Get a life. There is a full discussion of slavery in the comments. This discussion is at an end.
I can understand there were cultural differences and nuance between slavery in those times vs. in recent history...but he was asked point blank if the Bible condones slavery, and he said "actually not"...but then cut to 1:17 in this video...
Can we just be honest? Nuance or not, the Bible does condone slavery. It's a bad look to lie about what the Bible says.
Eh not quite I think.
I think it's also important to contextualize that a lot of these rules really only applied for the people of Israel, hence the specificity of a lot of these rules and rituals that took place during this time.
We need to keep in mind *slavery* itself was normalized during this time period. I think it's a little arrogant to say it's supports it when we have the hindsight of over a THOUSAND YEARS to condemn it especially when such rules only really applied to people of the time.
With that said I think the relavence of different text change over time, the Bible is no expection. Which is always important to keep in mind whenever we read these text.
Tl:Dr :Context and Relavence matters a lot in biblical text
The very first thing I acknowledged was context. Regardless of whether or not slavery was normalized culturally during this time, the Bible outlines rules of how to properly treat and own slaves. By definition, that is condoning it.
As to your "thousand years of hindsight to look back and condemn it" argument, God's infinite word ought to supercede temporary cultures, times, places...hence this is something I seriously struggle with when reading the Bible, because I have intellectual honesty when reading it.
@directback2284 Bible condones it. Period. There's no getting around the fact that God says slavery is fine. I think the guy being interviewed is just confused because he sees there's all these extras stipulations and you can only act in a kind and honoring way to slaves and they do have all these qualifications because the slaves still are made in God's image and must be treated as such. It's so different from any slavery we know that the guy answering the question confuses it for something else. But it's slavery. And God doesn't change, so if it was morally acceptable then, it's morally acceptable now. If course in America we have rules against that and God also says obey your government, so it would be still morally wrong in America for that reason.
Better men than I have bragged of being slaves or fools for Christ, so perhaps this subject has more cosmic proportions.@@jml5100
At best it doesn’t condemn slavery. It says to obey your master. I’m not sure God condones it, it’s allowed cuz of sin. Like many of the atrocities in the Bible, they happened but because of the human condition. I don’t blame God
Leviticus Chapter 25 verses 44-46. There it says they can go outside of their surroundings and to be inherited from father to son.
So everyone today can benefit by becoming a slave as per these guys.
What many Bible literalists get wrong is that “The Bible” could “say”
“Slavery is fine” and it would STILL be wrong, and said hypothetical passage would need study, discernment, and INTERPRETATION of those who study it as a lifestyle.
Not if the Bible represents (as it claims to) Christian's absolute source of moral authority by virtue of it being God's Word.
You know, just the belief of all Christians ever.
@@lausdeo4944 um, no. There are at least 1.3 billion Christians that do not believe so, at least not 100% and not in a literal sense, and only half of said text…this is why I said Bible literalists, not Christians.
Circa 1640, everything went south…
@@percypercerton2125 The 1.3 billion Christians you're describing still believe the Bible is God's revealed word. They just believe the Church is another form of God's revealed authority.
“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." not condoned? You sure?
Why did Paul not tell Philemon to free Onesimus? Why didnt he say slavery was wrong?
This is where apologetics gets particularly disgusting and i start to entertain the idea that religion is poison if it can get people to compromise their morals like this. Slavery is ok if you let the slave go after 7 years, slavery is ok is you provide health care for sick slaves, slavery is ok if you build a relationship with your slaves, slavery is ok if the person volunteers to be your slave. Wtf are we talking about here? You don't think there were 1800 slave owners who fulfilled all of these criteria? It's still wrong ffs!
It's voluntary servitude.
Being a slave in a decent family back then wouldn’t be bad, you’re literally part of their household and they should have your best interest in mind. Tell me, who would in their right mind oppress and treat bad their worker? A cruel person. God doesn’t like cruel people.
If you have a particularly cruel master and decide to run away, the master cannot kill you according to these laws, and you are supposed to be taken care of and basically freed if you run away.
Keep in mind this is Old Testament law for Jewish civil matters, not for the world…. And the callback to the horrible slave trade in the Americas might show how disillusioned you are, because everything with servitude must follow with cruel masters that hate people based on race. News flash, this didn’t work that way.
Better and more appropriate question would be 'Does the bible condemn slavery"
Then we get a clearer picture of the position.
Like when the Catholic Church was OK with Nazis...... just in case they won.
Well it condemns slave trade
Slavery is Slavery. I don't care how you sugar coat it. I have noticed it's always some one not of a darker skin color explanation of Slavery. You do not have to make someone a slave to take care of them. But these are the things we tell ourselves to justify what was done to people.The Bible do support SLAVERY. Remember it's the word of God, so you say. It is written and so it was. Just something to really think about. Peace and Blessings always.
ua-cam.com/video/8UaA6NemMsg/v-deo.htmlsi=WXCFh0JzmX2gmG2-
Dr. Bergsma is significantly wrong in his analysis in this video. He gets bits right, but overall, misses the point.
