This comment is more constructive than anything you ever do on your channel. You're one of the best guys on TH-cam at showing someone else's video, with your face in the corner, giving the occasional "yep."
@@Fassnight I do believe this is a free comments section. Brandon straight up grabs other videos, then sits in the corner adding literally nothing to them besides "so true." "Listen to this right here." It's lazy and unconstructive. Perhaps it's just a grift to make money, if so, good for him for finding such an easy method.
@@acebailey2478 I like his videos. I think he's giving us exactly what the channel promises a "daily does of wisdom". Don't feel at all that he is doing it disingenuously. Sorry you feel that way. Definitely doesn't call for this kind of behavior either way, though.
@TruthUnites not too long at all. Actually, what is remarkable is how short it is, given the rich content (this is the same for all your videos, so never feel you need to rush). I thought I had found all the answers about slavery, but you have brought new information. This is the video on slavery in the we have been looking for. Thank you.
@@justchilling704 God made the clear distinction that Hebrews couldn’t own Hebrews as chattel slaves because of their previous slavery in Egypt, but Hebrews owning foreigners as chattel slaves was perfectly okay and permitted by God. It is only if you take scripture our or context that you can claim Hebrews were not permitted to own chattel slaves.
@@Tinesthia Reread my comment, stop making arguments form translations. A clear study of word using in the original language and modern translations even, show your ignorant comment to be bs. In ancient Hebrew the words for “buy” and “acquire” aren’t distinctly separate, you know that that means? Word usage and context determines the meaning in a specific case. This means you need to show by treatment and legal status that Hebrews were divinely sanctioned to have chattal slaves. What irritates me the most with people like you, is that you don’t have a genuine desire to learn and understand the literature and it shows, when I first did research into this area, it took me a few TH-cam videos and google searches to find out about the linguistics and why some translations are better than others.
Thank you so much for all the work you do for Christ. From being a Pastor to being an amazing theologian who earnestly seeks for truth. This channel has had a tremendous impact on my walk with the Lord and has caused me to understand theology at such a wonderful depth. Thanks again Gavin, looking forward to reading your upcoming book. God bless you🙏🏼
I've been wanting to do a deep dive into this topic because it's always brought up by both believers and nonbelievers. Now that you've done the leg work I can piggy back! Thanks for all your hard work!
Thank you for this! Mike Winger has responded to this issue a couple times and that really helped me. But this is such a great supplement to that. As always, your inclusion of historical opinions and contexts help greatly. Also your inclusion of specific modern day objections and responding to them was helpful. I honestly would have been fine with this being longer but perhaps it was wise to keep it to where you did for the sake of broader viewership.
Personally I think the best videos to date on this that I know of, is this one itself, the one Gavin linked, Tekton TV’s playlist, and Whaddo U Memes responses to Cosmic Skeptic. At least in addition to Winger’s videos.
By lying and making excuses for slavery? Oookay. God enslaved people. God ordered genocides. God flooded the whole planet. You are worshipping the evil bloodthirsty genocidal God of the Middle East. He's the same as Allah. His redemption arc?? Oh yeah doing human sacrifice torture and blood magic on his own son. Much better than that Old Testament stuff right!? Feel the love man! God loves you.... 😂
@@okeydokey6097 Slavery in the Old Testament was more of an economic status and paying off debts. Of course, there were exceptions like prisoners of war being in chattel slavery, but this was overall a common practice between the nations. God allowed the Israelites to have slaves, but he had there be stipulations to treat them fairly-which they didn't respect-and they got exiled for failing to be faithful. Slavery, like other practices such as the two fabrics, no sorcery, divination, and the like were civil laws. They were meant for the Israelites to follow, not us, because Jesus hadn't incarnated yet. I'd say a better perspective on this would be understanding that Leviticus is a historical document. They're there for us to know what happened, even if it may come off as 'Unholy,' but not everything in the Bible was meant for us to look at and go "Wow! God is so amazing for doing this!" 💀
@@okeydokey6097Why do you think slavery is bad? It's simply the natural result of the strong dominating the weak. Any naturalist worldview should be ambivalent towards it. The fact you (rightfully) find it immoral is a sign naturalism is false.
@@okeydokey6097 Like I said, it was an economic thing. Foreigners could sell children to the Israelites as slaves for paying debts, which the practice in general was heavily criticized by biblical authors. I honestly don't know what use would the children be either, so I see your confusion.
I am very excited to hear of your thoughts on this! I have been wrestling with this issue a lot recently and I look forward to watching. Thank you, Dr. Ortlund! God bless! Edit: an hour later, 11:20 at night and I have listened to the whole thing. I love the points you brought up and the note on which it ended and am most certainly looking foward to the Canaan discussion.
I’ve been waiting for this video! I am legitimately bothered by the rhetoric used to beat Christians to a pulp by atheists and agnostics. This is one of those topics that has made me doubt the most and I’m glad you are tackling it head on. The way you deal with tough questions with such charity is really telling Gavin, thank you 🙏
@wet-read God commanded that the Israelites practice chatte slavery. Slavery like the ones done in Egypt and the Atlantic slave trade and commanded you treat them like property. This is untrue as God condemned it not supported it.
Like an expert tennis player, you don't always smash the truth (ball) to win the point, sometimes a slight deflection or allowing the opponents ball to go beyond the boundary of the court does the job of graciously winning fair and square, and then shaking his hand without being patronising! Well done Mr Laver!
Dear Gavin, I believe Peter Williams is mistaken in his claim that the Lex Fufia Caninia imposed a legal limit on the manumission of slaves. This law only restricted the number of slaves that a master could manumit by will. As the Roman jurist Gaius explains, the law permits a master to manumit his entire household while he is still living. I pointed this out to Dr. Williams in an email correspondence in 2017. He graciously acknowledged that I was correct and that he would need to stop using this argument. I've done some research on the issue of slavery in the NT that you might find helpful in answering the critics. Some of it is available on my website, but most is still forthcoming. Feel free to reach out if you would like to discuss this issue more. Thanks for the excellent work you do on this channel!
I've done my own deep dive into the issue of slavery in the old testament particularly. But as a layperson I might have misunderstood what I read or missed important context and nuances. So I would love to hear what an actual scholar has to say about what I found, if you don't mind. In a nutshell, I'm not convinced the old testament law was talking about slavery at all. It seems to me that the key element of slavery, the one that determines whether we translate ebed/eved as servant (indentured or otherwise) or slave, is the issue of ownership. And I don't really see any evidence of ownership in the passages that discuss these ebed, even the foreign ones. Going forward, I'm going to use the word worker instead of ebed because it can get confusing otherwise, especially when I try to pluralize it according to English rules ;) As I've studied the passages relating to these workers, I noticed a distinction between the words used to discuss them, and the words used to discuss other things that the Hebrews could rightly be considered to own. First, there are the words baal and adon. Baal clearly implies ownership and is used to talk about a variety of things, including animals, houses, pits, arrows, loans, etc (even wives). But it is never once used for a worker. In fact, in Exodus 21, the word baal appears 13 times, but whenever it talks about workers, it switches to the word adon/lord, which implies authority but not ownership. Exodus 21:32 distinguishes between the baal of an ox and the adon of a worker within the same sentence. It's also worth mentioning that the Israelites are never said to be baal of the land. In Leviticus 25:23, God clearly states that the land belongs to him and the Israelites are only tenant farmers. Then in the next three words, he calls that land (that they can possess but not own) their achuzzah. Which is the word used 22 verses later to describe foreign workers in the infamous Leviticus 25:44-46. This seems to indicate that achuzzah implies possession rather than ownership. This conclusion is supported by two things: 1) The way it is used throughout the old testament. Of 66 appearances, 63 are in reference to the land, two are in reference to the workers in Leviticus 25, and one refers to God as our achuzzah (definitely not someone we own). Only two of these occurrences (excepting potentially the workers) are in situations where ownership is assumed- when Abraham purchases the field and cave to bury Sarah in, and in Joshua 22:19, when God is said to possess the land. 2) The root word achaz, which means to grasp, take hold, or take possession, is overwhelmingly (63/68 occurrences) used to describe temporary possession (like grasping someone's hand or cloak), and never used to describe taking ownership of something. In fact, 2 Samuel 2:21 differentiates between taking hold (achaz) of someone temporarily and taking (laqach) their armor as your own. The word achuzzah is never once used to describe livestock, houses, tools, weapons, clothes, precious metals, or gems- things that could be owned. There was another word for those things- rekush- which, in turn, is never used to describe workers (or the land). Over and over again, I see a linguistic differentiation between things the Israelites owned, like livestock (where the words baal/owner and rekush/property are used) and things which they didn't own, like the land and (I'm arguing) human workers (where the words adon/lord and achuzzah/possession are used). Even in Leviticus 25:46, when it talks about giving these workers to your children as an inheritance, it specifies that you would be passing them on as an achuzzah. And both words used to talk about inheritance (nachal and yarash) are only used in this way when talking about passing down the land, which they don't own. In those circumstances, the father is passing down stewardship of the land, rather than ownership. It seems to me that the main reason for limiting Hebrew workers to seven year contracts while allowing foreigners to become workers "for life" comes down to the land. Israelites had an allotment to return to. Foreigners didn't. So if they wanted to commit to working for a family for the rest of their lives, that was job security. When it comes to buying and selling, the words translated as buy (qaneh and miqnah) are used for explicit lease agreements far more often than for explicit purchases within the law code, so we can't say with certainty which meaning was intended in the passages about foreign workers. As for selling (makar) people- beyond the passage about the father "selling" his daughter (which in context is clearly talking about marriage and dowries) and a thief being sold to pay for what he stole (a judicial sentence- working off his/her debt), there is a very clear pattern. Either it is describing a person selling themselves or it is expressly forbidden. So it seems like, within the law, the only person allowed to sell a worker was the worker in question. In all this, I don't see any evidence that the law viewed these workers as owned property in any circumstances, whether talking about Hebrews or foreigners. So that's why I really don't think it's talking about slavery at all. But of course, I am not a scholar. I might have missed or misunderstood something, and there is certainly context or nuances that I'm unaware of. So if you have the time to share your own insights, I would love to hear your take on it. There's obviously much more to the issue, but I didn't want to write even more of a novel, especially since I don't know if you'll have the time or inclination to engage in this discussion with me.
@@rbrainsop1You’re correct, it in fact is not talking about slavery Hebrews practiced a form of servitude. Even Jacob was bonded to his uncle for 7 years to marry his second wife, it’s obviously foolish to say Jacob was his uncles “slave”.
@@rbrainsop1 I sincerely appreciate the thoughts you have raised here. When considering the discussion of whether or not it is moral to "own" another human being, you need to define what "Ownership" entails. For instance, if you're familiar with 19th-century literature, such one of my favorite novels, Jane Eyere, you would be well aware of the context of rich families "Owning" household servants. The servants, like Jane, were owned by their masters, worked for their masters, and lived off their masters homes; but nobody would say that there is something inherently immoral about the rich upper class having servants, because it was all by the free will and consent of the servant. Although there are quite a few differences of cultures and circumstance between Victorian England and ancient Isreal, I, for one, cannot find much of a difference between the principles behind the Abed of the Hebrews and the servants of the Darcys.
What is your website? Have you read condensed Anti Slavery Bible argument by George Bourne? It changed my view on slavery. Have you read Granville Sharp on slavery? Have you read the 1700 argument against slavery by the puritan judge? Have you read the recent book of sermons by reformed Baptists against the slave trade and slavery? It shows there was a multiple view of different passages on slavery, specifically if slavery was always sin or if it was temporarily allowed for Gentiles.
Fabulous job, and this was so needed! I'll be sharing this like crazy. Thrilled that you'll be doing the slaughter of the Canaanites! Gavin, I agree with others that you shouldn't hesitate to make videos however long is needed to make a strong case. Limits on the right to vote is another example of how something wrong can be such a strong cultural norm that you shouldn't condemn people of the past as immoral for not abolishing it.
I mean Gregory of Nyssa was basically the first person ever to unambiguously condemn slavery when it was universally accepted everywhere for all of time.
what about the other 1800+ years where the VAST MAJORITY of Christians bought, sold & owned slaves? 1) The Venice Slave trade (operated by Christians & condoned by the church) transported MILLIONS of slaves throughout the Middle Ages. 2) 1455 the church issued a series of papal bulls that allowed Portugal to capture and transport African slaves to the new world...THE BEGINNING OF THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE.
Wang Mang, first and only emperor of the Xin dynasty, usurped the Chinese throne and instituted a series of sweeping reforms, including the abolition of slavery and radical land reform from 9-12 A.D. However, this and other reforms turned popular and elite sentiment against Wang Mang, and slavery was reinstituted after he was killed by an angry mob in 23 A.D.
@@brokenrecord3095 I would say one of the problems is even using that approach to scripture. The exegetical method utilized by Gregory makes that objection nonsensical and irrelevant.
an yet...for another 1500+ years after Gregory, Christian history demonstrates how slavery was integral part of Christian society. Venice Slave Trade - operated throughout the Middle ages 1453-1455 papal bulls allowed Portugal to essentially start the Atlantic Slave Trade These are just two examples....there are literally millions more of Christians practicing slavery.
Great video Gavin! I love that you are addressing this. This is a troubling topic and I think there is very few good works done on it in video form! Very encouraging!
@TruthUnites I think that your video-like most apologetic approaches to this difficult issues-makes numerous errors in your handling, especially, of the Hebrew Bible and ancient Near Eastern literature. My colleague, Dr. Josh Bowen, and I have spent considerable time engaging the public on the topic of biblical slavery, and we think it would be beneficial if you would agree to have an open conversation about it, given the several places in which this video skews critical approaches to the biblical texts. The invitation for you to join us for a friendly exchange is open.
I look forward to you guys inviting Rabbi Tovia Singer to a discussion on the texts of the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish understanding of those verses. Singer has been on MythVision, so it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to have him in a discussion.
Really thankful for this! Have been struggling with a lacklustre Christian response on this issue and was praying that I would eventually have answers amongst the doubt. Believe the Spirit is giving answering through this video.
Thank you for making this video! We needed a comprehensive video on slavery. There are plenty of great videos on TH-cam, but not many that are very comprehensive of all the verses.
