Did Biblical Laws Ban Chattel Slavery?  🔗 **Source:** [Did Biblical Laws Ban Chattel Slavery?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-p4AyCSeKM) > [!note]+ Document Notes > --- > tags: [biblical-studies, hebrew-bible, slavery-in-antiquity, biblical-interpretation, apologetics-critique] > author: Dan McClellan > source: YouTube — Dan McClellan > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-p4AyCSeKM > date created: 2026-09-01 12:40 > --- > > [!info] Generated analysis — not the author's words. Sections below are machine-written > > from the captured source. Only text inside `> [!quote]` blocks is verbatim from the author. > > Do not quote or attribute any other line to the named author. > > [!warning] Transcript is auto-captioned and materially corrupted > > The captured transcript mangles technical vocabulary throughout: **"chattel" appears variously as > > "chatt," "shadow," and "cattle"**; "paterfamilias" as "potter familas"; "Pentateuch" as "penetuk"; > > the author's own name as "Dan Mlelen." Any `> [!quote]` block below is therefore a *reconstruction* > > of what was said, not a reliable verbatim record. **Do not lift quotations from this note into > > published writing without checking them against the video.** > # 🏷️ Title: Did biblical laws ban chattel slavery? > ## 🧭 Table of Contents > - [📝 Summary](#-summary) > - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) > - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) > - [📚 References](#-references) > - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) > - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) > - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) > - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) > - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) > - [❓ Questions](#-questions) > - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) > - [💡 Implications](#-implications) > - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) > - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) > - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) > - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) > - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) > - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) > ### 🔗 References > - Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-p4AyCSeKM (23:44, published 2026-09-01, Dan McClellan) > - Primary texts discussed: Exodus 20:22–26; 21:1–32; Leviticus 25:39–46; Deuteronomy 15:12–17; 23:15–16; 24:7 > ## 📝 Summary > **What this is.** Dan McClellan, a scholar of Bible and religion, responds to an X/Twitter interlocutor ("the history guy") who claimed that biblical laws against kidnapping and against returning runaway slaves effectively banned forced slavery — and that Leviticus 25:44–46 describes voluntary work contracts, where "slave" means servant, "buy" means hire, and "property" is something like a sports contract. > **The verdict.** McClellan rejects all of it and does the philological work to show why. His argument runs on three legs: Leviticus 25 explicitly *contrasts* the treatment of Israelite debt-slaves with foreign chattel slaves; the Hebrew word *ish* in the Covenant Code is a term of art for an adult male Israelite rather than "any person"; and Deuteronomy 23:15–16 concerns foreign slaves fleeing *into* Israel, not slaves escaping within it. > **The strongest single move.** The goring-ox law at Exodus 21:28–32 is his internal control. It walks through victims by social status — a man or woman, a son or daughter, a male or female slave — assigning different penalties to each, with 30 shekels paid *to the slave's owner* for a slave. That itemization pattern is what demonstrates *ish* is not a catch-all: when the Covenant Code means someone other than an adult male Israelite, it says so. > **The economic argument.** On Deuteronomy 23, McClellan argues from system coherence rather than philology alone. If the runaway law applied to slaves escaping within Israel, any enslaved person could walk next door and be free — which "would entirely nuke the slave economy." A legal corpus that regulates who may sell whom to whom in elaborate detail would not contain a single clause voiding the whole institution. The law instead addresses foreign slaves arriving from outside, and functions partly as a jab at neighbouring nations. > **The conclusion, stated without hedging.** "The Bible endorses enslavement from beginning to end. There's no syllable of the Bible that in any way, shape, or form whatsoever questions, condemns, or prohibits that practice." > **Bottom line.** Methodologically strong and, on the text, largely persuasive. The weakness is not the scholarship but the register: sustained contempt for the interlocutor, unfalsifiable speculation about his motives, and repeated appeals to "scholars overwhelmingly agree" with no scholar named — in a video with **zero citations** (verified: the document contains no links at all). > ## 📖 Main Content > **The claim under dispute.** The interlocutor's position, quoted in the video, is that laws against kidnapping and against returning runaways together banned forced slavery; that Leviticus 25:44–46 describes voluntary work contracts; that "slave" merely means servant and "buy" means hire; that "property" is analogous to a sports contract; that "forever" applies only if the worker chooses it; and that workers could leave if mistreated. > **Leg one — Leviticus 25 draws the contrast itself.