1.) Slavery of Hebrew men and women was the extreme end of poverty safety net. It began with generationally guaranteed land, moved to harvesting edges of other people’s fields, and ended with voluntary slavery for one’s self or selling one’s children into slavery.
For Hebrew men, six years of service and freedom was given unless he desired to stay (normally if he had been given a slave wife during his enslavement). These enslaved men could be beaten heavily and could even die from their wounds. (It would probably be hard to make someone work for you, so physical violence seems natural)
For Hebrew women, they were sold as concubines (sex slavery) and could not be put off (divorced) or sold (this is not prostitution). Their marital rights of food, clothing, and sex could not be diminished.
Secondly, if you were convicted of a crime whose punishment was not death and you could not pay the fine (i.e. theft), you would become a slave to the man who you stole from. Without jails, this is how a society avoids the wicked cruelty of Islamic culture and the cutting off of hands for theft.
Thirdly, handling POWs. Instead of murdering every warrior you encountered on the battlefield, if you captured them, they became your slave for life. The Year of Jubilee did not apply to them and they could be passed down generationally.
Fourthly, sojourners in the land (i.e. Ruth) could not be enslaved because they had no legal status in Israel. The nation was to remember that they were slaves in Egypt.
Fifthly, the Year of Jubilee. We have zero evidence from biblical history that Israel ever practiced this law and significant reason to believe they didn’t. When Israel was sent into slavery, the number of years they would be exiled were the number of years they didn’t give the land it’s Sabbath rest. The land’s rest is the foundation for the Year of Jubilee.
In conclusion, the good doctor seems to be greatly mistaken in his view. It seems he would like to defend a generous perspective of biblical slavery without being accurate to the text.
As for Paul and the New Testament, the church had almost no power. It wouldn’t have changed the culture or left people on the street. In fact it did the exact opposite. But don’t put lipstick on a pig
The trouble is that most modern people wrongly consider slavery only as an absolute. If I asked, "Are people in your country free?", most responses would acknowledge degrees and kinds of freedom - that it is possible to be simultaneously free in one way but not another. Slavery is not a particular and absolute institution, but rather the opposite of freedom. It also can exist by degrees and variations. A person can be a slave in one way and free in another. Ancient customs of debt slavery demonstrate this, as do company towns or even non-compete contracts in modern societies. Both freedom and slavery appear in countless ways.
Thus, expecting Jesus to formally banish slavery is like expecting Him to formally establish freedom. Christianity does not promise freedom from all forms of oppression or hardship in this fallen world. Rather, God offers joy and hope amid the crosses we are called to carry until our salvation is completed with Christ's triumphant return and we are transfigured like He was.
If _"non-race"_ based slavery was introduced in the near future and religion was used to justify it, would people accept it?
Well, one form of slavery in the Bible involves selling one's daughter into sexual slavery. The VAST majority of us view human traffickers as the lowest form of life. Shows how we view Biblical morality when we are forced to confront it head on.
@@Charlotte_Martel Excellent and insightful comment.
I don't think the biblical authors are infallible; @KristinaDMoore may have the best comment on this thread.
If you observe the videos with Dr John Bergsma, there's something off with both him and the interviewer.
@@AallthewaytoZ2 Thank you for the compliment. I usually like Matt's videos (the interviewer), but I sincerely hope that he doesn't have this guest back on. He really makes Christians look stupid/cruel by creating the false dichotomy btw God and science and by apologising for evil. Other commenters have said that he's a convert from Evangelicalism. It really shows.
No, because that would be a regression in history. Christianity itself is the force that progressed the world towards a hostility to slavery. God's dealings with humanity brings a progressive improvement over centuries and millinea. In other words, God didn't sweep in and end all social ills by ending all human evil at once, at least not since the flood. No, God laid down His moral rules, wherein if followed perfectly, it would mean the undoing of social ills such as slavery or poverty. And rather than domineering humanity, God kept a degree of distance from humanity, allowing for Ancient Israel to freely choose to follow through with its commitment to God. But because humanity is sinful, that space between God and man provides opportunity to sin. The sinfulness of man kept poverty and slavery a reality for longer than it needed to be.
But God's spiritual improvement of humanity does not end with disobedient Israel. When the long prophesied Christ finally arrived on the scene, it marked the next stage for humanity and provided, more than ever, the moral ethic that would eat away at humanity's desensitized attitude towards institutions like slavery.
And coming into the modern era, what we see are Christ followers taking the elevated moral standard of Jesus, and with it fighting and ultimately toppling the institution of chattle slavery. Slavery is still around today, but it's been driven into shadows, whereas it was once as common as McDonalds is now.
