Hi David, Thanks for putting this video together. I loved your summing up at the end, especially the phrase "The God Who Became a Slave" and I thought that would make a great sermon title, based on Philippians 2:7. My short answer to the statement: "The Bible promotes Slavery" is "No, the Bible doesn't promote slavery, but it does promote service". This is made most clear by Jesus who said "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28, NIV) and taught his disciples “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave- (Matthew 20:25-27, NIV).
@SalemK-ty4ti
3 жыл бұрын
What does the bible actually says about slavery -Leviticus 25: 44-45 (NIV) "Your male & female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you & members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property & can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." Also, Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV) "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." Please don't confuse these passages with the different rules for male Hebrew slave in Exodus 21:2 "When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing." The Hebrew males did this sometimes to pay off their debt and only Hebrew male slaves(or servants) did this voluntary & temporary, but all other slaves were property for life. I also understand the bible states in later passages that if the slave owner knocks out an eyeball or knocks out a tooth, the slave is to go free(Exodus 21:26-27), but the bible does allow the master to beat his slaves (well that is as long as you don't knock a tooth or eyeball out & they live for a day or two). I also know the bible says " you are not to kidnap & sell a man, but it does allow you to buy a man. Slavery (as defined in Leviticus 25:44-45) was & is always wrong, no matter if it was in ancient biblical times or the African slave trade, the owning of another human being is immoral. This is not just my opinion, but also that of the united nations & that slavery is outlawed in most countries today.
@drcdeane
3 жыл бұрын
Hi Salem, thanks for taking the time to respond. If I may clarify: I believe I stated that under Mosaic Law there are regulations for both Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves. Everyone I've read admits the Hebrew was not chattel, but as the Jubilee applied equally to both Hebrew and non-Hebrew, I would argue that the service is the possession, not the body, and even for the non-Hebrew, different as 'the rules' may be, this is not chattel in the modern sense. Either way, the question is 'Does the Bible condone slavery?' My final point, 'Canonical Considerations', was that the entire edifice of the law was reflective of the fact that these kinds of regulations were not 'the way its supposed to be' and so, no, within a redemptive historical context, the Bible does not condone slavery. Descriptive is not prescriptive; narrative is not normative.
@SalemK-ty4ti
3 жыл бұрын
@@drcdeane Hi David, I am glad to see you understand that the Mosaic laws treated different people differently. This in and of itself is terrible. It is like parents playing favorites with their children. The non-Hebrew slaves where chattel, bought from the nations around you, being your property, making slaves for life, you can will to your children(see Leviticus 25:44-45. The Jubilee only happened once every 50 years in a time when the life expectancy was less than 40 years. That can only mean that some people where slaves for life. My final point is no where in the bible does it say "You shall not own slaves" or "Slave owners must free your slaves" for if it did than you could say the bible doesn't condone slavery, but it doesn't. I am sorry, but the bible is very clear that it condones slavery. Sorry, one more thing. The bible does provide a loophole for the owner of a Hebrew slave to trick a the slave into becoming his property for life. Exodus 21:2-6 "if you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
@drcdeane
3 жыл бұрын
@@SalemK-ty4ti, thanks again for a critical and cordial comment. A few points: (1) would anyone disagree that the Mosaic Law drew a distinction between Hebrew and non-Hebrew (Jew and Gentile)? I'm not sure the significance there, other than perhaps what you seem to infer from that, namely (2) that this is like parents playing favourites. I think that is a very difficult position, if not an impossible one, to argue - Israel was slammed time and again for their apostasy. (3) I do not agree that non-Hebrew slaves were chattel slaves. The strongest argument for that claim is an isolated reading of Lev 25:44-46. Time and again Israel is called to care for the foreigner among them (Exod 22:1; 23:9; Deut 10:19; 23:7; Lev 19:33; Zech 7:10; Jer 7:6, etc.) - that alone smacks against chattelism and in terms of textual attestation, far outweighs whatever perplexities Lev 25:44-46 might raise. All of that is only the beginning of the argument; more can be said about the extension of Jubilee to the non-Hebrew (Lev 25:10-55), the actual terms of servitude within the slave-master relation, and so on. (4) Your final point is taken, but it is a double edged sword with the strength of the corollary: the Bible doesn't say "it is good to own slaves" therefore it doesn't condone slaves. This argument is not won or lost on this point, hence why we need to look elsewhere to tease out *why* the Bible talks the way it does about slaves. And this, to my mind, is why the third and final point of the above video is so critical - though for some reason overlooked in your considered response. My teasing out of the distinction between slavery in the Bible and modern chattel slavery should not be taken as downplaying the moral significance of slave-master relations in ancient times - just the opposite. The centrality of my third point, Canonical Considerations, is that the entire law background against which we read these uncomfortable passages, is, from redemptive history, indicative of the fact that there is something wrong with this world. The law does not explocitly 'condone' slavery, but slavery was hampered and hedged by the laws restrictive statues to the eventual abolishment altogether in Jesus - 'The Slave' - who reminds us of the dignity we have in being like God and in knowing Him in perfect union.