Thank you so much, brother Gavin. Your videos are always a breath of fresh air, faith and knowledge. God bless and please keep up the good work! Cheers from France :-)
Slavery, Gymnastics, & Divine Laziness: 1. Dr. Lawrence Krauss, "The Principle of Least Action in Classical & Quantum Worlds" th-cam.com/video/Hu787Nn-HtM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=_e3TxnNOednCQGKW 2. Taoism's Unconventional Advice on Doing Nothing th-cam.com/video/l5xUKks2U-o/w-d-xo.htmlsi=yeLFwkpxtPnMWNj8
@@rodney8075 Eastern Orthodox ended slavery 1000 yrs ago, WITHOUT banning it. The Eastern Orthodox Christian Roman Empire, with its capital in Constantinople (falsely named Byzantine Empire ), ended slavery 1000 yrs ago, via FREE WILL. While people groups, informed by other, denominations, world views, or other religions, doubled down on it. About 800 or so yrs later, via threat of violence, bloody civil wars, and political conflict, …slavery was banned, by FORCE. To this day, the west, still couldn’t put an end to slavery via FREE WILL, driven by TRUE Christian morality, like the Eastern Orthodox Christian, Roman Empire, led by Constantinople, achieved. Significantly, WITHOUT the need to ban slavery….of which I believe was done by design, so that the idea could spread, without the need to have backing by laws informed, by other nations, and other world views. ......”Slavery became common within much of Europe during the Dark Ages and it continued into the Middle Ages. The Byzantine-Ottoman wars (1265-1479) and the Ottoman wars in Europe (14th to 20th centuries) resulted in the capture of large numbers of Christian slaves. The Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, British, Arabs and a number of West African kingdoms played a prominent role in the Atlantic slave trade, especially after 1600. In the Eastern part of the one and only Roman (wrongly coined Byzantine) Empire, slaves became quite rare by the first half of the 7th century[1] A shift in the view of slavery is noticed, which by the 10th century transformed gradually a slave-object into a slave-subject.[2] From 11th century, semi-feudal relations largely replaced slavery, seen as "an evil contrary to nature, created by man's selfishness", although slavery was permitted by the law.”…ωικιρεδια
Thank you for this video - it's a topic that makes people uncomfortable from the get-go, Christians included, but usually because it is not well understood or thought about. Greatly appreciate your voice on this, Gavin.
Another great wealth of learning concerning slavery in the Bible are the three videos from Whaddo you meme??, where he responds to Alex O Connor. One of the best resources i've ever seen on Utube. Thanks Gavin, for your take on this
@@mcable217 looked at Dr. Bow(no d)en's 3 videos in response to Whaddo you meme. Several times he corrects both Whaddo you meme and Alex O Connor. Overall, Dr. Bowen does not impede to the point of disabling the argument Whaddo you meme is giving concerning slavery in the Bible, especially when in concert with Dr. Gavin's video. The debate Dr. Bowen has with Dr. Michael Brown is especially helpful for further research
@@fernandoformeloza4107 I totally agree, Alex made mistakes as well and overstated his case. Scholarship is the way to go for this question, not popular skeptics/apologists.
Apparently reading what the bible says is never the right thing to do, you need scholarship, external historical context, or mental gymnastics like in this case to try to make it say the opposite. What a great manual!!
@@eidiazcas if you look at the debate between Dr. Josh Bowen (agnostic, expert on ancient cultures and Bible scholar) and Dr. Michael Brown (Jewish Christian Bible scholar and scholar of multiple languages), they both mention that they agree on nearly every point when it comes to slavery in the Bible. This is a consensus from two opposing sides, and cannot be ignored by the christian or atheist view
@@thedude0000lmao. the only religion that loves obfuscation is atheism. Onus is on you to show that slavery is wrong in the first place, let alone the existence of rightness and wrongness. But such concepts cannot exist apart from the God you pretend doesn't exist. Sorry!
@@thedude0000 Eastern Orthodox ended slavery 1000 yrs ago, WITHOUT banning it. The Eastern Orthodox Christian Roman Empire, with its capital in Constantinople (falsely named Byzantine Empire ), ended slavery 1000 yrs ago, via FREE WILL. While people groups, informed by other, denominations, world views, or other religions, doubled down on it. About 800 or so yrs later, via threat of violence, bloody civil wars, and political conflict, …slavery was banned, by FORCE. To this day, the west, still couldn’t put an end to slavery via FREE WILL, driven by TRUE Christian morality, like the Eastern Orthodox Christian, Roman Empire, led by Constantinople, achieved. Significantly, WITHOUT the need to ban slavery….of which I believe was done by design, so that the idea could spread, without the need to have backing by laws informed, by other nations, and other world views. ......”Slavery became common within much of Europe during the Dark Ages and it continued into the Middle Ages. The Byzantine-Ottoman wars (1265-1479) and the Ottoman wars in Europe (14th to 20th centuries) resulted in the capture of large numbers of Christian slaves. The Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, British, Arabs and a number of West African kingdoms played a prominent role in the Atlantic slave trade, especially after 1600. In the Eastern part of the one and only Roman (wrongly coined Byzantine) Empire, slaves became quite rare by the first half of the 7th century[1] A shift in the view of slavery is noticed, which by the 10th century transformed gradually a slave-object into a slave-subject.[2] From 11th century, semi-feudal relations largely replaced slavery, seen as "an evil contrary to nature, created by man's selfishness", although slavery was permitted by the law.”…ωικιρεδια
Hey Gavin, a big fan of yours from the other side of the debate. I’d encourage you to face a more steel-manned objection of slavery in the Bible presented by Kipp Davis and Josh Bowen (along with their scholar colleagues). Always appreciate you taking on tough topics!
I’m at the 48:11 mark, still listening, but wanted to pause and leave this comment. As a believer, slavery, Numbers 31, and the slaughter of the Canaanite’s are the three biggest issues I struggle with. I think you’ve made a couple of interesting points that I hadn’t heard before, so thank you for that. I can totally appreciate all of this from a social/ historical perspective. But even if I grant everything you’ve said so far, my personal THEOLOGICAL challenge still remains: What do these laws say about the power and character of God? For me, I haven’t been able to reconcile how the all powerful , all knowing, objectively morally good God who was able to do such incredible miracles chose to sustain a people group with the institution of slavery in tact. If we believe He performed miracles to sustain His people, it’s not a stretch to say that He did not *have* to keep slavery in tact (because He doesn’t *have to* do anything). He chose to. God is all knowing. God is all powerful. God is the foundation of our moral guidance. He gives us the ability to “ground” our “objective” moral positions. God cannot contradict Himself. God is UNCHANGING. Slavery in all forms is morally wrong. And yet… God gives provisions for slavery and says His people (the Israelites) may have them. To me, “progressing” slavery is still slavery. Comparing to American slavery is irrelevant. Comparing to anything else is irrelevant. How the slaves were acquired is irrelevant. How the slaves were treated is irrelevant. Whether they could gain their freedom is irrelevant. Everything rests on this question: If God told a Jewish person in 500 BC that he may acquire a slave to own as property regardless of the reason, would that be morally OK? Would it go against God’s character? The problem is that the answer to both of those questions, to me, is “No” - which begs the question of the character of the God we serve. Anyway… Thank you for this video. I’m going to finish watching. If anything changes for me, I’ll come back to edit this comment.
Why would the answer be “No”? In all humility, brother, have you considered that there is simply a righteous way to own a slave, and that your visceral revulsion at the idea is an artifact of your cultural upbringing?
@@matOperaGods laws on slavery are no different than many laws in modern America today.. I agree with you that Christians are blind to this because A: they aren’t reading the Bible and B: the emotional baggage of antebellum slavery is more powerful in their consciences
@@matOperaif you find yourself defending slavery in the comments section it's time to take a step back and consider that you may in fact be the bad guy.
@@matOpera that's a ridiculously ignorant thing to say mat. There's plenty of different moral systems that don't require a diety and it misses the point that this is an internal critique. You're choosing to bite a bullet here right. Slavery isn't really immoral. That has to be your position and you should reconsider if that makes you the good guy here and by extension if Christianity is actually true.
This was amazing. Truly! There is so much here, and I never felt board (not like I ever do with your content). Definitely a great resource 👌🏼 Can’t wait for the next topic.
Thank you for addressing this topic. It is probably the most vulnerable topic for debate and it must be addressed with careful scholarship. You’ve done an excellent job, and honestly I would love to see a longer form, perhaps a series on this going much deeper.
I'm not a Christian, in large part because I don't trust the Bible as a revelation from God (slavery plays a part here). Having said that, I have to say excellent work, Gavin! This is certainly one of the best responses to this topic I have watched. Your manner of approaching these issues is what keeps me coming back to your channel; your erudition on Christian topics, combined with your charitable reading of those on the other side of the fence, make you a joy to listen to. I wish others (both Christians and atheists-I'm looking at you, Rationality Rules) could be slightly less vitriolic. On a slightly different topic, for me, Christianity stands or falls on the place of scripture as an epistemological authority. Could you do a deep dive video on why scripture (or tradition) is a source of epistemological authority and how it compares to other forms of epistemological authority (science, reason, imagination/creativity, embodied knowledge, etc.)?
@@josephtattum6365But Scripture is the main source documenting Jesus' words, death, and resurrection, so it at least has to be a good authority on that topic.
@@emmadasilva1794In saying this, I think you're ignoring the millions of people who were willing to endure death and harsh treatment because they believed that truth long before the scriptures were finalized.
@@nubianecutie I'm not, but I guess I could see how you could misunderstand who I am based on who I was responding to. I'm a Christian, and I think the authority of Scripture is one of the biggest legs Christianity stands or falls on.
One side has scholarly consensus, the other has religious apologetics. Why give more credence to those who's main goal is to defend their ideology no matter what, as opposed to those who will simply tell you the facts of the matter, regardless of how it makes any ideology look?
The scholarly consensus can be traced back to the antebellum period. Most, if not all, of those critics and cynics of Christianity received their education at institutions whose professors inherited the view that the institution of slavery in Old Testament times was virtually the same as that practiced in the antebellum south. The British outlawing of the slave trade and American abolition was heavily influenced by Christian theologians, pamphleteers, and preachers from the Reformation times who had a very different interpretation of Scripture than the anti-apologists and white racists of the south. For example, the distinguished German Lutheran theologian J. F. Buddeus (1667-1729), author of "Selecta juris naturae et gentium" argued that even if some blacks were legally captured or received criminal convictions leading to slavery, their offspring should not be subject to bondage by inheritance. Another example would be John Newton’s dramatic conversion from slave trader to clergyman had tremendous impact in changing the English climate of opinion. John Newton is especially known for composing the hymn "Amazing Grace."
There is an article from a book that I dates from 1880. It is from the series, “The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.” What is fascinating is how little the mainstream Protestants and Catholics were involved in the abolitionist movement in the antebellum period. Evidently, the consensus position back then was not to interpret the Bible as having an abolitionist trajectory. It was the evangelical branch of the Christian church, along with Bible based Unitarians such as Charles Sumner, etc. that grounded abolitionism in Divine law. Here are some quotes from the book: “The Roman Catholic and Protestant Episcopal churches never expressed an authoritative condemnation of slavery, and in the Union the influence of the Papal Church was emphatically favorable to the South, but other churches were opposed in principle to slavery, while they tolerated it in practice and tried hard to persuade themselves that slavery is right.” “The extirpation of slavery has been made a part of the mission of Protestantism. It is among Evangelical Christians alone that the evils of slavery have arrested attention, and it is chiefly through their influence that its sway has been contested." "The attitude of the Papal Church has been that of indifference or of impotency. The first place among the opponents of human slavery belongs to Great Britain, whose West-Indian colonies and naval supremacy compelled a recognition of responsibility in the matter; but the Christian spirit ruling in Protestant lands will allow none: of the nations which they shelter to rest until the last vestige of human slavery is wiped from the face of the earth.”
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 "The scholarly consensus can be traced back to the antebellum period." Although slavery in the antebellum period was based off of the laws prescribed in the Torah, including laws about not beating a slave too much, that is not where the scholarly consensus can be traced to. It can be traced backed to Ancient Near Eastern practices, the Hebrew from which the text originates, findings of archeology, and a study of the culture of ancient Israel.
@@whatwecalllife7034As far as I've read, arguments from the pro-slavery camp in the antebellum period relied upon their particular (twisted view in my opinion) of Old Testament laws and did not consider ANE practices. But at the end of the day I don't think it matters. I suspect many of the Christian slave owners might have rationalized keeping their slaves out from the thought that they were better off working the plantations than going back in Africa. If in the antebellum period slave owners heard "Bible teachers" say that back in Bible times it was normative for slaves to be brutally beaten and that raping slaves was ok also, than that would explain many of the horror stories that were shared by slaves who escaped.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 "I suspect many of the Christian slave owners might have rationalized keeping their slaves out from the thought that they were better off working the plantations than going back to Africa." Ironically, that's something I often hear from apologists when they want to justify why the Hebrew people taking prisoners of war was a good thing.
While I enjoy hearing others’ perspectives, many of the skeptics’ comments in this video strike me as inverse versions of “what does this passage mean to you?”, reader-response Bible studies; helpful for learning about the reader but less helpful in understanding the text. Perspectives carry more weight when there is significant interaction with the secondary literature. Gavin’s response prioritizes getting a handle on the data first then offering commentary second which I think is a fruitful approach.
Gavin you are a gem. I had heard great apologists like godlogic debunk slavery. But this video really went deeper and galvanised my thoughts on the subject. Thank you brother. In my atheist era i had listened to those youtubers and took on what they said to my shame. Keep up the good work.
It's clear you haven't read the passage, the "servants" were freed and sent with enough to rebuild their life after the end of their period in servitude, of course that would help end generational poverty, the person that on his own will decided to "sell" himself as a worker would then be able to build something of his own
@@BoxFunk Read the difference between Hebrew slaves and foreign slaves. The foreign slaves were bought and the master can keep this slave for life and they can be willed to someone after the master dies. The master can also keep the foreign slave's children for life. Imaging being a slave for life, since the master can choose to keep you for life. Maybe these verses are just from only men who have not been inspired or breathed on by any deity? This probably makes more sense.
I'd go further, Jesus said: my kingdom is not of this world. We don't see him or the apostles trying to impose a new political system, but making people new creatures in whatever position they are. it doesn't have to do with endorsing slavery or not.
Yet we will endorse or oppose less important things? I think we are being cowardly to not accept the reality that the culture the many books of the Bible was written in was content with the ownership of another person. Qhen we dehumanized and especially do so to justify the failings of a book...terrible tragedies happen.