Bro said "you know" about a million times damn
Why no 11th commandment.
Why no question mark?
There's like 63 or 66 commandments, just keep reading.
@@rickandrygel913 Christians only recognize ten commandments
The 1st 3 can be thrown out with no impact on our understanding of morality. Certainly, prohibitions against rape, spousal/child abuse, and slavery should take their place. The world would have been a much better place.
That Hebrew part was a great point
Please please, go over Marijuana and the Bible? I'm very confused where it stands in morality to our God.
Whatever anyone says or the men who wrote the Bible say, I abhor slavery and encourage anyone who is enslaved to do whatever they can to get out if feasible. There's no justification for using people for sex, free labor, etc. I am glad my ancestors rebelled, some waited it out, some jumped off the ships before they got here. I honor all of them. The God I know is not and was never for the enslavement and subjugation of my ancestors. Chattel slavery was horrible beyond belief. It was never and is never right whoever participated. But, I don't believe in the infallibility of Bible writers. Thank goodness some humans bucked this system. Seems like excuses to do whatever you want to people as long as they are given the message of "salvation" in the next life. Forget that. The God I know is not for that.
😎Best (and sanest) comment!
I appreciate the sentiment regarding slavery. However, what is this God that you claim which couldn't have stopped such in the first place?
@@MyContext You need to provide a more convincing argument or people will think you're a teen.
@@AallthewaytoZ2
I didn't present an argument. So, exactly what are you talking about?
@@MyContext You're making argumentative comments. You come across as a petulant teen wanting attention.
Wait, what? Non Hebrews were released on the Jubilee year? No. Just no. He has to know this is not true. Especially if his dissertation was on the Jubilee year. The Jubilee year only applied to Hebrews because it's when the land granted to them by God Himself would revert back to the families of the tribes to which it was originally granted, debts of those Hebrews were forgiven, and Hebrew indentured servants were released. Every 50 years. Every 7 years was the Sabbath year, not the Jubilee year. And NEITHER applied to non-Hebrew Israelites. Dr. Bergsma could possible say this is beyond me.
Non Hebrew Isrealites had to land in Israel to return to in either the Jubilee or Sabbath years. Which is why they were never released. For Petes sake, he specifically mentions Leviticus 25 where the Bible literally says they are slaves for life. And their children after them.
"You may bequeath them to you sons after you to inherit as a possession forever"
So yes, the Bible condones lifelong, generational chattel slavery. And no, Dr. Bergsma is wrong here. He has to know this?
Actually, the Bible doesn’t say we are slaves. The word slaves is not a correct translation. That’s exactly why I trust the King James version. The word it uses is servant.
Romans 6:22 KJV
But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life
bible ' slaves obey your masters even f the beat you severely ' Jesus confirmed it Chris rock ' black christians have short memories '
Maybe he should read the buble?
Are you serious, slaves got good benefits and that made it ok to have slaves? Omg,
Sure, why not? Slavery was, is, and always will be a reality. It might be 'okay' to have slaves, but nobody is arguing this is a good.
I’ve been watching modern day debate and have watched three videos on slavery debates between Matt dilahaunty and other people none of the Christian perspective have seemed to make valid or hard sticking points. We need someone like John B. and Jordan Peterson. to clear the air On this so many people are mislead on these debates and comments full of people who now are convinced the Bible promotes slavery
Keeping in mind that Noah was God's chosen man and presumably is actions were in line with God's wished, how did it come to pass that Noah made his grandson a slave if God did not support such an action?
Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded[a] to plant a vineyard.
21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent.
22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside.
23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.”
26 He also said, “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
27 May God extend Japheth’s[b] territory; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”
A troubling and disturbing video.
Dr Bersma, _"Typically, there were cultural expectations and yeah legally an owner might be able to be a real jerk um but there were social norms that were typically upheld and most people did not want to be perceived as an evil person in the eyes of the rest of society."_
_"... an owner might be able to be a real jerk"_ = physical and sexual abuse.
Maids have and are subject to sexual abuse by their employers - the power and legal relationship between master and slave would have made such abuse more likely not less.
Horrific.
You could imagine Dr Bergsma being hired by modern corporate entities to justify the reintroduction of _"non-race"_ based slavery given his arguments and excuses.
Why do we care about modern corporations?
"the power and legal relationship between master and slave would have made such abuse more likely not less."
Ya... you will need to provide more proof of this. I'm skeptical of this claim.
@@harddrive9789 Exodus 21:7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.
Exodus 21:8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again.
The Bible allows fathers to sell their daughters into sexual slavery.
Brilliant job of cognitive dissonance and avoiding biblical passages that are inconvenient. Bravo!
Lies lies lies
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Exodus 21:7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.
Exodus 21:8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again.
The Bible allows fathers to sell their daughters into sexual slavery.
Uh, Slavs became slaves in large numbers and it could easily be said that it was a race based slavery.