** Verses 39–43 govern Israelites who fall into debt slavery: they are not to be made to serve as slaves, they remain as hired or bound labourers, they go free at the Jubilee and return to their ancestral property, they "shall not be sold as slaves are sold," and they are not to be ruled over with harshness. Then verse 44 pivots. Male and female slaves may be acquired from surrounding nations and from resident aliens; "they may be your property"; they may be kept "as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property"; and "these you may treat as slaves." McClellan's point is that the passage's whole rhetorical structure is a *contrast* — the humane terms are specified precisely because they do not apply to the second group. Reading "property" as a sports contract requires ignoring the antithesis the text is built on. > **Leg two — who the Covenant Code is addressing.** McClellan backs up to Exodus 20:22–26 to establish the grammatical person. God addresses the Israelites in second person masculine plural, then shifts to masculine singular — a collective singular standing for any individual Israelite. By Exodus 21:1 the ordinances are what Moses is to set before "them," the Israelites. The Covenant Code's second-person singular addressee is therefore an adult male Israelite head of household, and the situations legislated are situations such a man encounters. > This grounds the philological claim: *ish* throughout the Covenant Code is a term of art for an adult male Israelite, not a generic "any man." When Exodus 21:12 says whoever strikes an *ish* mortally shall be put to death, it is not covering everyone — as the surrounding verses show. Exodus 21:20–21 provides that an owner who beats a slave to death is punished, but that if the slave survives a day or two there is no punishment at all, "for the slave is the owner's property." > **Leg three — the itemization pattern.** The goring-ox law is the internal proof. A man or woman gored to death: the ox is stoned, with the owner liable to death or ransom if previously warned. A son or daughter: the same rule. A male or female slave: the owner pays **30 shekels of silver to the slave's owner**, and the ox is stoned. The Code catalogues social status and varies the penalty accordingly. If *ish* already meant everyone, this enumeration would be unnecessary. > **Kidnapping.** Exodus 21:16 prescribes death for kidnapping. McClellan reads it as parallel to Deuteronomy 24:7, which specifies kidnapping "another Israelite" — the Covenant Code being notoriously terse and idiosyncratic in its terminology. And even granting the widest reading, banning kidnapping would not ban slavery, because kidnapping was not the principal supply mechanism. The Code itself supplies two others: breeding (Exodus 21:4 — a wife given by the master, and her children, remain the master's when the debt-slave goes free) and purchase from foreign nations (Leviticus 25:44–46). > **Deuteronomy 23:15–16.** McClellan grants this law is genuinely unique in the ancient West Asian corpus — no other legal collection forbids returning a runaway. But the "you" is collective Israel, not an individual master: the escapee may reside "in Did biblical laws against kidnapping and against the return of runaway slaves effectively ban forced slavery? Hey everybody, I'm Dan Mlelen. I'm a scholar of the Bible and religion. And yesterday on Twitter, somebody who goes by the history guy wanted the smoke and posted this. Laws against kidnapping/reing runaways ban forced slavery. Leviticus 25:44-46 means voluntary work contracts. Slave just means servant. by means hire. Property is like a sports contract and forever only happens if the worker chooses it. They can still leave if mistreated. And obviously this is wildly ignorant. And I pointed out as much when I said here this is laughably untrue and profoundly ignorant. Laws against kidnapping banned kidnapping Israelite citizens. Laws against returning runaway slaves were about foreign slaves from foreign lands. is Leviticus 25:44-46 absolutely does not refer to voluntary work contracts. Now in following that person is going to engage the first couple of points that I made but is not going to engage my point about Leviticus 25. So I just want to share a few verses from Leviticus 25 to demonstrate my point because in Leviticus 25 we have commentary about how to treat nativeborn Israelites who fall into debt slavery and contrasts that treatment with how you are allowed to treat foreign chatt and slave people. So here are verses 39-46 from the NRSVU. If any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that they sell themselves to you, you shall not make them serve as slaves. And by the way, in the Hebrew it says your brethren, your brothers. So it's very clearly talking about Israelites. They shall remain with you as hired or bound laborers. They shall serve with you until the year of the Jubilee. Then they and their children with them shall go out from your authority. They shall go back to their own family and return to their ancestral property. For they are my servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt. They shall not be sold as slaves are sold. You shall not rule over them with harshness, but shall fear your God. So that is how you are supposed to treat debt enslaved Israelites as if they were hired workers. And then we're going to have a pivot in verse 44. As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you, who have been born in your land. They may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness. This passage could not be very much more clear that it is distinguishing treating fellow Israelites who fall into debt slavery with kindness versus enslaving and treating as property foreign chatts folks. The notion that these passages are telling you that you should treat them as property in the sense that you have a sports