I'm out here doing the work and Mindshift gets a shout out before I do. Bruh, that's cold. 😢 I defended Gavin in Trent's comments and Mindshift gets on both Trent & Gavin's channels. I need to reevaluate my life. [this is mildly sarcastic - but there is truth in humor]. Keep up the great work Gavin. I hope many more apologists start taking notes from your approach.
I was an atheist most of my life. I knew that war, slavery, genocide, inequality, the despoiling of the environment, ethnic and racial hatred, and a myriad other oppressions, were all the work of men. Now that Christ has opened my eyes, I know the same, that a broken humanity has invented many horrific things. I also know that this age of Man's wicked stewardship over the earth will not last forever and none of that evil will exist in the age to come. "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus."
Thank you. It's so frustrating that people expect "Christianity" to just be this monolithic force that overrides the hearts and wills of men just because it puts forth ideals. The brokenness of Christians and all men are the exact reason we need Christ.
When men do genocides it's immoral. When God does it it must be moral because it's a "Devine command". William Lane Craig recently peddled that bullshit and it's not fooling anyone. It makes you all sound like mindless unthinking sheep who will just say anything.
This argument becomes very weak if you actually know the full story of the Bible. We live in a fallen world and the atrocities of this world are inventions of humanity. There was no slavery in the Garden of Eden. Humans invented slavery and God not only doesn't condone it, but He doesn't condone anything of this world. That was actually the main message of Jesus. Do atheists really believe there isn't going to be death on the new Earth, but slavery will somehow still exist? No, they just clearly have no idea about the new Earth, because they don't actually know the full story of the Bible.
I love this breakdown. Would you ever consider making a visual diagram of the points made here especially in breaking down of the old testament into its proper categories with brief explanations? I think it would bless many people who are visual learners like myself, and would further drive and clarify your points through the confusion the already exists in our culture. God bless you and keep up the good work in the Lord!
Hey, Gavin. Thank you so much for your content! Its genuinely such a blessing and i thank God for you, brother. I'm just wondering if you have any book recommendations about how to reason & use logic?
Thank you brother! The body of Christ needed this. May you overflow with joy, knowing you will one day hear the words "well done My good and faithful servant" from the One who created us all equal... Whom we should ALL willingly serve
I greatly appreciate that you chose the strongest arguments and took them head-on. This is how these discussions *should* be done. Offense is the best defense, and prayer, study, and epistemic/intellectual Christian honesty are the best offense.
11:24 to 12:02 - Summary of six points. 33:35 to 34:05 - Unprecedented practice in ANE legislation. 49:55 to 50:40 - The idea that the Bible endorses slavery. 50:41 to 51:27 - Contextualized laws 51:11 to 53:33 - Philemon case, radically counter-cultural. 54:18 to 54:47 - Tectonic tension. 1:01:15 to 1:03:10 - Gregory of Nyssa 1:03:57 to 1:04:55 - Abolitionism being a religious movement.
Great discussion on the topic! Even though I like most of your videos, I was prepared to be skeptical of this one (I think just because I’ve seen it done poorly too many times), but I have to admit you did a really good job given the hour you kept yourself to. Would you ever consider doing a follow up where you engage with the scholarship on the issue more deeply (especially opposing scholarship), or is that beyond your depth on this topic?
A practical video I'd love to see soon would be how to strategize theological study as a working class parent. It often feels like there isn't enough time in the day to make real headway in study. Any tips would be appreciated!
I'd suggest a chapter study with a commentary on a book your less familiar with. Most study books are too simple or are just out in left field, same with devotionals. Straight reading can be difficult to really meditate and dwell on without something to guide you.
I was having a comments discussion with an internet atheist very recently and he posted a prewittten tome about how Christianity allegedly condoned slavery. I had to tell him, "listen, I don't have time to respond to all the issues you raise here (some fair and some mischaracitures or misunderstanding), as it would require an hour to respond. I recommended that he look for a video such as this. I hope he finds it.
It wasn't too long at all! In fact I'd love a follow up addressing possible or actual objections to your points. The more detail for a topic like this, the better. It's a very serious objection to the Bible that keeps many people away from the faith.
Pastor Gavin thank you, that was enriching, and eye opening,🙏 your conclusion 👌 from the heart of God, Thank you for helping us uniting with the Truth and love❤️
There’s a good deal of side-stepping, cherry-picking, presupposition straw-manning at the heart of this critique of, as an example, MindShift’s thinking. Gavin Ortlund should be submitting a wholly comprehensive presentation of the Biblical material he’s citing if he’s going to do this-tho I imagine he doesn’t do so because he rightly suspects it would come out as uselessly unconvincing. Have a look at Brandon’s (MindShift) response to see what I’m talking. Btw, I’m not any kind of representative of MindShift-Brandon doesn’t know me from Jesus.
Looking forward to this! Dr. Ortlund, I have a question - are you willing & able to do a video handling accusations of animal cruelty/morality of the animal sacrificial system? I couldn't find one you had already done, apologies if I missed it. If not, do you have any resources you could recommend? Grateful for your contributions to the body, as always. Some friends and I are working through "Finding the Right Hills to Die On" right now and it has been helpful so far!
The Bible says "without the shedding of blood there is NO remission of sin." Yes, it seems extreme or sad today BUT GOD's holiness & God himself decides what payment is appropriate to pay-- it is BLOOD & A LIFE. If an animal hadn't died then it would be YOUR blood required to pay for YOUR sins. Aren't you glad JESUS gave His life & blood once for all, including you? Sin is severe & so is the payment to make a person righteous before God. Somebody or something had to die. We trust and thank Jesus that He gave Himself as a ransom for many. HALLELUJAH!
@@susanburrows810 Yes and amen! Just to be clear this is not something I personally struggle much with. I have a family member for whom this is one of their biggest obstacles in believing that the Bible is God's word.
That's a good question. It does seem a bit weird to have animal sacrifices. I'm not a vegan. But still, I would have a tough time (though I love meat) to watch a lamb being killed! It's interesting to read the Jewish perspective on this, as it;s also somewhat parallel to slavery. For example, I recently came across an observation from the Jewish philosopher Maimonides. He explains that the Torah’s main objective is to eradicate the viewpoint of paganism. "Thus, to truly understand the Torah’s original intent, one must be familiar with the philosophies and practices of ancient idolaters [...]" Maimonides suggests that ritual sacrifices are a sub-optimal form of worship, leading him to making the bold statement that the Torah instituted its system of ritual sacrifices to facilitate the rejection of idolatrous practices. Maimonides explains that human nature is that whatever people have accustomed themselves to doing becomes so ingrained in their nature that it cannot be easily uprooted. Man cannot successfully transition from one extreme to the other without some time to acclimate.
In his book Dominion, Tom Holland shows how human rights most defiantly came from the Christian world view. He shows Christianity from the start until recent times "warts and all", changed the world.
Even if Christianity started human rights, they sure threw it out the window. Aside from the Bible saying non-believers are filthy rags, infidels deserving of eternal damnation, humans are born in sin, any actually humane teachings in the Bible are promptly ignored by his supporters. Christians are by large the ones voting against helping refugees, feeding the poor, providing healthcare, for the right to discriminate against people for their sexuality, beating your children, etc etc etc.
Hey Gavin, thanks for the video. A lot of good stuff. Thanks for addressing 44-45, but would you be willing to do a video on Leviticus 25:46? I didn’t see you address it. This verse seems to state that foreign slaves would be their “property” (chattel) and their children’s for life. I will be reading some of the resources you mentioned in the video! Thanks for all you do!
@@toughbiblepassages9082 ah yes the beauty of chattel slavery, I don't have the words and YT would definitely censor how little I think of you if I tried to put it into words. Just trash.
@@avishevin3353 The Law in Leviticus 25 is merciful AND just, and it articulates how the law runs even today in the USA before even the USA could figure it out.
This was so helpful! Thank you. I have an old friend who has popped back up at my church who is taking the common critiques of the Bible as condoning slavery and blessing it and instead of arguing against them, he's embracing them as a part of God's good design for creation. That had not been something I had not thought about before, outside of to critique MacArther's position or Wilson's position. My friend is much much farther down that path than they are. We're talking Curse of Ham, but not even how it's been traditionally used, it's got a modern, genetic twist to it that's really disgusting. Think Curse of Ham plus Neo-Nazi eugenics, wedded to the western white man, not just the Germans. I had wrestled with how the Bible could not condemn slavery outright, but it's been a long time since that wrestling, and this is an entirely different type (and level) of question. I needed to brush up on what the Bible is understood as saying by scholars, to say the least lol. What you brought up regarding the way the language is used in some of the OT passages was especially helpful and relevant. Thank you!
Buying a slave is not the same as kidnapping. There are many historians who will say the Biblical slavery is as bad as any other slavery. Kipp Davis, Josh Bowden, Fransesca Stravrakopoulou, Joel Baden.
I think that is debatable for sure. I noticed that one of the speakers on your list attended the University of Tübingen. I'm not sure if the University faculty at Tübingen shared his viewpoint on slavery. However, it is interesting to reflect upon how the University of Tübingen was once at the forefront of legitimizing Nazi beliefs and programs. For the theology department to argue that Jews had an early practice of taking slaves and treating them brutally would have easily served to embolden the Nazi followers to reciprocate - e.g. take them as prisoners of war in forced labor at concentration camps. On the basis of legal positivism it's impossible for one legal system to judge another legal system. The Nazis argued at Nuremberg, among other things, that they therefore did not deserve to be judged by the allied victors.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 No historian I can find disagrees with this, the Bible strongly endorses slavery and is never discouraged. Kipp Davis and Josh Bowden have some videos on it, Bowden debated Cliffe Knechtle here - th-cam.com/video/Y64S4oGQVoo/w-d-xo.html , Kipp does a short re-cap here: th-cam.com/video/fpvF_UhsDhI/w-d-xo.html Mind Shift answers all of the points raised here in this video: th-cam.com/video/4QXLOfWA-rI/w-d-xo.html
@@joelrivardguitarI don’t care what the critics of Christianity, who claim to be historians, say. It are the facts that matter. It makes for really bad theology in Christianity to defend a position that the New Testament is morally neutral or even approves of slavery. The Apostle Paul consistently undermines slavery. Here are a few examples: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." -Gal 3:28 (NIV) "If you can gain your freedom, do so ... do not become slaves of human beings." -1 Cor 7:21-23 "The law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful . .. for slave traders ... and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine." - 1 Tim 1:9-10 Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy supersedes what was once, in a culturally conditioned compromise manner, allowed for in Leviticus 25:44-46. The book of James has some pretty strong words for those who oppress their workers with unjust wages. Indentured servants is likely what he had in mind: “Hear the cries of the field workers whom you have cheated of their pay. The cries of those who harvest your fields have reached the ears of the LORD of Heaven’s Armies.” (James 5:4) The early Christians worked hard towards eliminating debt bondage slavery by gradual emancipation. A case in point is Chrysostom who wrote to slave owners: “after you have taught them some skill…set them free.” (Homily 40 on 1 Cor.). The institution of slavery in the antebellum period involved a systemic form of injustice. Read the (free online) book by the Biblical abolitionist Albert Barne’s “An Inquiry Into the Scriptural Views of Slavery.” (1846) It’s a real eye opener! Those living in the antebellum period should have worked towards setting slaves free in a responsible manner through education, job training & initial financial support. That is why targeted strategic reparations in the area of education, entrepreneurship, etc. still need to take place, as systemic poverty in the inner cities of the United States is often directly connected to the plight of the descendants of injured African slaves.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 "I don’t care what the critics of Christianity, who claim to be historians, say." Claim to be historians? You can look up their credentials and when they graduated. You know, the thing we can't do with your bible.
Gavin Ortlund claimed that in Exodus 21:21 the master only goes unpunished as far as not getting the death penalty but is punished by other means? That's not what the text or the New English Translation notes seem to suggest at all: Exodus 21:21 tn This last clause is a free paraphrase of the Hebrew, “for he is his money” (so KJV, ASV); NASB “his property.” It seems that if the slave survives a couple of days, it is probable that the master was punishing him and not intending to kill him. If he then dies, there is no penalty other than that the owner loses the slave who is his property-he suffers the loss.
@@TruthUnites Isn't that merely compensation rather than punishment? For instance today for assaulting someone one would have to both pay the victim compensation and also be punished through incarceration.
@@tomasrocha6139 Eastern Orthodox ended slavery 1000 yrs ago, WITHOUT banning it. The Eastern Orthodox Christian Roman Empire, with its capital in Constantinople (falsely named Byzantine Empire ), ended slavery 1000 yrs ago, via FREE WILL. While people groups, informed by other, denominations, world views, or other religions, doubled down on it. About 800 or so yrs later, via threat of violence, bloody civil wars, and political conflict, …slavery was banned, by FORCE. To this day, the west, still couldn’t put an end to slavery via FREE WILL, driven by TRUE Christian morality, like the Eastern Orthodox Christian, Roman Empire, led by Constantinople, achieved. Significantly, WITHOUT the need to ban slavery….of which I believe was done by design, so that the idea could spread, without the need to have backing by laws informed, by other nations, and other world views. ......”Slavery became common within much of Europe during the Dark Ages and it continued into the Middle Ages. The Byzantine-Ottoman wars (1265-1479) and the Ottoman wars in Europe (14th to 20th centuries) resulted in the capture of large numbers of Christian slaves. The Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, British, Arabs and a number of West African kingdoms played a prominent role in the Atlantic slave trade, especially after 1600. In the Eastern part of the one and only Roman (wrongly coined Byzantine) Empire, slaves became quite rare by the first half of the 7th century[1] A shift in the view of slavery is noticed, which by the 10th century transformed gradually a slave-object into a slave-subject.[2] From 11th century, semi-feudal relations largely replaced slavery, seen as "an evil contrary to nature, created by man's selfishness", although slavery was permitted by the law.”…ωικιρεδια
@@TruthUnites As you stressed repeatedly it is easy to misread the passages, which you have done. In ancient slave culture it is expected that an owner may need to beat their slave. How else do you get a defiant slave to work? The slave is the owners money and the owner can absolutely, without penalty, beat up their slave as much as needed to make them compliant, with one exception: permanent damage. Teeth, Sight, Hearing, Life, are not only important for the slave to be a more effective worker, but it is expected that they may one day be free or purchased by another owner, or passed down as inheritable property. Thus basic protections for slaves makes sense, and is not an effective defense of this otherwise unjust law.