God knew Slavery in Egypt was bad and sent Moses, but as today's believers posit there was never bad slavery in the biblical day.
But you could also _sell_ your Hebrew slaves...to anyone (with certain exceptions, as when you are selling your own daughter into slavery, among other special cases) and those buyers need not be bound by the same rules as Israelites, so they *_not_* release that slave and/or the slaves children as expected. Also, if you buy a child to be your slave, at the end of seven years, of course they will not have anywhere to go if you freed them. Giving them, who have known no other life really, a choice between petpetual slavery of homelessness and starvation isn't that great a choice. Being a biblical slave was better than American chattel slavery in many ways, but the notion that was "good actually" seems absurd.
If he wants to quit and leave he must not be returned to his master. He is allowed to choose a place that he likes best and live there. He shall not be oppressed. So they can leave.
So if his master/boss treated him unkind or unfair then he could leave. Servants were more like employees now only treated better than employees now I think. They had enough to eat and a stable home which now they often cannot pay rent and utilities nor gave decent food. People often cannot dare to leave their oppressive jobs now because they risk being homeless. They have no choice.
Deuteronomy 23:15-16
15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:
16 He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him
Exodus 21:7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.
Exodus 21:8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again.
The Bible allows fathers to sell their daughters into sexual slavery.
That was protection to prevent abuse.
And A maidservant is a female domestic servant.There are many in the world today.
In fact I have worked as a housekeeper in motels and also in warehouses, gyms and in cleaning homes as well, serving.
I needed to serve in this way so that I could have shelter and food.
It's always been this way in the world.
Nonetheless my service did not provide me enough healthy food; such as fruits, vegetables and meat were scarce.
(I ate very poorly such as pasta, rice, noodles, and such as bosses generally do not pay their servants/employees enough to live very well ). They do not care. They tell people they are free but they are not. Especially not the poor low income folks.
I did not always have quality shelter either nor enough needed medication and other necessities. Such is life.
I know people say well the poor don't have to, but actually they do or else be homeless and cold and hungry or die.
Slaves?
The masters are just called bosses/employers now and they take advantage and use people to get rich. To disobey of course means to lose the sustenance of life and also lose references for future sustenance. Same thing.
Servants basically were employees but I think they might have been treated better back then.
Now if the man betrothed her to himself then I'm pretty sure he loved her and that is why he wanted her for a wife instead of a maidservant. As a general rule I think it was mutual.
Joseph worked for seven years for Rebekah and she loved him and he loved her. Things were different back then. Leah actually deceived him into the first seven years to pay for herself.
They both wanted to be sold and bought.
It was the custom of marriage.
Furthermore if the man wasn't pleased with her( didn't love her or treat her well )she was allowed to be redeemed/go free.
" He shall Let her be redeemed " it says.
He must not stop her from being redeemed/freed.
He was not allowed to sell her if she had been his wife. She could go free.
And if he betrothed her to his son then he had to treat her as a daughter. So love, protect, and respect her as a daughter and provide for her as a daughter.
She must be provided sufficient food, clothing and loving attention that is due in a marriage or be free to leave without money.
Quote"
Betroth to promise "by one's truth." Men and women were betrothed when they were engaged to be married. This usually took place a year or more before marriage."
Exodus 21
7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have No power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of Daughters.
10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out Free without money.
Exodus 21:16
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death
Exodus 21:7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.
Exodus 21:8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again.
The Bible allows fathers to sell their daughters into sexual slavery.
@tomasrocha6139
That was protection to prevent abuse.
And A maidservant is a female domestic servant.There are many in the world today.
In fact I have worked as a housekeeper in motels and also in warehouses, gyms and in cleaning homes as well, serving.
I needed to serve in this way so that I could have shelter and food.
It's always been this way in the world.
Nonetheless my service did not provide me enough healthy food; such as fruits, vegetables and meat were scarce.
(I ate very poorly such as pasta, rice, noodles, and such as bosses generally do not pay their servants/employees enough to live very well ). They do not care. They tell people they are free but they are not. Especially not the poor low income folks.
I did not always have quality shelter either nor enough needed medication and other necessities. Such is life.
I know people say well the poor don't have to, but actually they do or else be homeless and cold and hungry or die.
Slaves?
The masters are just called bosses/employers now and they take advantage and use people to get rich. To disobey of course means to lose the sustenance of life and also lose references for future sustenance. Same thing.
Servants basically were employees but I think they might have been treated better back then.
Now if the man betrothed her to himself then I'm pretty sure he loved her and that is why he wanted her for a wife instead of a maidservant. As a general rule I think it was mutual.
Joseph worked for seven years for Rebekah and she loved him and he loved her. Things were different back then. Leah actually deceived him into the first seven years to pay for herself.
They both wanted to be sold and bought.
It was the custom of marriage.