contract and in the sense that these are like hired workers is absolutely precluded by the contrast of the treatment of the foreign shadow enslaved folks against the treatment of the nativeborn Israelite debt enslaved folks. So the notion that this is not about forced enslavement of people who are chatt slave folks is absolutely laughable. But let's move on to how the history guy responds to my other points. Exodus 21:16 bans kidnapping anyone, not just Israelites. Deuteronomy 23:15-16 protects any runaway person without limiting it to foreigners. This isn't scholarship, but Copenhagen school anti-biblical activism at its finest folks. And then I responded, "Nope. The Covenant Code uses each as a reference to male Israelites. When a law applies to others, they're itemized. Compare Exodus 21:28-32. Deuteronomy 24:7 is directly parallel." Scholars overwhelmingly agree Deuteronomy 23:15-16 is about foreign slaves. You don't know what you're talking about. And then the history guy responded, "Scolarly consensus doesn't equal the text itself." Deuteronomy 23:15-16 never says foreign. Ish routinely means any man. Compare Exodus 21:12 and 16. Itemization is for clarity, not exclusion. Deuteronomy 24:7 specifies brother precisely because the parallel doesn't. Inference doesn't equal fact. So all of the claims here are false and demonstrably so. this person doesn't know what they're talking about. And we're going to get into what's going on here. And to start, I'm going to actually go before Exodus 21 to the end of Exodus 20 to show you who we're talking to because a big part of understanding what's going on in the covenant code is understanding who is being addressed specifically. So, Exodus 20:es 22- 26, the Lord said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the Israelites, and then you have seen for yourselves how I spoke with you from heaven." And the you here when God is talking to the Israelites is masculine plural, second person. But then in verse 23, it switches to second person masculine, singular. you singular shall not make gods of silver alongside me, nor shall you singular make for yourselves gods of gold. So you'll notice the singular and the plural is kind of going back and forth because they're referring to a single Israelite as kind of representative of the whole. So we want to use the singular, but we want you to understand that this is in reference to any Israelite. It's kind of a collective singular. And then we go on. You singular need make for me only an altar of earth and sacrifice on it. Your singular burnt offerings and your singular offerings of well-being, your singular sheep and your singular oxen. In every place where I cause my name to be remembered, I will come to you singular and bless you singular and so on. And so when we get to Exodus 211, we're back to God talking to Moses. These are the ordinances that you Moses shall set before them, the Israelites. And it's important to note that the covenant code is directed to Israelites specifically and even more specifically to male Israelites. These are male citizens. These are heads of households. These are the potter familas of a household that are being referred to in the second person singular in the covenant code. And we know this not only because of the context. We know this not only because the verbs and the pronouns and the adjectives are referring to singular male Israelites, but also because of the circumstances that are being addressed. These are all circumstances in which male Israelites will find themselves. We're not addressing things that women do socially. We're addressing things that men do socially, specifically Israelite men. This is not about foreigners. This is not about enslaved folks. These laws are about how Israelite men are to conduct themselves. And so verse two, when you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years. But in the seventh, he shall go out a free person without debt. If he comes in single, he shall go out single. If he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her masters and he shall go out alone. So Israelites could breed enslaved folks who would not be debt enslaved folks who went free in the seventh year but would be cattle would be their permanent forest enslaved folks going on. But if the slave declares I love my master, my wife and my children, I will not go out a free person. Then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an all, and he shall serve him for life. When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people since he has dealt unfairly with her. So very clearly we're talking about Israelite male masters. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money. And this is a big distinction between the laws about enslavement in Deuteronomy and the laws about enslavement here. Here, the female debt enslaved person doesn't go free in the seventh year. Why? Because they're being used for intercourse, and they are damaged goods and are no longer eligible for proper Israelite marriage. And so, in Deuteronomy, it actually explicitly says, "Male and female slaves shall both go out in the seventh year." So, Deuteronomy is being a little more compassionate about what's going on here. For the author of the Covenant Code, a female debt enslaved person who has been used for intercourse is best served by staying with her master because she's not set a drift in Israelite society without any prospects for marriage and participation socially. So it's better for her in the mind of the author or authors of the covenant code for her to remain married unless of course he mistreats her and then he has to provision her. So now we're moving on to verses 