As an atheist I would say Gavin is one of my favourite apologists. He dives deeply into tough subjects and always looks to steel man arguments before addressing them. A lot of TH-cam apologists could learn a lot from these videos. Too many other apologists latch on to indentured servitude and use that as an excuse to avoid talking about slavery. No one denies indentured servitude occurred, but that was at well as chattel slavery and not instead of. It is also annoying to hear indentured servitude described as rainbows and happiness, while such slaves were more likely sent to work in mines, quarries or rowing ships, while the women likely ended up as prostitutes. Apologists never mention that indentured servitude is categorised as a type of slavery and is banned throughout the western world and by the UN.
This video is over an hour, and not one word about Lev 25:46. I’ll quote it for you: “You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever.” I’d like to think you are trying to make an honest argument, but it is hard to take you seriously when you skip the hardest verse to reconcile . At 31:50 you said you’d address this passage but you never did
I addressed Leviticus 25 starting at 38:45. You are correct that I didn't single out verse 46 but the comments I made about the entire passage apply to that verse as well.
@@TruthUnitesVery well, then can you please single out verse 46 and explain why God can allow foreigners to be owned as slaves for life, and allowing their children to be born into slavery for life?
@@festeringboils3205 He tried to downplay it by repeating what Paul Copan does, that language of “ownership” today is vague therefor language of ownership in the ancient east was vague. However this language is very clear. Then he misuses the Leviticus’ passage telling Israelites to treat foreign sojourners with respect by applying it to foreign slaves, but it clearly doesn’t apply. Look up what is being referred to in the text as a sojourner: free men and women. He also misuses the passages against man stealing/kidnapping to try and argue against the practice of taking slaves, but it doesn’t. It is exclusively against theft of a person, regardless of what the thief intended to do with them. However purchasing (not theft) slaves from foreign nations and daughters from your neighbors was clearly and completely okay.
Saying that Christianity is a force against slavery seems to me like a gross distortion of the truth. A claim that US slavery was abolished due to Christians completely discounts that there were Christians on both sides and the side against slavery didn't primarily use the bible to defend their position but those who were for slavery did use the bible to defend their position. The first known ban against slavery was from the Persian king Kyros II in 500 BC, so calling it a Christian idea just isn't correct. There are different ways to read the Bible. I think it's completely valid to excoriate anyone who reads the Bible as the literal word of God for it's position on slavery. Most Christians I encounter have a more interpretive view of the Bible and then it's more nuanced. Clearly it's still a problem if the creator of the universe doesn't understand morality in a way that modern humans find palatable but at least you have an opening to explain how you read the book and to explain why I should listen to your version of Christianity.
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 such practices 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 slavery, is because it doesn't make a distinction between the modern prison-system, and between slavery as such, so the biblical slavery is basically a method of dealing with the criminals, and have nothing to do with chattel slavery.
"Slavery" as the english translation says, was an act of mercy in the OT. Telling the israelites to take POWs and criminals and offer them a second chance to live is BEYOND merciful, even today
@cygnusustus This hippy mentality of letting people go unpunished is immoral and terrible. Think for one moment, if you were captured by an enemy military in ancient times, would you rather A, be slaughtered, or B, made a servant that in time, would be given a home, food and clothing? I'd assume 99% of people would pick B. If that is "stomach churning" to you, you don't get out much
@@johnxina-uk8inthey are by definition bigots whether u like it or not. Bigotry is born out of ignorance and they all in their ignorance participate and promoted bigotry
I'm very interested in this video, because this is something that has been bothering ne and most Christian arguments i ahve heard aren't that good or convincing honestly. So im hoping you can give a more satisfying answer that i can wrestle with.
Brother please consider watching my playlist on slavery (im still uploading videos). It will show the beauty of Gods laws, even in slavery. Deuteronomy teaches that the Law of God will be seen by heathens to be wise and good.. if Christians have failed to show the merits of the law in and of itself, it’s because christians have dropped the ball. I attempt on my channel to pick that ball up again.
Towards the end of the video they’re saying that the Bible/its writers couldn’t outright abolish slavery because society wouldn’t stop having slaves anyway/society would collapse/etc. However, to me it seems that the Bible has a precedent of saying “though shall not do (something)”, despite people still doing it anyway. And just because people were going to do it anyway was not a valid reason to not say something. Like murder, for example, to me seems like an analog in this situation. It seems one could replace “murder” for “slavery” in some of these arguments, and it would become clear that the argument doesnt actually sound too good to say out loud. Ancient societies would probably also “collapse” without murder (wars), but yet there’s still a command to not murder- which is there despite the hypothetical risk to a society not being permitted to kill. This seems similar to the hypothetical risk to society that’s being brought up here. I think it would have been better for the Bible to say “thou shall not keep slaves” even though people would still do it anyway/it would screw up society somehow - at least then the Bible could get the “moral credit” by saying that outright, as it does say outright about many other types of sins. And some people would have followed that commandment about slavery, thereby at least reducing the amount of slavery and reducing future ramifications
I’ll also add that some might argue that “you need wars/murder because if you weren’t permitted to do that at all you’d just get taken over by other groups”. Even in that case, a sin “necessary” for societal function like murder is outlawed plainly by the Bible, despite the potential ramifications to a group not being able to kill their assailants. But we see multiple instances in the Bible where lesser powers, or peaceful powers, triumph over their assailants due to God’s intervention. So for the video to make points like “a slave rebellion would just be crushed, they’d all be killed” is forgetting that God could help these slave groups miraculously, as he did for those who were faithful to his commands in the past.
Exactly. There is no precedent of God holding back from telling his people what is right and wrong. Apologists are special pleading by saying with slavery it's the one topic where for some reason he needed to be super bashful about it, even to the point he instructs them on how to handle slaves without mentioning that the whole concept is deeply immoral.
@BeccaYoley no, not just slavery, even murder (war, of course, being different from murder, less every President ever go to jail). The entire concept of individual rights wasn't even introduced in society, and yes slavery was much more necessary for survival. That's why society didn't look upon it with the malicious intent we do today, when we have technology, chemicals and scientific progress to make slavery unnecessary. Even still, some societies still justify it today. Regardless, the concept may be immoral to you, in today's society, but it isn't inherently. Slavery is just a means, you would have to say what specifically about an aspect of slavery is immoral. Slavery, of course, not meaning the same thing over the course of 4000 years
@@MrGgabber Taking away another person's autonomy over their own body and life is even worse than stealing their property. A God would have understood this. But from the Bible, we get over and over no indication that anything supernatural was required to have inspired it
That seems like a recipe for the genocide that critics of the Bible condemn so much (at least when undertaken by the Hebrews) if all of the other surrounding nations had no prohibitions against enslavement. Furthermore, if Israel were prohibited from enslavement altogether, that would mean that after they won a battle against an enemy nation, they'd be required to leave behind civilians who would be stateless and homeless and thus open to severe exploitation or worse by anyone who came along. Also that would allow the male survivors to plan and organize for vengeful retaliation. Or they'd just have to slaughter all survivors as a practice.
As an Atheist I have noticed that every single solution god comes up with involves violence, coercion, slavery, genocide, mass-murder and oppression - or some other evil or morally wrong act. If the basis of Craig's morality is "If god does it, it must be moral", then how would one actually be able to recognize that they may be worshiping an evil god? I truly think learning about the Old Testament did more to de-convert me from Christianity than anything. The WHOLE thing is horrible from start to finish. To god every problem is a nail, and he has the biggest hammer of them all. Then we come to the Jesus story. Christians call this the "Greatest love of all". Which is a story about forcing a woman to give birth to someone who's entire purpose is to be a human sacrifice, to fix a problem that god created in the first place because HE used an immoral rigged test on Adam and Eve. As an intellectual I'm forced to consider only two options are possible: There is no god. Or if there is a god and this is the true-god, he's actually an evil god that nobody should worship.
God is good. We know that because Jesus said, “he who has seen me, has seen the father.” The cross was a team effort of the Triune God. The “Christus Victor” view of the atonement is the best way to look at what Jesus did. By the way, Mary was in on the plan as well, as she said, “let it be, according to your will.” No matter how mitigated by viewing things as a whole in Scripture, and rightfully so, slavery statutes in the law of Moses will always seem repulsive and barbaric in light of the New Testament’s teaching of grace and truth. That's because those who follow Jesus see things from a much higher vantage point, being under grace. God is good. But to allow free will, in the goodness of God, consequences (fallout) of sin still remain. This explains the evil in the world. God punishes sin with sin by allowing nature to run its course without interference. The law in Old Testament times was as perfect as God could make it without removing the autonomy needed for individual conscience and judgment, compassion and mercy. In the Old Testament, the law was a lamp and a light. For the most part, it was adapted to the hardness of people’s hearts in what the people could bear at the time. Yet compared to Christ's grace and truth, it was mere darkness and shadows (Heb. 10:1, 1 John 2:8). In the new trajectory of egalitarianism that Paul preached, “there is neither bond nor free.” (Gal 3:28) The apostle writes: “…if you can gain your freedom, do so ... do not become slaves of human beings." -1 Cor. 7:21-23
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 what about verse 24? Why didn't you mention that when citing 1 Corinthians? The idea that 'God is good because he says he is good', is a very naive thing to accept, to say the least.
First, where makes something evil or morally wrong? Second, Mary willingly submitted to God's plan of bringing a savior into the world through her. Thirdly, God gave Adam and Eve a choice, because without a choice, how could meaningful relationships exist? Relationships are meaningful not because they are not forced, but because they are by choice.
@@loganmanderfield1162 first - not a coherent sentence. second - you don't know that, and she didn't have a choice. third - 'obey me or die' is not really much of a choice.
@@loganmanderfield1162 A choice where you cannot understand the ramifications of, isn't an actual choice. The Bible says Adam and Eve were like children with zero concept of right, wrong, consequences, penalties etc etc. They were like empty vessels, and god didn't educate them on anything. Eve could NOT HAVE understood she was even make a "choice" between good or evil. What is good? What is evil? She didn't know. It was a BLIND obedience test. A trap, a trick. That he KNEW man would fail. So what was even the point? The Adam and Eve story is basically child abuse. So despite your horribly bad apologetic, doesn't refute my claim. I find it amazing that you cannot answer my question and find a SINGLE case in the Bible where god didn't use some form of death, torture, slavery, or abuse to get his desired result. Where is all this "love" you people talk about?
Amazing video, Gavin! Thank you for taking the time to put this together in such a digestible & organized manner.
Love your videos too Brandon!
This comment is more constructive than anything you ever do on your channel.
You're one of the best guys on TH-cam at showing someone else's video, with your face in the corner, giving the occasional "yep."
@@acebailey2478 Stay in your lane, man. Even if what you said were true, Brandon is still doing good work.
@@Fassnight I do believe this is a free comments section.
Brandon straight up grabs other videos, then sits in the corner adding literally nothing to them besides "so true." "Listen to this right here."
It's lazy and unconstructive. Perhaps it's just a grift to make money, if so, good for him for finding such an easy method.
@@acebailey2478 I like his videos. I think he's giving us exactly what the channel promises a "daily does of wisdom". Don't feel at all that he is doing it disingenuously. Sorry you feel that way. Definitely doesn't call for this kind of behavior either way, though.
Dude, I truly don't understand why you don't have more subscribers. Your videos are always thorough, on time, and on point!
Exactly because you don't seem to understand 1 human being treating another human being as property is wrong!!!
... and wrong.
I know I love the long-form and in-depth content that he creates
@@avishevin3353big ole’ nothin burger
47:39 “Some people think the worst part of the American slave trade was the hypocrisy. I disagree. I think it was the slavery.” - Norm MacDonald
🤭🤭🤭
Way to ignore the remaining hour or so.
and everyone would agree with you, free brownie points congrats
People don't know norm macdonald is a comedian lol
To be fair, in the context he's talking about it in comparison with other slave systems in history.
I weirdly wish these kinds of videos were longer especially Truth Unites videos lol
I was worried this one was a bit too long, so thanks for the feedback!
@@TruthUnites
As a Christian from Nigeria, I'm sure the Bible and my faith permits slavery
@@TruthUnitesNot every video needs to be this length, but Mike Winger has demonstrated the sheer appetite for long, detailed content.
@TruthUnites not too long at all. Actually, what is remarkable is how short it is, given the rich content (this is the same for all your videos, so never feel you need to rush).
I thought I had found all the answers about slavery, but you have brought new information.
This is the video on slavery in the we have been looking for. Thank you.
@@TruthUnitesthe longer the video the fitter I get, cos I listen to them while running (slowly)😄
Thanks for dealing with the more difficult texts in this one. Good take.
Difficult only if read out of context from poorer translations. Either way, the Hebrews weren’t permitted by God to practice chattal slavery.
@@justchilling704
God made the clear distinction that Hebrews couldn’t own Hebrews as chattel slaves because of their previous slavery in Egypt, but Hebrews owning foreigners as chattel slaves was perfectly okay and permitted by God.
It is only if you take scripture our or context that you can claim Hebrews were not permitted to own chattel slaves.
@@justchilling704 Except that they absolutely were and did.
@@Tinesthia Reread my comment, stop making arguments form translations. A clear study of word using in the original language and modern translations even, show your ignorant comment to be bs.
In ancient Hebrew the words for “buy” and “acquire” aren’t distinctly separate, you know that that means? Word usage and context determines the meaning in a specific case. This means you need to show by treatment and legal status that Hebrews were divinely sanctioned to have chattal slaves.
What irritates me the most with people like you, is that you don’t have a genuine desire to learn and understand the literature and it shows, when I first did research into this area, it took me a few TH-cam videos and google searches to find out about the linguistics and why some translations are better than others.
@@highroller-jq3ix Read my above reply. I don’t care about your opinion. I care about facts.
Thank you so much for all the work you do for Christ. From being a Pastor to being an amazing theologian who earnestly seeks for truth.
This channel has had a tremendous impact on my walk with the Lord and has caused me to understand theology at such a wonderful depth.
Thanks again Gavin, looking forward to reading your upcoming book. God bless you🙏🏼
I really like this kind of long detailed apologetic content made with humility and precision. Thank you Gavin! I wished this was longer!
MindShift though made his rebuttal to this video though
Wait, wait. Why do you need to 'apologize' presumably good and moral scripture? Don't you see a contradiction?