Furthermore if the man wasn't pleased with her( didn't love her or treat her well )she was allowed to be redeemed/go free.
" He shall Let her be redeemed " it says.
He must not stop her from being redeemed/freed.
He was not allowed to sell her if she had been his wife. She could go free.
And if he betrothed her to his son then he had to treat her as a daughter. So love, protect, and respect her as a daughter and provide for her as a daughter.
She must be provided sufficient food, clothing and loving attention that is due in a marriage or be free to leave without money.
Quote"
Betroth to promise "by one's truth." Men and women were betrothed when they were engaged to be married. This usually took place a year or more before marriage."
Exodus 21
7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have No power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of Daughters.
10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out Free without money.
Excellent explanation.
“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."
Would you beat your slaves with a rod?
Would you beat them so badly it takes them atwo days to recover?
@AallthewaytoZ2 it's about corporal punishment.
@@Hoe-numan5you're psychotic
He argues as though Paul WOULD have forbidden slavery, but could not do so at a practical level for humanitarian reasons. But then he goes on to say that slavery need not be that bad, masters could be good to their slaves, slaves could be good to their masters, and it could be mutually beneficial for all. Okay, so if that’s the case, why would it ever need to be forbidden? The two sides of his own argument don’t jive with each other. Slavery is either evil or it’s not. If it’s not evil, and Christians can be good masters and good Christians at the same time, then there’s no reason it would be / should be forbidden, even to this day. The Church should actually take a stand AGAINST outlawing slavery, because it is wrong to outlaw something that isn’t bad. Seemingly, there can be good slavery, and there can be bad slavery. Maybe only bad slavery should be forbidden? (Actually, I think that’s exactly what Paul, in effect, did.)
Slavery done in the way God allowed was not bad. However, that doesn't mean Christians have to stand against outlawing it. There are other political systems that God is ok with, even ones without slavery.
@@harddrive9789 It does mean that. If something isn’t inherently evil, then Biblically that means it’s not just neutral but actually good. If something is good, it’s wrong to outlaw it. The church would stand against outlawing marriage, parenting, ownership of private property, etc. even though all those things can be (and often are) corrupted and abused. If slavery isn’t inherently evil, it shouldn’t be regarded differently than those things. You can outlaw the abuse without outlawing the entire concept.
Christians are being inconsistent about slavery when they want to regard it as inherently evil to fit in with the zeitgeist, but that clearly doesn’t square with Scripture so we end up with a lot of contrivance. Like “well yeah it’s bad and Paul ultimately wanted to forbid it but he just couldn’t for pragmatic reasons so instead he gave slave masters the A-OK.”
And ... Besides ... Christians ... Followers of Christ ... Jesus never ever said it was ok to keep slaves ... Unlike Mohamud and captured infidels.
We Christians are NEW COVENANT.
If your not a willing slave to God, then you are an unwilling slave to the world.
the very notion that slavery is wrong comes from a christian cultural context . it takes humanity a long time to learn its lessons and evolve morally . God uses people and societies or questionable moral character . we are no different . get over it and stop making excuses to not believe
You make slavery actually sound like a pretty good deal. Maybe the Bible should endorse it!
@@Giantcrabz It’s not necessarily that Christian morality is gross, it’s that they don’t know how to reckon with history, let alone their own history. They also don’t know how to deal with the fact that their religion started out as an ‘end of the world’ cult and so actually doesn’t have much helpful to say about a ton of stuff, not just slavery.
Um. If the Bible condoned slavery then why is the entire Bible about God setting people free from sin? And the henceforth giving them their labor and setting them free from actual slavery. The whole Bible is about setting you free.
There are passages that confirm that allow human beings to be passed onto their children as property.
Also:
“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."
Would you beat your slaves with a rod?
Would you beat them so badly it takes them atwo days to recover?
@ 0:57 Every 50th year??? Not every 7th year?
The slaves were supposed to be freed every 7 years and all outstanding debts cleared. On the jubilee, land was returned to the original family who settled that area.
Reading the quotes in the comments, the rules are not as clear as that.
@@AallthewaytoZ2 most people have no clue what they're talking about.
Exodus 21:7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.
Exodus 21:8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again.
The Bible allows fathers to sell their daughters into sexual slavery.
@@tomasrocha6139 That's effectively a marriage contract.
@@Jeff55369 She's called a slave rather than a wife and there's no time limit, it's slavery, not marriage nor indentured servitude.
Yes the bible condones slavery
Exodus 21:7
7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do.
Leviticus 25:44-46
44 [a]The male and female slaves that you possess-these you shall acquire from the nations round about you. 45 You may also acquire them from among the resident aliens who reside with you, and from their families who are with you, those whom they bore in your land. These you may possess, 46 and bequeath to your children as their hereditary possession forever. You may treat them as slaves. But none of you shall lord it harshly over any of your fellow Israelites.