12- 21. Now the history guy had referred to Exodus 21:12 as an example of each referring to any man. But this passage says whoever strikes a person and person is where we have the word ish in the Hebrew. Whoever strikes an ish mortally shall be put to death. So this does not just mean any person. This means specifically a male Israelite. And how do we know? Well, we have down at the bottom of these passages when a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment for the slave is the owner's property. So down here we can see that an Israelite man can kill a male or a female enslaved person and there's a way in which there's no punishment whatsoever. It's certainly not the death penalty. If they survive for a day or two before passing away, there is no punishment because that enslaved person was his property. But even if the enslaved person dies immediately, the text only says you shall be avenged. Doesn't say it's the death penalty. And scholars are in fairly consistent agreement that this is intended to uh hedge a little bit because if the enslaved person is a debt enslaved person, then they are a native Israelite. And so the avenging would mean the death penalty, at least based on verse 12. But if they were a foreign enslaved person, a chattel enslaved person, then the vengeance would probably just mean the payment of a fine, as we're going to see later on in the case of the goring ox. But verse 12 is not referring to any men whatsoever. It doesn't say anything about foreign men here. It's definitely not talking about an enslaved male. It's talking about a male Israelite. If you kill a male Israelite, that's the death penalty. That's what's going on in verse 12. Throughout the covenant code, ish means male Israelite. When they want to talk about anyone else being the victim of some kind of crime or in in some other way being involved in a kind of transaction or relationship that is being addressed in the covenant code, if it's not a male Israelite that's being addressed, they will itemize the different type of people. They will say a male or female Israelite. They will say a son or daughter of an Israelite. They will say a male or female enslaved person. They catalog the different social statuses and ish is the term of art for an adult male Israelite in the covenant code. Moving on. If it was not premeditated but came about by an act of God, then I will appoint for you a place to which the killer may flee. But if someone willfully attacks and kills another by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution. Whoever strikes father or mother shall be put to death. Whoever kidnaps a person, whether that person has been sold or is still held in possession, shall be put to death. So here we have each again being rendered person. But this is very clearly talking about a male Israelite. And there are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that each is always refers to a male Israelite in the covenant code. But also, we have a passage that's directly parallel in Deuteronomy 24:7. If someone is caught kidnapping another Israelite, enslaving or selling the Israelite, then that kidnapper shall die. So, you shall purge the evil from your midst. Now, usually when Deuteronomy alters what's going on in the covenant code, it does so in a way that makes things a little less harsh, in ways that are a little more compassionate. But this would be the opposite if it's changing things at all. I don't think it is. And I think the majority of scholars agree that this is intended to be pretty much the exact same law, but just stated differently because the Covenant Code is notoriously succinct and idiosyncratic with its terminology. It does not use the same terminology that is used in the other legislative corpora in the penetuk and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. So Deuteronomy 24:7 almost certainly means the exact same thing as Exodus 21:16. It is the death penalty for kidnapping an adult male Israelite. Now, let's move on to the law of the goring ox, where we're going to see more clearly how the social statuses of the different types of victims are cataloged and how punishments differ depending on the social status of the victim. So, verse 28, when an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. If the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned, but did not restrain it, and it kills a man or a woman, so is osha, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. If a ransom is imposed on the owner, then the owner shall pay whatever is imposed for the redemption of the victim's life. If it gores a boy or a girl and here we have Ben Obat, a son or a daughter, the owner shall be dealt with according to the same rule. So this would refer to the son or a daughter of an Israelite citizen. Verse 32, if the ox gores a male or female slave, the owner shall pay to the slave owner 30 shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. So, as we see everywhere throughout the covenant code that the word ish is used, it is intended to refer to a male Israelite, specifically an adult male Israelite. When the law is addressing what happens to enslaved men or young boys, it addresses them specifically. And as we can see, the penalties are different depending on the social status of the victim. So when it comes to what is being outlawed in Exodus 21:16, it is very clearly the kidnapping of male adult Israelites, just like we see in Deuteronomy 24:7. And even if it were not only referring to adult male Israelites, it would not in any way, shape, or form whatsoever ban forced slavery because that would presuppose that kidnapping is the only or the main or even an