@@Владислав-ы9м5у so you don’t know what apologetics means !
I have been waiting for this one!!
I've been wanting to do a deep dive into this topic because it's always brought up by both believers and nonbelievers. Now that you've done the leg work I can piggy back! Thanks for all your hard work!
"I'm convinced it's true. Happiest thought of my life. I think it's true."
Beautiful. Thank you, Gavin.
The truth will set you free, but freedom is cold hard and frightening. And lies can be warm and beautiful.
Thank you for this! Mike Winger has responded to this issue a couple times and that really helped me. But this is such a great supplement to that. As always, your inclusion of historical opinions and contexts help greatly. Also your inclusion of specific modern day objections and responding to them was helpful. I honestly would have been fine with this being longer but perhaps it was wise to keep it to where you did for the sake of broader viewership.
Agree
Personally I think the best videos to date on this that I know of, is this one itself, the one Gavin linked, Tekton TV’s playlist, and Whaddo U Memes responses to Cosmic Skeptic. At least in addition to Winger’s videos.
This was the first serious doubt I had to wrestle with when I started out as a believer. I’m glad you’re addressing this important topic
By lying and making excuses for slavery? Oookay. God enslaved people. God ordered genocides. God flooded the whole planet.
You are worshipping the evil bloodthirsty genocidal God of the Middle East. He's the same as Allah.
His redemption arc?? Oh yeah doing human sacrifice torture and blood magic on his own son. Much better than that Old Testament stuff right!?
Feel the love man! God loves you.... 😂
@@okeydokey6097 Allowing and approving is different. The Bible is still Holy
@@okeydokey6097 Slavery in the Old Testament was more of an economic status and paying off debts. Of course, there were exceptions like prisoners of war being in chattel slavery, but this was overall a common practice between the nations. God allowed the Israelites to have slaves, but he had there be stipulations to treat them fairly-which they didn't respect-and they got exiled for failing to be faithful.
Slavery, like other practices such as the two fabrics, no sorcery, divination, and the like were civil laws. They were meant for the Israelites to follow, not us, because Jesus hadn't incarnated yet.
I'd say a better perspective on this would be understanding that Leviticus is a historical document. They're there for us to know what happened, even if it may come off as 'Unholy,' but not everything in the Bible was meant for us to look at and go "Wow! God is so amazing for doing this!" 💀
@@okeydokey6097Why do you think slavery is bad? It's simply the natural result of the strong dominating the weak. Any naturalist worldview should be ambivalent towards it.
The fact you (rightfully) find it immoral is a sign naturalism is false.
@@okeydokey6097 Like I said, it was an economic thing. Foreigners could sell children to the Israelites as slaves for paying debts, which the practice in general was heavily criticized by biblical authors. I honestly don't know what use would the children be either, so I see your confusion.
I am very excited to hear of your thoughts on this! I have been wrestling with this issue a lot recently and I look forward to watching. Thank you, Dr. Ortlund! God bless!
Edit: an hour later, 11:20 at night and I have listened to the whole thing. I love the points you brought up and the note on which it ended and am most certainly looking foward to the Canaan discussion.
Your patient and irenic presentation is inspiring and admirable.
I’ve been waiting for this video! I am legitimately bothered by the rhetoric used to beat Christians to a pulp by atheists and agnostics. This is one of those topics that has made me doubt the most and I’m glad you are tackling it head on. The way you deal with tough questions with such charity is really telling Gavin, thank you 🙏
What rhetoric is that, exactly?
@wet-read God commanded that the Israelites practice chatte slavery. Slavery like the ones done in Egypt and the Atlantic slave trade and commanded you treat them like property. This is untrue as God condemned it not supported it.
Like an expert tennis player, you don't always smash the truth (ball) to win the point, sometimes a slight deflection or allowing the opponents ball to go beyond the boundary of the court does the job of graciously winning fair and square, and then shaking his hand without being patronising! Well done Mr Laver!
@@wet-read "What rhetoric is that, exactly?"
Bible verses?
Faith Because of Reason also has a great TH-cam video on this issue
Dear Gavin, I believe Peter Williams is mistaken in his claim that the Lex Fufia Caninia imposed a legal limit on the manumission of slaves. This law only restricted the number of slaves that a master could manumit by will. As the Roman jurist Gaius explains, the law permits a master to manumit his entire household while he is still living. I pointed this out to Dr. Williams in an email correspondence in 2017. He graciously acknowledged that I was correct and that he would need to stop using this argument. I've done some research on the issue of slavery in the NT that you might find helpful in answering the critics. Some of it is available on my website, but most is still forthcoming. Feel free to reach out if you would like to discuss this issue more. Thanks for the excellent work you do on this channel!
I've done my own deep dive into the issue of slavery in the old testament particularly. But as a layperson I might have misunderstood what I read or missed important context and nuances. So I would love to hear what an actual scholar has to say about what I found, if you don't mind.
In a nutshell, I'm not convinced the old testament law was talking about slavery at all. It seems to me that the key element of slavery, the one that determines whether we translate ebed/eved as servant (indentured or otherwise) or slave, is the issue of ownership. And I don't really see any evidence of ownership in the passages that discuss these ebed, even the foreign ones.
Going forward, I'm going to use the word worker instead of ebed because it can get confusing otherwise, especially when I try to pluralize it according to English rules ;) As I've studied the passages relating to these workers, I noticed a distinction between the words used to discuss them, and the words used to discuss other things that the Hebrews could rightly be considered to own. First, there are the words baal and adon. Baal clearly implies ownership and is used to talk about a variety of things, including animals, houses, pits, arrows, loans, etc (even wives). But it is never once used for a worker. In fact, in Exodus 21, the word baal appears 13 times, but whenever it talks about workers, it switches to the word adon/lord, which implies authority but not ownership. Exodus 21:32 distinguishes between the baal of an ox and the adon of a worker within the same sentence.
It's also worth mentioning that the Israelites are never said to be baal of the land. In Leviticus 25:23, God clearly states that the land belongs to him and the Israelites are only tenant farmers. Then in the next three words, he calls that land (that they can possess but not own) their achuzzah. Which is the word used 22 verses later to describe foreign workers in the infamous Leviticus 25:44-46. This seems to indicate that achuzzah implies possession rather than ownership. This conclusion is supported by two things:
1) The way it is used throughout the old testament. Of 66 appearances, 63 are in reference to the land, two are in reference to the workers in Leviticus 25, and one refers to God as our achuzzah (definitely not someone we own). Only two of these occurrences (excepting potentially the workers) are in situations where ownership is assumed- when Abraham purchases the field and cave to bury Sarah in, and in Joshua 22:19, when God is said to possess the land.
2) The root word achaz, which means to grasp, take hold, or take possession, is overwhelmingly (63/68 occurrences) used to describe temporary possession (like grasping someone's hand or cloak), and never used to describe taking ownership of something. In fact, 2 Samuel 2:21 differentiates between taking hold (achaz) of someone temporarily and taking (laqach) their armor as your own.
The word achuzzah is never once used to describe livestock, houses, tools, weapons, clothes, precious metals, or gems- things that could be owned. There was another word for those things- rekush- which, in turn, is never used to describe workers (or the land).
Over and over again, I see a linguistic differentiation between things the Israelites owned, like livestock (where the words baal/owner and rekush/property are used) and things which they didn't own, like the land and (I'm arguing) human workers (where the words adon/lord and achuzzah/possession are used).
Even in Leviticus 25:46, when it talks about giving these workers to your children as an inheritance, it specifies that you would be passing them on as an achuzzah. And both words used to talk about inheritance (nachal and yarash) are only used in this way when talking about passing down the land, which they don't own. In those circumstances, the father is passing down stewardship of the land, rather than ownership.
It seems to me that the main reason for limiting Hebrew workers to seven year contracts while allowing foreigners to become workers "for life" comes down to the land. Israelites had an allotment to return to. Foreigners didn't. So if they wanted to commit to working for a family for the rest of their lives, that was job security.
When it comes to buying and selling, the words translated as buy (qaneh and miqnah) are used for explicit lease agreements far more often than for explicit purchases within the law code, so we can't say with certainty which meaning was intended in the passages about foreign workers. As for selling (makar) people- beyond the passage about the father "selling" his daughter (which in context is clearly talking about marriage and dowries) and a thief being sold to pay for what he stole (a judicial sentence- working off his/her debt), there is a very clear pattern. Either it is describing a person selling themselves or it is expressly forbidden. So it seems like, within the law, the only person allowed to sell a worker was the worker in question.
In all this, I don't see any evidence that the law viewed these workers as owned property in any circumstances, whether talking about Hebrews or foreigners. So that's why I really don't think it's talking about slavery at all.
But of course, I am not a scholar. I might have missed or misunderstood something, and there is certainly context or nuances that I'm unaware of. So if you have the time to share your own insights, I would love to hear your take on it. There's obviously much more to the issue, but I didn't want to write even more of a novel, especially since I don't know if you'll have the time or inclination to engage in this discussion with me.
@@rbrainsop1You’re correct, it in fact is not talking about slavery Hebrews practiced a form of servitude. Even Jacob was bonded to his uncle for 7 years to marry his second wife, it’s obviously foolish to say Jacob was his uncles “slave”.
@@rbrainsop1 I sincerely appreciate the thoughts you have raised here. When considering the discussion of whether or not it is moral to "own" another human being, you need to define what "Ownership" entails. For instance, if you're familiar with 19th-century literature, such one of my favorite novels, Jane Eyere, you would be well aware of the context of rich families "Owning" household servants. The servants, like Jane, were owned by their masters, worked for their masters, and lived off their masters homes; but nobody would say that there is something inherently immoral about the rich upper class having servants, because it was all by the free will and consent of the servant. Although there are quite a few differences of cultures and circumstance between Victorian England and ancient Isreal, I, for one, cannot find much of a difference between the principles behind the Abed of the Hebrews and the servants of the Darcys.
@@rbrainsop1 Thank you. This was very helpful
What is your website? Have you read condensed Anti Slavery Bible argument by George Bourne? It changed my view on slavery. Have you read Granville Sharp on slavery? Have you read the 1700 argument against slavery by the puritan judge? Have you read the recent book of sermons by reformed Baptists against the slave trade and slavery? It shows there was a multiple view of different passages on slavery, specifically if slavery was always sin or if it was temporarily allowed for Gentiles.
I have been waiting for you to cover this!
Great message, Gavin! So much time and thought put into these important topics to engage our culture today! So appreciate your work.
Fabulous job, and this was so needed! I'll be sharing this like crazy. Thrilled that you'll be doing the slaughter of the Canaanites!
Gavin, I agree with others that you shouldn't hesitate to make videos however long is needed to make a strong case.
Limits on the right to vote is another example of how something wrong can be such a strong cultural norm that you shouldn't condemn people of the past as immoral for not abolishing it.
Ty Pastor Gavin, grateful for you videos and ministry! May God continue to use you 🙏 praying for you!
I mean Gregory of Nyssa was basically the first person ever to unambiguously condemn slavery when it was universally accepted everywhere for all of time.
what about the other 1800+ years where the VAST MAJORITY of Christians bought, sold & owned slaves?
1) The Venice Slave trade (operated by Christians & condoned by the church) transported MILLIONS of slaves throughout the Middle Ages.
2) 1455 the church issued a series of papal bulls that allowed Portugal to capture and transport African slaves to the new world...THE BEGINNING OF THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE.
Wang Mang, first and only emperor of the Xin dynasty, usurped the Chinese throne and instituted a series of sweeping reforms, including the abolition of slavery and radical land reform from 9-12 A.D. However, this and other reforms turned popular and elite sentiment against Wang Mang, and slavery was reinstituted after he was killed by an angry mob in 23 A.D.
hmm so I guess you're admitting the authors of the Bible didn't unambiguously condemn slavery. Neither Jesus of Nazareth.
@@brokenrecord3095 I would say one of the problems is even using that approach to scripture. The exegetical method utilized by Gregory makes that objection nonsensical and irrelevant.
an yet...for another 1500+ years after Gregory, Christian history demonstrates how slavery was integral part of Christian society.
Venice Slave Trade - operated throughout the Middle ages
1453-1455 papal bulls allowed Portugal to essentially start the Atlantic Slave Trade
These are just two examples....there are literally millions more of Christians practicing slavery.
Great video Gavin! I love that you are addressing this. This is a troubling topic and I think there is very few good works done on it in video form! Very encouraging!
This is the best video/lecture I've ever seen on this topic. Thank you Dr. Ortlund!
Going back to finish this since your newer response to critiques of this video has dropped. Appreciate the resources mentioned from Sklar and Wright.
Very thankful for this video. Thank you for such in depth work on this difficult topic!
thank you, friend! :)
@TruthUnites I think that your video-like most apologetic approaches to this difficult issues-makes numerous errors in your handling, especially, of the Hebrew Bible and ancient Near Eastern literature. My colleague, Dr. Josh Bowen, and I have spent considerable time engaging the public on the topic of biblical slavery, and we think it would be beneficial if you would agree to have an open conversation about it, given the several places in which this video skews critical approaches to the biblical texts.
The invitation for you to join us for a friendly exchange is open.
This^^^
I hope he takes you up on this.
@@DigitalHammurabi Give the people what they want.
I look forward to you guys inviting Rabbi Tovia Singer to a discussion on the texts of the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish understanding of those verses. Singer has been on MythVision, so it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to have him in a discussion.
He knows he'll lose. I bet he never will.
Really thankful for this! Have been struggling with a lacklustre Christian response on this issue and was praying that I would eventually have answers amongst the doubt. Believe the Spirit is giving answering through this video.
Thank you for making this video! We needed a comprehensive video on slavery. There are plenty of great videos on TH-cam, but not many that are very comprehensive of all the verses.
Thanks Gavin, this is one of the best breakdowns on this topic. I will definitely go over this and look into this area in more detail 💯
Thank you so much, brother Gavin. Your videos are always a breath of fresh air, faith and knowledge.
God bless and please keep up the good work!
Cheers from France :-)
The sheer effort, crystallized intelligence & thought that you put into apologetics is extreme. You're not normal. =D
But you should be! Imagine the world we would live in.