Exodus 21:4
If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall leave alone.
@Dave_Langer Does Leviticus 25:44-46 allow slavery? Absolutely not.**
Remember that God gave Israel and entire law code. Every law is connected to every other law. None of these passages are given in isolation.
Therefore, to properly evaluate Leviticus 25, we have to look at the regulations God gave previously (as a foundation) and subsequently (as a clarification).
**And they completely destroy any idea that Leviticus 25 is talking about slavery.**
Two verses make the entire matter clear:
>“Whoever **steals a man** and **sells him**, and **anyone found in possession of him**, ***shall be put to death***.” (Exodus 21:16, ESV)
>"You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you. Indeed, **he may live among you in any place he chooses**, in whichever of your villages he prefers; **you must not oppress him**." (Deuteronomy 23:15-16, ESV)
**These two passages prohibit slavery.**
* You cannot steal a person, which means you cannot enslave a person against their will.
* You cannot sell a person, which means people are not property.
* If a person working for you wants to leave, they can, and the Law protects their freedom to do so.
You simply can’t have slaves in your society if you follow these two passages. These two passages lay the groundwork that we need in order to evaluate Leviticus 25 correctly.
Let’t examine these verses directly now:
>“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.” (Leviticus 25:44, ESV)
At first, that seems bad. It seems to discuss exactly what the two passages above forbid.
Or does it?
Look at the word for “slaves.” In Hebrew, it is the word *ebed.* As any Hebrew dictionary will tell you, this word can mean “servant,” “slave,” “minister,” “adviser,” or “official.”
How do you know which of these it means at any given point? You examine the context.
Based on the Exodus and Deuteronomy passages above, we can safely say that this word does not mean “slave” in Leviticus 25. It cannot, or else it breaks those two commands.
The better translation therefore is “**servant**,” or in modern-day lingo, “**worker**” or “**employee**.”
Next, examine the word for “buy.” Exodus 21:16 forbids owning and selling people, so how can Leviticus 25 allow *buying* people?
Again, let’s look at what the word means. In Hebrew, this word is *qnh*, meaning “buy,” or “acquire,” or even “create.”
Or in modern lingo, “**hire**.”
Exodus 21:16 forbids selling people. So who is the money being given to in Leviticus 25:44?
The worker themselves. **This is describing a hiring process, paying someone to work for you.**
Let’s use these two bits of information to clarify the verse. Now it reads:
>“As for your male and female servants whom you may have: you may hire male and female servants from among the nations that are around you.” (Leviticus 25:44)
Is there any moral atrocity in hiring foreigners to work for you? I can’t think of one.
Some may object, asking “How do you this is hiring, instead of enslaving?”
Simply read two passages above. Deuteronomy 23:15-16 clarifies that servants are never slaves. They can leave their “masters” any time they want to, for any reason, and the Law protects their ability to do so. They can then live wherever they want in the land, meaning that they are not second-class citizens. They’re equals with everyone else in the land.
Let’s continue:
>“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.” (Leviticus 25:45, ESV)
Let’s apply the clarification of Exodus and Deuteronomy to this again, which yields:
>“You may also hire 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.” (Leviticus 25:45)
The first part is fine, as it again describes hiring people to work for you.
But the end has a tricky word: “property.”
Exodus 21:16 forbids owning people. **Anyone found in possession of another person is instantly put to death**.
So what can this be describing?
It turns out to be simple. The word simply means that they are your servants, not anyone else’s.
In English, calling someone your “property” is heinous, and rightly so. But Leviticus wasn’t written in English, and that’s not what it means.
It only means that these servants can be yours, instead of someone else’s. If we want to express in English what the Hebrew connotes, it would sound like this:
>“You may also hire 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 yours.” (Leviticus 25:45)
Now for the last verse:
>“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 25:46, ESV)
Let’s again run this through the clarification that Exodus and Deuteronomy provide:
>“You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make servants of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.” (Leviticus 25:46)
That’s a bit better, but we’re still left with the nagging impression that Israelites were passing foreigners off to each other as possessions. What’s going on?
Again, it all comes down to what the Hebrew word really means.
The word for “inherit,” *nahal*, can indeed mean “give as an inheritance.” Yet it can also mean simply “assign.”
Given that Exodus 21:16 forbids owning people as property, we cannot justify “give as an inheritance” as an acceptable translation.
We’re left with “assign,” which is certainly understandable in the context. **If a man hires a servant to work for him, he can also assign that worker to work for his son**.
Yet we still have that word “forever,” or “for life,” as some translations say. What does this refer to?
Exodus 21 provides the answer:
>But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 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 servant forever. (Exodus 21:5-6)
First of all, note how clearly this forbids the idea of slavery. The servant has the option to go free, as all servants do.