appreciable means of sourcing enslaved folks in ancient Israel. And we have absolutely zero indication that that was the case. What we do have in the covenant code is the very clear indication that you could source cattle enslaved folks by breeding them from your debt enslaved folks. So there are other ways to source cattle enslaved folks. And when we go to Leviticus 25:44-46, we see you can buy cattle enslaved folks as property from foreign nations or from foreigners residing within the land of Israel. So let's address the other issue. this passage here, Deuteronomy 23:15-16, you shall not return to their owners slaves who have escaped to you from their owners. They shall reside with you in your midst in any place they choose in any one of your towns. And this is rendering gates, but gates is being used metimmically to refer to cities or towns. Wherever they please, you shall not oppress them. This is unique among ancient West Asian laws. This is the only place where we do have a law prohibiting the returning of runaway enslaved folks. However, as I pointed out already, the overwhelming majority of scholars agree this is referring to foreign escaped enslaved folks. And there are a couple of different reasons we know this one. The U here is masculine singular is referring to singular Israelites, but as you can tell, it's referring collectively to all of Israel. They shall reside with you in your midst, in any place they choose, in any of your towns. Just how wide is the midst of a single Israelite? It does not span multiple towns. Multiple towns means they're talking about within the midst of you, Israel. Why would you have someone who ran across the street from one Israelite master to an Israelite neighbor have the option of residing amidst all of Israel? Especially when this begins by saying they are running from their owners or their masters to you. They're running to you, collective Israel. They're coming from outside of Israel. And one of the reasons that we know this is the best and really the only plausible interpretation of what's going on here is because if it were not, this would totally nuke the entire slave economy. Because if an enslaved person is living in a house and they know that there's a law on the books that says if they run to any Israelite anywhere beyond the property of their master, that person will be prohibited by law from returning the enslaved person to maybe their neighbor. every enslaved person would immediately run to their neighbor's house and they would be free and then they would get to go relocate to any city they wanted in all of Israel. That would entirely nuke the slave economy. Now, the history guy wants that to be the case. Wants to imagine that they intentionally put laws in that made the operation of enslavement entirely impossible. But that's nonsense because we know that the practice of enslavement was alive and well throughout Israel. That's why we have all these other laws regulating exactly how it goes on. Who's allowed to sell whom to whom and who's not allowed to sell whom to whom and who's allowed to purchase whom from whom. It would be so catastrophically stupid to have this entire complex constellation of laws related to how to engage in slavery when some of them entirely nuked the whole project. You would just have the law saying we don't do that here and that would be the end of it. The notion that we would have the entire complex system of laws and regulations and then have snuck into that complex system one rule that would make it so every slave could immediately free themselves. That's asinine. That's not how these things worked in the ancient world. So no, Deuteronomy 23:15-16 is one not entirely obliterating the entire practice of enslavement and two is not about any runaway enslaved person from anywhere. It is about runaway foreign slaves coming into the land of Israel. And the point of this law is basically to stick it to the other nations to say, "Haha, we're keeping the person who ran away from you. We're going to let them stay wherever they want. Whatever city makes them happy, whatever blows their hair back, that's where they're going to stay. And we're not going to oppress them. We're going to treat them like they're the nativeorn. That is a way to stick it to the other nations. So that's what's going on in Deuteronomy 23. At least if what's going on in the Hebrew and the context has absolutely anything to say about any of this, which of course it does. And once again, the history guy doesn't have the foggiest idea what they're talking about. They are just endorsing things they have read elsewhere that flicked the tuning fork in the loins of their dogmatism. And they did not know enough to know better than to think. This is actually not accurate. They have no way of assessing the quality of these arguments. It just made them feel better, assuage their cognitive dissonance, and so they're repeating it publicly because one, they want to put on display that they know something, and two, they want it to assuage the cognitive dissonance of their audience so that they can improve their own standing within the social identities that are important to them, which happen to prioritize the falsehood that the Bible does not endorse and defend the practice of buying, selling, and owning other human beings, namely the practice of enslavement. The Bible endorses enslavement from beginning to end. There's no syllable of the Bible that in any way, shape, or form whatsoever questions, condemns, or prohibits that practice. And the fit for this video, I think, says, "Romans, go home., Did Biblical Laws Ban Chattel Slavery?, Dan McClellan, 01m1fjkfhsedf22g8vkgtmdf7k.