It's called mental gymnastics and it was pretty bad, it was reduced to some were not treated so bad, it wasn't that bad
Slavery, Gymnastics, & Divine Laziness:
1. Dr. Lawrence Krauss, "The Principle of Least Action in Classical & Quantum Worlds"
th-cam.com/video/Hu787Nn-HtM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=_e3TxnNOednCQGKW
2. Taoism's Unconventional Advice on Doing Nothing
th-cam.com/video/l5xUKks2U-o/w-d-xo.htmlsi=yeLFwkpxtPnMWNj8
@@rodney8075 Eastern Orthodox ended slavery 1000 yrs ago, WITHOUT banning it. The Eastern Orthodox Christian Roman Empire, with its capital in Constantinople (falsely named Byzantine Empire ), ended slavery 1000 yrs ago, via FREE WILL. While people groups, informed by other, denominations, world views, or other religions, doubled down on it. About 800 or so yrs later, via threat of violence, bloody civil wars, and political conflict, …slavery was banned, by FORCE. To this day, the west, still couldn’t put an end to slavery via FREE WILL, driven by TRUE Christian morality, like the Eastern Orthodox Christian, Roman Empire, led by Constantinople, achieved. Significantly, WITHOUT the need to ban slavery….of which I believe was done by design, so that the idea could spread, without the need to have backing by laws informed, by other nations, and other world views.
......”Slavery became common within much of Europe during the Dark Ages and it continued into the Middle Ages. The Byzantine-Ottoman wars (1265-1479) and the Ottoman wars in Europe (14th to 20th centuries) resulted in the capture of large numbers of Christian slaves. The Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, British, Arabs and a number of West African kingdoms played a prominent role in the Atlantic slave trade, especially after 1600.
In the Eastern part of the one and only Roman (wrongly coined Byzantine) Empire, slaves became quite rare by the first half of the 7th century[1] A shift in the view of slavery is noticed, which by the 10th century transformed gradually a slave-object into a slave-subject.[2] From 11th century, semi-feudal relations largely replaced slavery, seen as "an evil contrary to nature, created by man's selfishness", although slavery was permitted by the law.”…ωικιρεδια
Thank you for this video - it's a topic that makes people uncomfortable from the get-go, Christians included, but usually because it is not well understood or thought about. Greatly appreciate your voice on this, Gavin.
Another great wealth of learning concerning slavery in the Bible are the three videos from Whaddo you meme??, where he responds to Alex O Connor. One of the best resources i've ever seen on Utube. Thanks Gavin, for your take on this
Look at Dr. Bowden’s (digital Hammurabi) reply to what do you meme. What do you meme unfortunately did not do research prior to his response…
@@mcable217 looked at Dr. Bow(no d)en's 3 videos in response to Whaddo you meme. Several times he corrects both Whaddo you meme and Alex O Connor. Overall, Dr. Bowen does not impede to the point of disabling the argument Whaddo you meme is giving concerning slavery in the Bible, especially when in concert with Dr. Gavin's video. The debate Dr. Bowen has with Dr. Michael Brown is especially helpful for further research
@@fernandoformeloza4107 I totally agree, Alex made mistakes as well and overstated his case. Scholarship is the way to go for this question, not popular skeptics/apologists.
Apparently reading what the bible says is never the right thing to do, you need scholarship, external historical context, or mental gymnastics like in this case to try to make it say the opposite. What a great manual!!
@@eidiazcas if you look at the debate between Dr. Josh Bowen (agnostic, expert on ancient cultures and Bible scholar) and Dr. Michael Brown (Jewish Christian Bible scholar and scholar of multiple languages), they both mention that they agree on nearly every point when it comes to slavery in the Bible. This is a consensus from two opposing sides, and cannot be ignored by the christian or atheist view
Gavin kind of making a transcendental argument. I love it.
This is an important topic apologetically. Thank you for taking it on.
apologetically....you must obfuscate the truth in order to defend slavery in the Bible and for over 1800+ years of Christianity.
@@thedude0000lmao. the only religion that loves obfuscation is atheism. Onus is on you to show that slavery is wrong in the first place, let alone the existence of rightness and wrongness. But such concepts cannot exist apart from the God you pretend doesn't exist. Sorry!
@@thedude0000 watch the video before commenting
@@crabb9966 I watched the ENTIRE video and posted comments.
@@thedude0000 Eastern Orthodox ended slavery 1000 yrs ago, WITHOUT banning it. The Eastern Orthodox Christian Roman Empire, with its capital in Constantinople (falsely named Byzantine Empire ), ended slavery 1000 yrs ago, via FREE WILL. While people groups, informed by other, denominations, world views, or other religions, doubled down on it. About 800 or so yrs later, via threat of violence, bloody civil wars, and political conflict, …slavery was banned, by FORCE. To this day, the west, still couldn’t put an end to slavery via FREE WILL, driven by TRUE Christian morality, like the Eastern Orthodox Christian, Roman Empire, led by Constantinople, achieved. Significantly, WITHOUT the need to ban slavery….of which I believe was done by design, so that the idea could spread, without the need to have backing by laws informed, by other nations, and other world views.
......”Slavery became common within much of Europe during the Dark Ages and it continued into the Middle Ages. The Byzantine-Ottoman wars (1265-1479) and the Ottoman wars in Europe (14th to 20th centuries) resulted in the capture of large numbers of Christian slaves. The Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, British, Arabs and a number of West African kingdoms played a prominent role in the Atlantic slave trade, especially after 1600.
In the Eastern part of the one and only Roman (wrongly coined Byzantine) Empire, slaves became quite rare by the first half of the 7th century[1] A shift in the view of slavery is noticed, which by the 10th century transformed gradually a slave-object into a slave-subject.[2] From 11th century, semi-feudal relations largely replaced slavery, seen as "an evil contrary to nature, created by man's selfishness", although slavery was permitted by the law.”…ωικιρεδια
Hey Gavin, a big fan of yours from the other side of the debate.
I’d encourage you to face a more steel-manned objection of slavery in the Bible presented by Kipp Davis and Josh Bowen (along with their scholar colleagues).
Always appreciate you taking on tough topics!
I dunno. Your handle is the one making all the assertions 😂
Yeah Bowen’s book on the Bible’s endorsement of slavery is a tour de force.
@@Iamwrongbut halfway through the second edition now.
@@thedude0000 wow nice to see you here friend :)
I wonder if Gavin has spoken to Josh or Kipp. Love both their works
I’m at the 48:11 mark, still listening, but wanted to pause and leave this comment.
As a believer, slavery, Numbers 31, and the slaughter of the Canaanite’s are the three biggest issues I struggle with.
I think you’ve made a couple of interesting points that I hadn’t heard before, so thank you for that.
I can totally appreciate all of this from a social/ historical perspective.
But even if I grant everything you’ve said so far, my personal THEOLOGICAL challenge still remains: What do these laws say about the power and character of God?
For me, I haven’t been able to reconcile how the all powerful , all knowing, objectively morally good God who was able to do such incredible miracles chose to sustain a people group with the institution of slavery in tact. If we believe He performed miracles to sustain His people, it’s not a stretch to say that He did not *have* to keep slavery in tact (because He doesn’t *have to* do anything). He chose to.
God is all knowing.
God is all powerful.
God is the foundation of our moral guidance. He gives us the ability to “ground” our “objective” moral positions.
God cannot contradict Himself.
God is UNCHANGING.
Slavery in all forms is morally wrong.
And yet… God gives provisions for slavery and says His people (the Israelites) may have them.
To me, “progressing” slavery is still slavery. Comparing to American slavery is irrelevant. Comparing to anything else is irrelevant. How the slaves were acquired is irrelevant. How the slaves were treated is irrelevant. Whether they could gain their freedom is irrelevant.
Everything rests on this question:
If God told a Jewish person in 500 BC that he may acquire a slave to own as property regardless of the reason, would that be morally OK? Would it go against God’s character?
The problem is that the answer to both of those questions, to me, is “No” - which begs the question of the character of the God we serve.
Anyway… Thank you for this video. I’m going to finish watching. If anything changes for me, I’ll come back to edit this comment.
Why would the answer be “No”? In all humility, brother, have you considered that there is simply a righteous way to own a slave, and that your visceral revulsion at the idea is an artifact of your cultural upbringing?
@@matOperaGods laws on slavery are no different than many laws in modern America today.. I agree with you that Christians are blind to this because A: they aren’t reading the Bible and B: the emotional baggage of antebellum slavery is more powerful in their consciences
@@matOperaif you find yourself defending slavery in the comments section it's time to take a step back and consider that you may in fact be the bad guy.
@@danhoff4401 There’s no logical substance to that argument. You cannot have a coherent moral position that contradicts God.
@@matOpera that's a ridiculously ignorant thing to say mat. There's plenty of different moral systems that don't require a diety and it misses the point that this is an internal critique.
You're choosing to bite a bullet here right. Slavery isn't really immoral. That has to be your position and you should reconsider if that makes you the good guy here and by extension if Christianity is actually true.
Great video Dr Ortlund. God bless you and your work.
Thank you, Dr. Ortlund. Your argument is very helpful.
This was amazing. Truly!
There is so much here, and I never felt board (not like I ever do with your content).
Definitely a great resource 👌🏼
Can’t wait for the next topic.
This is really important. Helpful stuff, thanks Gavin!!!
Very close to being a perfect video, Dr Ortlund. Thank you.
about time somebody addressed them. thanks!
Thank you for addressing this topic. It is probably the most vulnerable topic for debate and it must be addressed with careful scholarship.
You’ve done an excellent job, and honestly I would love to see a longer form, perhaps a series on this going much deeper.
This is a good video im looking forward to seeing your video on the Canaanite conquest.
I'm not a Christian, in large part because I don't trust the Bible as a revelation from God (slavery plays a part here).
Having said that, I have to say excellent work, Gavin! This is certainly one of the best responses to this topic I have watched. Your manner of approaching these issues is what keeps me coming back to your channel; your erudition on Christian topics, combined with your charitable reading of those on the other side of the fence, make you a joy to listen to. I wish others (both Christians and atheists-I'm looking at you, Rationality Rules) could be slightly less vitriolic.
On a slightly different topic, for me, Christianity stands or falls on the place of scripture as an epistemological authority.
Could you do a deep dive video on why scripture (or tradition) is a source of epistemological authority and how it compares to other forms of epistemological authority (science, reason, imagination/creativity, embodied knowledge, etc.)?
thanks for the comments! I will consider that for a video topic. God bless.
Christianity stands or falls on whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, the authority of scripture has nothing to do with that
@@josephtattum6365But Scripture is the main source documenting Jesus' words, death, and resurrection, so it at least has to be a good authority on that topic.
@@emmadasilva1794In saying this, I think you're ignoring the millions of people who were willing to endure death and harsh treatment because they believed that truth long before the scriptures were finalized.
@@nubianecutie I'm not, but I guess I could see how you could misunderstand who I am based on who I was responding to. I'm a Christian, and I think the authority of Scripture is one of the biggest legs Christianity stands or falls on.
One side has scholarly consensus, the other has religious apologetics.
Why give more credence to those who's main goal is to defend their ideology no matter what, as opposed to those who will simply tell you the facts of the matter, regardless of how it makes any ideology look?
The scholarly consensus can be traced back to the antebellum period. Most, if not all, of those critics and cynics of Christianity received their education at institutions whose professors inherited the view that the institution of slavery in Old Testament times was virtually the same as that practiced in the antebellum south.
The British outlawing of the slave trade and American abolition was heavily influenced by Christian theologians, pamphleteers, and preachers from the Reformation times who had a very different interpretation of Scripture than the anti-apologists and white racists of the south.
For example, the distinguished German Lutheran theologian J. F. Buddeus (1667-1729), author of "Selecta juris naturae et gentium" argued that even if some blacks were legally captured or received criminal convictions leading to slavery, their offspring should not be subject to bondage by inheritance.
Another example would be John Newton’s dramatic conversion from slave trader to clergyman had tremendous impact in changing the English climate of opinion. John Newton is especially known for composing the hymn "Amazing Grace."
There is an article from a book that I dates from 1880. It is from the series, “The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.” What is fascinating is how little the mainstream Protestants and Catholics were involved in the abolitionist movement in the antebellum period.
Evidently, the consensus position back then was not to interpret the Bible as having an abolitionist trajectory.
It was the evangelical branch of the Christian church, along with Bible based Unitarians such as Charles Sumner, etc. that grounded abolitionism in Divine law. Here are some quotes from the book:
“The Roman Catholic and Protestant Episcopal churches never expressed an authoritative condemnation of slavery, and in the Union the influence of the Papal Church was emphatically favorable to the South, but other churches were opposed in principle to slavery, while they tolerated it in practice and tried hard to persuade themselves that slavery is right.”
“The extirpation of slavery has been made a part of the mission of Protestantism. It is among Evangelical Christians alone that the evils of slavery have arrested attention, and it is chiefly through their influence that its sway has been contested."
"The attitude of the Papal Church has been that of indifference or of impotency. The first place among the opponents of human slavery belongs to Great Britain, whose West-Indian colonies and naval supremacy compelled a recognition of responsibility in the matter; but the Christian spirit ruling in Protestant lands will allow none: of the nations which they shelter to rest until the last vestige of human slavery is wiped from the face of the earth.”
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 "The scholarly consensus can be traced back to the antebellum period."
Although slavery in the antebellum period was based off of the laws prescribed in the Torah, including laws about not beating a slave too much, that is not where the scholarly consensus can be traced to.
It can be traced backed to Ancient Near Eastern practices, the Hebrew from which the text originates, findings of archeology, and a study of the culture of ancient Israel.
@@whatwecalllife7034As far as I've read, arguments from the pro-slavery camp in the antebellum period relied upon their particular (twisted view in my opinion) of Old Testament laws and did not consider ANE practices. But at the end of the day I don't think it matters.
I suspect many of the Christian slave owners might have rationalized keeping their slaves out from the thought that they were better off working the plantations than going back in Africa.
If in the antebellum period slave owners heard "Bible teachers" say that back in Bible times it was normative for slaves to be brutally beaten and that raping slaves was ok also, than that would explain many of the horror stories that were shared by slaves who escaped.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 "I suspect many of the Christian slave owners might have rationalized keeping their slaves out from the thought that they were better off working the plantations than going back to Africa."
Ironically, that's something I often hear from apologists when they want to justify why the Hebrew people taking prisoners of war was a good thing.
Encouraging and informative video, Gavin. I appreciate the time and effort you spend producing these videos. God bless you and family.