Second, notice who has the power in this situation. The master cannot force the servant to stay. **The only way a servant becomes a servant forever is by that servant’s own choice.**
Leviticus 25:46 refers to these servants who have chosen to serve perpetually. A master can assign these servants to his children, to work for them. Leviticus 25:46 clarifies Exodus 21:5-6, stating that the service is to the family, not simply to the person.
**Yet - never forget Deuteronomy 23:15-16. **These verses declare that any servant can choose to go free at any time - even those who previously decided to serve perpetually.
Thus, if a master assigns a servant to work for his son, but the son begins mistreating the servant, that servant does not have to stay. They can leave whenever they want, even if they previously decided to serve that family perpetually.
They are not bound to an abusive situation. If the family they work for starts to mistreat them, they can leave and find a better place to work.
Finally, we have this line:
>“You may hire them as servants, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.” (Leviticus 25:46, ESV)
What on earth does this mean? It seems to imply that you can’t rule ruthlessly over an Israelite brother, but you could over a foreigner.
If we only had this sentence to judge by, we might be tempted to think such a thing.
But thankfully, Exodus 21 rides to our rescue again.
Exodus 21 forbids treating servants ruthlessly. Any servant who is injured by their master is instantly freed. Likewise, Deuteronomy 23 allows any servant to leave any ruthless master at will.
Because of these, we cannot understand this to mean that foreigners can be treated poorly. Thankfully, the passage never says they can.
Rather, the passage seems to highlight the difference between Israelites and foreigners.
A foreigner whom you hire may work for you for a time, but then return to their own land.
But an Israelite brother will be with you in the land forever.
Therefore, you treat them well. While an Israelite brother might serve you for a time as your worker, he may one day be a land-owner like you. Treat brothers as equals, even if they currently in a low situation. Or to say it simply: treat a brother like a brother.
Leviticus 25:44-46 only seems to support slavery if you rip it out of its context in the rest of the Law.
But if you let the entire Law inform the situation, any hint of slavery disappears.
When you let the foundation of Exodus 21 and the clarification of Deuteronomy 23 speak, you end up with a perfectly moral code of employment for foreigners:
>“As for your male and female servants whom you may have: you may hire male and female servants from among the nations that are around you. You may also hire 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 servants. You may assign them to your sons after you to receive as a servants who have chosen to serve you perpetually. You may hire them as servants, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.” (Leviticus 25:44-46).
If your English translation says the man is “Selling” his daughter, then that translation is failing you.
This is more of a man arranging a marriage for his daughter. In some cases, it would be sending his daughter to work as a maidservant for someone else, and then someone in that family falls in love with her and wants to marry her.
The man is not selling his daughter into slavery!
Further, the phrase “she shall not go out as the male servants do,” refers to the extra protections and rights given to her because she is a female.
It talks about marital rights Read the rest of the passage, my friend. It states that anyone who marries her must be able to provide for her food, her clothing, and her offspring etc. If she is not thus provided for, she is released from that abusive man with no other legal hoops to jump through.
This is a law *protecting* women from abuse, my friend.
@@Hoe-numan5
The only one ripping things and lying about the context here is you.
Its clear what these verses mean.
And yes it allows it since it gives rules and regulates it
No where in the bible does it say the owning of another personas property aka slavery is not allowed
But it sure does tell you all the ways you can.
Stealing a man has nothing to do with slavery. that is kidnapping a free Jew, Its not talking about the non-Jews but nice try. Those passages do not prohibit slavery, its talking about kidnapping. If it was about slavery it would say slavery but it doesn't. Stop twisting what the bible says when we all know the bible has all the rules about slavery being ok. This is starting to get embarrassing for you
Not even gong to bother with the rest of your nonsense but you can easily go watch a Dr Josh video that talks about slavery and all these lies you are telling you refute your nonsense. Since you cant even be honest about these first two, I am not even going to bother with the rest.
I Love it… True slavery and only temporarily… what a relieve!
Really? Leviticus 25:44-46
@@MyContextyes it is temporary try to read the entire old testament
@@Hoe-numan5
There is a difference between indentured servitude and slavery. Indentured servitude was temporary, but slavery was permanent.
@@MyContext slavery was permanent for who ?
@@Hoe-numan5
Read Leviticus 25 for the context of there being indentured servants and slaves.
Verses 44-46 denotes who can be permanent slaves.
Pints that guy is disingenious I'm willing to debate him and my data as evidence is:
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.
Polygamy is never condemned in the Bible. but i do not think God agreed with it.
That's very unlike God.
I served in the military for 6 years. Signing up was voluntary, but once in, I couldn't leave, and had to obey orders that put my life at risk.
Everyone's fine with this. Chattel slavery was evil. But even in the modern day, we celebrate slavery every time we thank our veterans for their service.
Exodus 21:7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.
Exodus 21:8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again.
The Bible allows fathers to sell their daughters into sexual slavery.