@SalemK-ty4ti
3 жыл бұрын
@@drcdeane Thank you for your reply. I went over the verses in your previous reply in defense of the bible on slavery. I believe 2 where mistakes (Exod 22:1 talked about cattle & Jer 7:6 is the Lord calling for a siege on Jerusalem) and the others sent a message that aliens in your land should be treated with kindness, at least that is how I took it(they didn't say anything at all about slavery). Your other point was the bible does not say it is good to own slaves, it also doesn't say it was bad to own slaves either. So that doesn't help your argument. What the bible is actually saying is it is OK to own slaves. Lev25:44-46 is the bible giving you instruction / rules on owning slaves "from the nations around you, they become your property, you can will to your children, make them slaves for life, but not to your fellow Israelites will you rule over ruthlessly" & Exodus 21:20-21 "you can beat your slaves with a rod for they are your property"(please see 1st comment for full point on this). Clearly the bible does not condemn slavery here. So if the bible is OK with people owning other human beings as slaves, the bible is condoning slavery.
@drcdeane
3 жыл бұрын
Hi @@SalemK-ty4ti - thanks for pointing out those two mistaken verses, not sure how they got in there! I appreciate your comment, as I think it perceptively 'gets to the heart' of the matter. Permit me to elaborate: I do not dispute that Israel had slaves, both Hebrew and non-Hebrew, and that specifically the non-Hebrew were treated differently to the Hebrew. It's right there in the text. But to my mind, this is to be expected given Mosaic Law was a part of the Mosaic Covenant cut with Israel, and Israel alone. Now, if I may take your point and put it as a question: is "the bible.. OK with people owning other human beings as slaves"? If we render "OK" here to be 'OK - no worries' then yes, I'd agree with you: the Bible condones slavery. But if we render "OK" to be 'OK - but not ideal' then no, I disagree with you. The latter is how I would take "OK" given my understanding of 'condone', as a verb, which I think is stronger as though referring to a position one takes where the 'wrongness' of something is not taken seriously enough to act upon it. This is a question of moral justification about how to take the "OK" (so to speak...). Objections to slavery are raised upon moral grounds, but what or where is the moral ground here? Our 21st century, with all of the thousands of years of social reform and experience of modern chattelism? I dismiss the tenability of that oft-held view. A complete analysis would run the question through other law systems of other ANE nations for comparative purposes, but in the end, I believe, the question bottoms out in the contours of the New Covenant which speak retrospective meaning to the larger purpose of the law in which problematic texts like Lev. 25:44-46 are found. Hence, my aversion in taking "OK" as 'OK - no worries' such that we can conclude: "the bible is condoning slavery". From a New Covenant perspective, I don't see how the Bible as a canon is saying that. As I mentioned in the clip, Jesus Himself - in speaking on a comparative issue concerning the regulatory statues of the law - said: "Moses *permitted* you... but from the beginning it has not been this way." (Matt. 19:8). In the context of Matt 19, it seems that the "permitted" here is not strong enough to be synonymous with condoning, or an 'OK - no worries' view. This isn't 'just semantics' - Jesus died on a cross and rose again leaving an empty tomb behind. He acted! So slavery happened. It happened differently for Hebrew and non-Hebrew alike for a time. That time is not this time. Now we are under grace.
Пікірлер: 10