While I enjoy hearing others’ perspectives, many of the skeptics’ comments in this video strike me as inverse versions of “what does this passage mean to you?”, reader-response Bible studies; helpful for learning about the reader but less helpful in understanding the text. Perspectives carry more weight when there is significant interaction with the secondary literature.
Gavin’s response prioritizes getting a handle on the data first then offering commentary second which I think is a fruitful approach.
Gavin you are a gem. I had heard great apologists like godlogic debunk slavery. But this video really went deeper and galvanised my thoughts on the subject. Thank you brother. In my atheist era i had listened to those youtubers and took on what they said to my shame. Keep up the good work.
Slavery helped to stop generational poverty? Well I'm sure it did for the slave owner.
He referred to the jubilee year, not slavery at such
It's clear you haven't read the passage, the "servants" were freed and sent with enough to rebuild their life after the end of their period in servitude, of course that would help end generational poverty, the person that on his own will decided to "sell" himself as a worker would then be able to build something of his own
@@BoxFunk Read the difference between Hebrew slaves and foreign slaves. The foreign slaves were bought and the master can keep this slave for life and they can be willed to someone after the master dies. The master can also keep the foreign slave's children for life. Imaging being a slave for life, since the master can choose to keep you for life. Maybe these verses are just from only men who have not been inspired or breathed on by any deity? This probably makes more sense.
I'd go further, Jesus said: my kingdom is not of this world. We don't see him or the apostles trying to impose a new political system, but making people new creatures in whatever position they are. it doesn't have to do with endorsing slavery or not.
Yet we will endorse or oppose less important things? I think we are being cowardly to not accept the reality that the culture the many books of the Bible was written in was content with the ownership of another person. Qhen we dehumanized and especially do so to justify the failings of a book...terrible tragedies happen.
So glad you've done this! Your first sentence - I agree correctly. Thanks!
I'm out here doing the work and Mindshift gets a shout out before I do. Bruh, that's cold. 😢 I defended Gavin in Trent's comments and Mindshift gets on both Trent & Gavin's channels. I need to reevaluate my life. [this is mildly sarcastic - but there is truth in humor].
Keep up the great work Gavin. I hope many more apologists start taking notes from your approach.
Thanks for the great video. Definitely find your videos very educational and helpful.
this is amazing, sound, and makes me appreciate the Bible so much more the way it is. I'm so thankful you put this out! God bless you
I was an atheist most of my life. I knew that war, slavery, genocide, inequality, the despoiling of the environment, ethnic and racial hatred, and a myriad other oppressions, were all the work of men.
Now that Christ has opened my eyes, I know the same, that a broken humanity has invented many horrific things.
I also know that this age of Man's wicked stewardship over the earth will not last forever and none of that evil will exist in the age to come.
"Amen. Come, Lord Jesus."
Thank you. It's so frustrating that people expect "Christianity" to just be this monolithic force that overrides the hearts and wills of men just because it puts forth ideals. The brokenness of Christians and all men are the exact reason we need Christ.
When men do genocides it's immoral. When God does it it must be moral because it's a "Devine command".
William Lane Craig recently peddled that bullshit and it's not fooling anyone. It makes you all sound like mindless unthinking sheep who will just say anything.
This argument becomes very weak if you actually know the full story of the Bible. We live in a fallen world and the atrocities of this world are inventions of humanity. There was no slavery in the Garden of Eden. Humans invented slavery and God not only doesn't condone it, but He doesn't condone anything of this world. That was actually the main message of Jesus. Do atheists really believe there isn't going to be death on the new Earth, but slavery will somehow still exist? No, they just clearly have no idea about the new Earth, because they don't actually know the full story of the Bible.
Amen!!
OK, no issue with your beliefs, but do you at least accept that there is no excuse for slavery in the bible? because this one was pretty lame
I love this breakdown. Would you ever consider making a visual diagram of the points made here especially in breaking down of the old testament into its proper categories with brief explanations? I think it would bless many people who are visual learners like myself, and would further drive and clarify your points through the confusion the already exists in our culture. God bless you and keep up the good work in the Lord!
Great video! Thank you Gavin!
Hey, Gavin. Thank you so much for your content! Its genuinely such a blessing and i thank God for you, brother. I'm just wondering if you have any book recommendations about how to reason & use logic?
Thanks! This is also my recent research interest.
Thank you brother! The body of Christ needed this. May you overflow with joy, knowing you will one day hear the words "well done My good and faithful servant" from the One who created us all equal... Whom we should ALL willingly serve
Get breakdown! Love that you brought biblical text and high level opinions on the matters.
I greatly appreciate that you chose the strongest arguments and took them head-on. This is how these discussions *should* be done. Offense is the best defense, and prayer, study, and epistemic/intellectual Christian honesty are the best offense.
"Christian honesty" is radically different than plain old every-day honesty.
This was incredibly helpful! Thank you.
11:24 to 12:02 - Summary of six points.
33:35 to 34:05 - Unprecedented practice in ANE legislation.
49:55 to 50:40 - The idea that the Bible endorses slavery.
50:41 to 51:27 - Contextualized laws
51:11 to 53:33 - Philemon case, radically counter-cultural.
54:18 to 54:47 - Tectonic tension.
1:01:15 to 1:03:10 - Gregory of Nyssa
1:03:57 to 1:04:55 - Abolitionism being a religious movement.
Great work fella. God bless you sir
Great discussion on the topic! Even though I like most of your videos, I was prepared to be skeptical of this one (I think just because I’ve seen it done poorly too many times), but I have to admit you did a really good job given the hour you kept yourself to.
Would you ever consider doing a follow up where you engage with the scholarship on the issue more deeply (especially opposing scholarship), or is that beyond your depth on this topic?
Good video. I'm glad you pointed this out
A practical video I'd love to see soon would be how to strategize theological study as a working class parent. It often feels like there isn't enough time in the day to make real headway in study. Any tips would be appreciated!
I'd suggest a chapter study with a commentary on a book your less familiar with. Most study books are too simple or are just out in left field, same with devotionals. Straight reading can be difficult to really meditate and dwell on without something to guide you.
I was having a comments discussion with an internet atheist very recently and he posted a prewittten tome about how Christianity allegedly condoned slavery. I had to tell him, "listen, I don't have time to respond to all the issues you raise here (some fair and some mischaracitures or misunderstanding), as it would require an hour to respond. I recommended that he look for a video such as this. I hope he finds it.
I'll tell if u think this is a good response that probably explains why u are christian
It wasn't too long at all! In fact I'd love a follow up addressing possible or actual objections to your points. The more detail for a topic like this, the better. It's a very serious objection to the Bible that keeps many people away from the faith.
Pastor Gavin thank you, that was enriching, and eye opening,🙏 your conclusion 👌 from the heart of God, Thank you for helping us uniting with the Truth and love❤️
Thank you so much for tackling this issue!
There’s a good deal of side-stepping, cherry-picking, presupposition straw-manning at the heart of this critique of, as an example, MindShift’s thinking. Gavin Ortlund should be submitting a wholly comprehensive presentation of the Biblical material he’s citing if he’s going to do this-tho I imagine he doesn’t do so because he rightly suspects it would come out as uselessly unconvincing. Have a look at Brandon’s (MindShift) response to see what I’m talking. Btw, I’m not any kind of representative of MindShift-Brandon doesn’t know me from Jesus.
This is amazing brother. God bless.
Looking forward to this! Dr. Ortlund, I have a question - are you willing & able to do a video handling accusations of animal cruelty/morality of the animal sacrificial system? I couldn't find one you had already done, apologies if I missed it. If not, do you have any resources you could recommend? Grateful for your contributions to the body, as always. Some friends and I are working through "Finding the Right Hills to Die On" right now and it has been helpful so far!
The Bible says "without the shedding of blood there is NO remission of sin." Yes, it seems extreme or sad today BUT GOD's holiness & God himself decides what payment is appropriate to pay-- it is BLOOD & A LIFE. If an animal hadn't died then it would be YOUR blood required to pay for YOUR sins. Aren't you glad JESUS gave His life & blood once for all, including you? Sin is severe & so is the payment to make a person righteous before God. Somebody or something had to die. We trust and thank Jesus that He gave Himself as a ransom for many. HALLELUJAH!
@@susanburrows810 Yes and amen! Just to be clear this is not something I personally struggle much with. I have a family member for whom this is one of their biggest obstacles in believing that the Bible is God's word.
@@susanburrows810Doesn't God forgive Nineveh in Jonah without sacrifice?
That's a good question. It does seem a bit weird to have animal sacrifices. I'm not a vegan. But still, I would have a tough time (though I love meat) to watch a lamb being killed!
It's interesting to read the Jewish perspective on this, as it;s also somewhat parallel to slavery. For example, I recently came across an observation from the Jewish philosopher Maimonides. He explains that the Torah’s main objective is to eradicate the viewpoint of paganism. "Thus, to truly understand the Torah’s original intent, one must be familiar with the philosophies and practices of ancient idolaters [...]"
Maimonides suggests that ritual sacrifices are a sub-optimal form of worship, leading him to making the bold statement that the Torah instituted its system of ritual sacrifices to facilitate the rejection of idolatrous practices.
Maimonides explains that human nature is that whatever people have accustomed themselves to doing becomes so ingrained in their nature that it cannot be easily uprooted. Man cannot successfully transition from one extreme to the other without some time to acclimate.
Crazy good video!
In his book Dominion, Tom Holland shows how human rights most defiantly came from the Christian world view. He shows Christianity from the start until recent times "warts and all", changed the world.
Even if Christianity started human rights, they sure threw it out the window. Aside from the Bible saying non-believers are filthy rags, infidels deserving of eternal damnation, humans are born in sin, any actually humane teachings in the Bible are promptly ignored by his supporters. Christians are by large the ones voting against helping refugees, feeding the poor, providing healthcare, for the right to discriminate against people for their sexuality, beating your children, etc etc etc.
There have been innumerable cultures with better morals than Christianity espouses.
This is a brilliant response to a very important and common critique of the Bible these days
Thank you, Gavin.
I so appreciate your thoughtfulness.
Hey Gavin, thanks for the video. A lot of good stuff. Thanks for addressing 44-45, but would you be willing to do a video on Leviticus 25:46? I didn’t see you address it. This verse seems to state that foreign slaves would be their “property” (chattel) and their children’s for life. I will be reading some of the resources you mentioned in the video!
Thanks for all you do!
I cover it on my channel (playlist on slaves servants and Biblical Law) and you will see the beauty of that law
He addresses part of it. Not the full verse, not the full context, I'll let you decide why he chose to do that.
@@toughbiblepassages9082 ah yes the beauty of chattel slavery, I don't have the words and YT would definitely censor how little I think of you if I tried to put it into words. Just trash.
@@toughbiblepassages9082
You think there's beauty in chattel slavery?
@@avishevin3353 The Law in Leviticus 25 is merciful AND just, and it articulates how the law runs even today in the USA before even the USA could figure it out.
Very clearly spoken. Thank you! Subbed
Glad someone else is discussing mindshift
This was so helpful! Thank you. I have an old friend who has popped back up at my church who is taking the common critiques of the Bible as condoning slavery and blessing it and instead of arguing against them, he's embracing them as a part of God's good design for creation. That had not been something I had not thought about before, outside of to critique MacArther's position or Wilson's position. My friend is much much farther down that path than they are. We're talking Curse of Ham, but not even how it's been traditionally used, it's got a modern, genetic twist to it that's really disgusting. Think Curse of Ham plus Neo-Nazi eugenics, wedded to the western white man, not just the Germans. I had wrestled with how the Bible could not condemn slavery outright, but it's been a long time since that wrestling, and this is an entirely different type (and level) of question. I needed to brush up on what the Bible is understood as saying by scholars, to say the least lol. What you brought up regarding the way the language is used in some of the OT passages was especially helpful and relevant. Thank you!
Buying a slave is not the same as kidnapping. There are many historians who will say the Biblical slavery is as bad as any other slavery. Kipp Davis, Josh Bowden, Fransesca Stravrakopoulou, Joel Baden.
I think that is debatable for sure. I noticed that one of the speakers on your list attended the University of Tübingen.
I'm not sure if the University faculty at Tübingen shared his viewpoint on slavery. However, it is interesting to reflect upon how the University of Tübingen was once at the forefront of legitimizing Nazi beliefs and programs.
For the theology department to argue that Jews had an early practice of taking slaves and treating them brutally would have easily served to embolden the Nazi followers to reciprocate - e.g. take them as prisoners of war in forced labor at concentration camps.
On the basis of legal positivism it's impossible for one legal system to judge another legal system. The Nazis argued at Nuremberg, among other things, that they therefore did not deserve to be judged by the allied victors.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 No historian I can find disagrees with this, the Bible strongly endorses slavery and is never discouraged. Kipp Davis and Josh Bowden have some videos on it, Bowden debated Cliffe Knechtle here - th-cam.com/video/Y64S4oGQVoo/w-d-xo.html
, Kipp does a short re-cap here:
th-cam.com/video/fpvF_UhsDhI/w-d-xo.html
Mind Shift answers all of the points raised here in this video:
th-cam.com/video/4QXLOfWA-rI/w-d-xo.html
@@joelrivardguitarI don’t care what the critics of Christianity, who claim to be historians, say. It are the facts that matter.
It makes for really bad theology in Christianity to defend a position that the New Testament is morally neutral or even approves of slavery.
The Apostle Paul consistently undermines slavery. Here are a few examples:
"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." -Gal 3:28 (NIV)
"If you can gain your freedom, do so ... do not become slaves of human beings." -1 Cor 7:21-23
"The law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful . .. for slave traders ... and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine." - 1 Tim 1:9-10
Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy supersedes what was once, in a culturally conditioned compromise manner, allowed for in Leviticus 25:44-46.
The book of James has some pretty strong words for those who oppress their workers with unjust wages. Indentured servants is likely what he had in mind:
“Hear the cries of the field workers whom you have cheated of their pay. The cries of those who harvest your fields have reached the ears of the LORD of Heaven’s Armies.” (James 5:4)
The early Christians worked hard towards eliminating debt bondage slavery by gradual emancipation. A case in point is Chrysostom who wrote to slave owners: “after you have taught them some skill…set them free.” (Homily 40 on 1 Cor.).
The institution of slavery in the antebellum period involved a systemic form of injustice.
Read the (free online) book by the Biblical abolitionist Albert Barne’s “An Inquiry Into the Scriptural Views of Slavery.” (1846) It’s a real eye opener!