@@tomasrocha6139stop lying
Sounds like if a modern do gooder had three wishes, he’d inadvertently impoverish and cause the death of countless persons in the ancient world.
A long answer apparently is required when answering whether the word of God condones slavery. Not so today so that would be one area where western civilization has progressed.
Well said. Should be easy right? Like maybe make it a commandment? If it requires so much interpretation, and comparing this sentence to another, and vigorous debate, then the idea that this is the word of god, a perfect god at that, is complete BS
As an honest Christian, I have to admit that the Bible does support a very specific form of slavery, or even violence against the slaves, not only in the Old Covenant, but also confirms it in the New Covenant, so Christians should stop acting like it doesn't, because they're only fooling themselves. However, the reason why the Bible supports those things, is because it doesn't make a distinction between a modern prison-system, and between slavery as such, so the biblical slavery is basically a primitive method of dealing with the criminals, and have nothing to do with chattel slavery.
"As an honest Christian,"
LOL.
You were already revealed to be a liar.
The bible slavery is chattel slavery. Why are you lying? I thought you were honest
What modern people rarely know is: 1. Slave is not servant. Slave is a term more correctly of people gained from conquest or purchased; while servant (as in Old Law) is a way to pay YOUR OWN debt. Old Law protected this servants so they, despite work for a master, gain some sort of labor protection as long as they still in service and still a Hebrew citizen with rights. 2. Even transatlantic slavery is bad and not law-controlled as Old Law servant system; there is also white slavery (Slav, Irish, Iberian, etc.) and the worst one: the *censored group* slavery... in which they even castrate all of their male African slaves in middle ages. After all, their pr*phet is a slave trader and warlord for living.
Exodus 21:7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.
Exodus 21:8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again.
The Bible allows fathers to sell their daughters into sexual slavery.
Excellent. Typical American in that he hardly raises his eyes when discussing the hot potato topic 😁 Shame he doesn't go further and maybe suggest that some African slaves might have been glad of a kind master who provided for them, food, shelter and safety... after they had escaped tribal warfare, massacres and cannibalism, the slave capturing and dealing of the Arabs from North Africa and the disgusting treachery of their own peoples and of course the long and dreadful sea voyages, though in the 19th century the English did their best to stop these slave ships. Of course every nation under the sun has treated enemy captives as slaves, Africans very much included. Then, of course, master and servant is nothing new... the big houses and landed gentry of Europe kept servants and expected lifelong loyalty and devoted service. Like you say, a loving and generous master could very much be a blessing in a harsh world.
Apart from the tripe you have vomited out about transatlantic slavery here, this entire post is ethical nonsense.
This nigga is pretty smart. Dropping knowledge the s & g video was golden!
The goal of Christianity is *not* to "fix" the world's ways. It is to make disciples of Christ of all nations.
God wasn't trying to "fix" slavery. He was making the Kingdom of Heaven!
christianity is man made roman paganism foreign to jesus who taught monotheism
@@etzelkaplan9677 "Amazing, (almost) every word of what you just said... was wrong." - Luke Sykwalker
Christianity literally means being a "little Christ", a Christ follower. Jesus was from God (Matthew 10:40).
The Romans (and lots of other groups) persecuted the Christians. (John 15:20)
Christianity is monotheism, but God is 3 persons (John 10:30, John 14:15-31).
So, to quote C. S. Lewis, don't talk damned nonsense!
@@acem82 ' christianity is monotheism but god is 3 persons ' loooooool. do you believe this knucklehead. trinity doctrine was written by the same church clergy that delight in chasing 11 yr old altar boys around the rectory no thanx muslim since 2002
Correct answer: yes, it condones it, but with a TON of asterisks and qualifiers.
The guy answering the question did a terrible job start to finish. Pretty embarrassing. And how he ended with the new testament part... dude, if anyone ever says the Bible commanded something only because it was practical then that's a huge red flag. This is God's infallible word. If God ultimately authored this, he is only going to say the truth. If slavery of all kinds was just flat out immoral then the new testament wouldn't say for owners to be nice, it would say let the people go. If there was danger of them starving, the Bible would tell the owner to take care of the newly freed person or would tell churches to help or something like that. To say God COULDN'T command their freedom because it wasn't practical is the dumbest most ignorant way to address that. It didn't look practical for the Israelites to be freed from Egypt and go march into the desert, but I didn't read anywhere in exodus "and God told pharaoh, hey man please just be nice to my people while you enslave them, because practically it really won't work to have them free."
is is very simple and needs no further research. Als long as we do not give ourselfs up and let Jesus lead us, we are all slaves. Read the bible when Jezus says, if you want to follow Me etc. Ther is your answer. However only a very few people understand this entirely in his consquenses. It is not as easy as you may think. But the only way to the everlasting love of God.
Liars.
God freed the Israelites in Egypt from slavery. That is all you need to know what He thought about the practice.