Those living in the antebellum period should have worked towards setting slaves free in a responsible manner through education, job training & initial financial support.
That is why targeted strategic reparations in the area of education, entrepreneurship, etc. still need to take place, as systemic poverty in the inner cities of the United States is often directly connected to the plight of the descendants of injured African slaves.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 "I don’t care what the critics of Christianity, who claim to be historians, say."
Claim to be historians? You can look up their credentials and when they graduated. You know, the thing we can't do with your bible.
@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 When you look at slavery in ancient Rome, the NT was most certainly neutral on the topic.
Thanks for sharing Peter Williams’ lecture; very informative. I saved it to a playlist for future reference.
Gavin Ortlund claimed that in Exodus 21:21 the master only goes unpunished as far as not getting the death penalty but is punished by other means? That's not what the text or the New English Translation notes seem to suggest at all:
Exodus 21:21 tn This last clause is a free paraphrase of the Hebrew, “for he is his money” (so KJV, ASV); NASB “his property.” It seems that if the slave survives a couple of days, it is probable that the master was punishing him and not intending to kill him. If he then dies, there is no penalty other than that the owner loses the slave who is his property-he suffers the loss.
see verses 26-27.
@@TruthUnites Isn't that merely compensation rather than punishment? For instance today for assaulting someone one would have to both pay the victim compensation and also be punished through incarceration.
@@tomasrocha6139 Eastern Orthodox ended slavery 1000 yrs ago, WITHOUT banning it. The Eastern Orthodox Christian Roman Empire, with its capital in Constantinople (falsely named Byzantine Empire ), ended slavery 1000 yrs ago, via FREE WILL. While people groups, informed by other, denominations, world views, or other religions, doubled down on it. About 800 or so yrs later, via threat of violence, bloody civil wars, and political conflict, …slavery was banned, by FORCE. To this day, the west, still couldn’t put an end to slavery via FREE WILL, driven by TRUE Christian morality, like the Eastern Orthodox Christian, Roman Empire, led by Constantinople, achieved. Significantly, WITHOUT the need to ban slavery….of which I believe was done by design, so that the idea could spread, without the need to have backing by laws informed, by other nations, and other world views.
......”Slavery became common within much of Europe during the Dark Ages and it continued into the Middle Ages. The Byzantine-Ottoman wars (1265-1479) and the Ottoman wars in Europe (14th to 20th centuries) resulted in the capture of large numbers of Christian slaves. The Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, British, Arabs and a number of West African kingdoms played a prominent role in the Atlantic slave trade, especially after 1600.
In the Eastern part of the one and only Roman (wrongly coined Byzantine) Empire, slaves became quite rare by the first half of the 7th century[1] A shift in the view of slavery is noticed, which by the 10th century transformed gradually a slave-object into a slave-subject.[2] From 11th century, semi-feudal relations largely replaced slavery, seen as "an evil contrary to nature, created by man's selfishness", although slavery was permitted by the law.”…ωικιρεδια
@@TruthUnites
As you stressed repeatedly it is easy to misread the passages, which you have done. In ancient slave culture it is expected that an owner may need to beat their slave. How else do you get a defiant slave to work? The slave is the owners money and the owner can absolutely, without penalty, beat up their slave as much as needed to make them compliant, with one exception: permanent damage. Teeth, Sight, Hearing, Life, are not only important for the slave to be a more effective worker, but it is expected that they may one day be free or purchased by another owner, or passed down as inheritable property.
Thus basic protections for slaves makes sense, and is not an effective defense of this otherwise unjust law.
As an atheist I would say Gavin is one of my favourite apologists. He dives deeply into tough subjects and always looks to steel man arguments before addressing them. A lot of TH-cam apologists could learn a lot from these videos.
Too many other apologists latch on to indentured servitude and use that as an excuse to avoid talking about slavery. No one denies indentured servitude occurred, but that was at well as chattel slavery and not instead of. It is also annoying to hear indentured servitude described as rainbows and happiness, while such slaves were more likely sent to work in mines, quarries or rowing ships, while the women likely ended up as prostitutes. Apologists never mention that indentured servitude is categorised as a type of slavery and is banned throughout the western world and by the UN.
This video is over an hour, and not one word about Lev 25:46. I’ll quote it for you:
“You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever.”
I’d like to think you are trying to make an honest argument, but it is hard to take you seriously when you skip the hardest verse to reconcile . At 31:50 you said you’d address this passage but you never did
I addressed Leviticus 25 starting at 38:45. You are correct that I didn't single out verse 46 but the comments I made about the entire passage apply to that verse as well.
@@TruthUnitesVery well, then can you please single out verse 46 and explain why God can allow foreigners to be owned as slaves for life, and allowing their children to be born into slavery for life?
@@festeringboils3205
He tried to downplay it by repeating what Paul Copan does, that language of “ownership” today is vague therefor language of ownership in the ancient east was vague. However this language is very clear.
Then he misuses the Leviticus’ passage telling Israelites to treat foreign sojourners with respect by applying it to foreign slaves, but it clearly doesn’t apply. Look up what is being referred to in the text as a sojourner: free men and women.
He also misuses the passages against man stealing/kidnapping to try and argue against the practice of taking slaves, but it doesn’t. It is exclusively against theft of a person, regardless of what the thief intended to do with them. However purchasing (not theft) slaves from foreign nations and daughters from your neighbors was clearly and completely okay.
@@TinesthiaIf they purchased someone who was kidnapped into slavery, they were still guilty of man-stealing.
Saying that Christianity is a force against slavery seems to me like a gross distortion of the truth. A claim that US slavery was abolished due to Christians completely discounts that there were Christians on both sides and the side against slavery didn't primarily use the bible to defend their position but those who were for slavery did use the bible to defend their position. The first known ban against slavery was from the Persian king Kyros II in 500 BC, so calling it a Christian idea just isn't correct.
There are different ways to read the Bible. I think it's completely valid to excoriate anyone who reads the Bible as the literal word of God for it's position on slavery. Most Christians I encounter have a more interpretive view of the Bible and then it's more nuanced. Clearly it's still a problem if the creator of the universe doesn't understand morality in a way that modern humans find palatable but at least you have an opening to explain how you read the book and to explain why I should listen to your version of Christianity.
Thank you for this well-reasoned, balanced response to atheist/agnostic challenges to Christianity on the topic of slavery. It was good to watch.
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 such practices 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 slavery, is because it doesn't make a distinction between the modern prison-system, and between slavery as such, so the biblical slavery is basically a method of dealing with the criminals, and have nothing to do with chattel slavery.
"Slavery" as the english translation says, was an act of mercy in the OT. Telling the israelites to take POWs and criminals and offer them a second chance to live is BEYOND merciful, even today
@cygnusustus This hippy mentality of letting people go unpunished is immoral and terrible. Think for one moment, if you were captured by an enemy military in ancient times, would you rather A, be slaughtered, or B, made a servant that in time, would be given a home, food and clothing? I'd assume 99% of people would pick B. If that is "stomach churning" to you, you don't get out much
So you admit the Bible was addressed to an audience of unmitigated bigots?
@avishevin3353 Bro just called 3,000 year old middle Eastern tribes "bigots". The modern westerner is outrageously dumb
@@johnxina-uk8inthey are by definition bigots whether u like it or not. Bigotry is born out of ignorance and they all in their ignorance participate and promoted bigotry
It always infuriates me how confidently wrong y'all are when it comes to this issue.
I'm very interested in this video, because this is something that has been bothering ne and most Christian arguments i ahve heard aren't that good or convincing honestly. So im hoping you can give a more satisfying answer that i can wrestle with.
Brother please consider watching my playlist on slavery (im still uploading videos). It will show the beauty of Gods laws, even in slavery. Deuteronomy teaches that the Law of God will be seen by heathens to be wise and good.. if Christians have failed to show the merits of the law in and of itself, it’s because christians have dropped the ball. I attempt on my channel to pick that ball up again.
😬 YIKES!@@toughbiblepassages9082
Towards the end of the video they’re saying that the Bible/its writers couldn’t outright abolish slavery because society wouldn’t stop having slaves anyway/society would collapse/etc.
However, to me it seems that the Bible has a precedent of saying “though shall not do (something)”, despite people still doing it anyway. And just because people were going to do it anyway was not a valid reason to not say something.
Like murder, for example, to me seems like an analog in this situation. It seems one could replace “murder” for “slavery” in some of these arguments, and it would become clear that the argument doesnt actually sound too good to say out loud. Ancient societies would probably also “collapse” without murder (wars), but yet there’s still a command to not murder- which is there despite the hypothetical risk to a society not being permitted to kill. This seems similar to the hypothetical risk to society that’s being brought up here.
I think it would have been better for the Bible to say “thou shall not keep slaves” even though people would still do it anyway/it would screw up society somehow - at least then the Bible could get the “moral credit” by saying that outright, as it does say outright about many other types of sins.
And some people would have followed that commandment about slavery, thereby at least reducing the amount of slavery and reducing future ramifications
I’ll also add that some might argue that “you need wars/murder because if you weren’t permitted to do that at all you’d just get taken over by other groups”.
Even in that case, a sin “necessary” for societal function like murder is outlawed plainly by the Bible, despite the potential ramifications to a group not being able to kill their assailants.
But we see multiple instances in the Bible where lesser powers, or peaceful powers, triumph over their assailants due to God’s intervention.
So for the video to make points like “a slave rebellion would just be crushed, they’d all be killed” is forgetting that God could help these slave groups miraculously, as he did for those who were faithful to his commands in the past.
Exactly. There is no precedent of God holding back from telling his people what is right and wrong. Apologists are special pleading by saying with slavery it's the one topic where for some reason he needed to be super bashful about it, even to the point he instructs them on how to handle slaves without mentioning that the whole concept is deeply immoral.
@BeccaYoley no, not just slavery, even murder (war, of course, being different from murder, less every President ever go to jail). The entire concept of individual rights wasn't even introduced in society, and yes slavery was much more necessary for survival. That's why society didn't look upon it with the malicious intent we do today, when we have technology, chemicals and scientific progress to make slavery unnecessary. Even still, some societies still justify it today.
Regardless, the concept may be immoral to you, in today's society, but it isn't inherently. Slavery is just a means, you would have to say what specifically about an aspect of slavery is immoral. Slavery, of course, not meaning the same thing over the course of 4000 years
@@MrGgabber Taking away another person's autonomy over their own body and life is even worse than stealing their property. A God would have understood this. But from the Bible, we get over and over no indication that anything supernatural was required to have inspired it
That seems like a recipe for the genocide that critics of the Bible condemn so much (at least when undertaken by the Hebrews) if all of the other surrounding nations had no prohibitions against enslavement. Furthermore, if Israel were prohibited from enslavement altogether, that would mean that after they won a battle against an enemy nation, they'd be required to leave behind civilians who would be stateless and homeless and thus open to severe exploitation or worse by anyone who came along. Also that would allow the male survivors to plan and organize for vengeful retaliation. Or they'd just have to slaughter all survivors as a practice.
Very well done!
As an Atheist I have noticed that every single solution god comes up with involves violence, coercion, slavery, genocide, mass-murder and oppression - or some other evil or morally wrong act. If the basis of Craig's morality is "If god does it, it must be moral", then how would one actually be able to recognize that they may be worshiping an evil god? I truly think learning about the Old Testament did more to de-convert me from Christianity than anything. The WHOLE thing is horrible from start to finish. To god every problem is a nail, and he has the biggest hammer of them all.
Then we come to the Jesus story. Christians call this the "Greatest love of all". Which is a story about forcing a woman to give birth to someone who's entire purpose is to be a human sacrifice, to fix a problem that god created in the first place because HE used an immoral rigged test on Adam and Eve.
As an intellectual I'm forced to consider only two options are possible: There is no god. Or if there is a god and this is the true-god, he's actually an evil god that nobody should worship.
God is good. We know that because Jesus said, “he who has seen me, has seen the father.” The cross was a team effort of the Triune God. The “Christus Victor” view of the atonement is the best way to look at what Jesus did. By the way, Mary was in on the plan as well, as she said, “let it be, according to your will.”
No matter how mitigated by viewing things as a whole in Scripture, and rightfully so, slavery statutes in the law of Moses will always seem repulsive and barbaric in light of the New Testament’s teaching of grace and truth.
That's because those who follow Jesus see things from a much higher vantage point, being under grace.
God is good. But to allow free will, in the goodness of God, consequences (fallout) of sin still remain. This explains the evil in the world. God punishes sin with sin by allowing nature to run its course without interference.
The law in Old Testament times was as perfect as God could make it without removing the autonomy needed for individual conscience and judgment, compassion and mercy.
In the Old Testament, the law was a lamp and a light. For the most part, it was adapted to the hardness of people’s hearts in what the people could bear at the time. Yet compared to Christ's grace and truth, it was mere darkness and shadows (Heb. 10:1, 1 John 2:8).
In the new trajectory of egalitarianism that Paul preached, “there is neither bond nor free.” (Gal 3:28) The apostle writes: “…if you can gain your freedom, do so ... do not become slaves of human beings." -1 Cor. 7:21-23
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111
what about verse 24? Why didn't you mention that when citing 1 Corinthians?
The idea that 'God is good because he says he is good', is a very naive thing to accept, to say the least.
First, where makes something evil or morally wrong?
Second, Mary willingly submitted to God's plan of bringing a savior into the world through her.
Thirdly, God gave Adam and Eve a choice, because without a choice, how could meaningful relationships exist? Relationships are meaningful not because they are not forced, but because they are by choice.
@@loganmanderfield1162
first - not a coherent sentence.
second - you don't know that, and she didn't have a choice.
third - 'obey me or die' is not really much of a choice.
@@loganmanderfield1162 A choice where you cannot understand the ramifications of, isn't an actual choice. The Bible says Adam and Eve were like children with zero concept of right, wrong, consequences, penalties etc etc. They were like empty vessels, and god didn't educate them on anything. Eve could NOT HAVE understood she was even make a "choice" between good or evil. What is good? What is evil? She didn't know.
It was a BLIND obedience test. A trap, a trick. That he KNEW man would fail. So what was even the point?
The Adam and Eve story is basically child abuse. So despite your horribly bad apologetic, doesn't refute my claim.
I find it amazing that you cannot answer my question and find a SINGLE case in the Bible where god didn't use some form of death, torture, slavery, or abuse to get his desired result. Where is all this "love" you people talk about?
Great video. Thank you