Is Biblical Slavery More Compassionate?  ## Metadata - Author: [[Dan McClellan]] - Full Title: Is Biblical Slavery More Compassionate? - Category: #articles - Document Note: --- tags: [Religion, Ethics, Slavery] author: [MISSING] source: YouTube reference: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ] date created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DD}} {{time:HH:mm}} --- # 🏷️ Title: Is biblical slavery more compassionate? 🧰 **Action Inbox** - [H1] Clip the opening claim for context — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=9 #share - [H3] Draft note: modesty texts mean wealth display — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=223 #xref - [H5] Build verse list on slavery endorsements — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=289 #articleseed - [H6] Add wage-claim fact-check with citations — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=418 #addendum - [H7] Prepare analogy checklist to avoid bad comparisons — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=500 #articleseed - [H9] Create Exodus 21:16 explainer graphic — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=961 #articleseed - [H10] Summarize Exodus 21:20–21 outcomes table — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=1260 #xref - [H11] Log Louisiana code reference needs archive — context #articleseed - [H12] Draft ethic note: consensus versus scripture — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=1740 #articleseed - [H8] Fiction seed: household born into debt status — context #bmf ## 🧭 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 - Include links cited in or relevant to the article. ## 📝 Summary - A YouTube scholar critiques claims defending biblical slavery. - He argues biblical texts permit ownership and harsh discipline. - He contrasts Israelite debt servitude and foreign chattel slavery. - He cites Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy with verse logic. - Bottom line: modern ethics reject scriptural slavery permissions. ## 📖 Main Content - The video responds to a pastor’s defense of ownership claims. - The host states the Bible condones slavery across multiple books. [Ex 21; Lev 25; Deut 24](https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.21?lang=bi), (https://www.sefaria.org/Leviticus.25?lang=bi), (https://www.sefaria.org/Deuteronomy.24?lang=bi) - He distinguishes debt slavery for Israelites from foreign chattel slavery. [Lev 25:39–55](https://www.sefaria.org/Leviticus.25.39?lang=bi) - He argues the texts mention no wages for debt slaves. [Deut 15 context](https://www.sefaria.org/Deuteronomy.15?lang=bi) - He rejects the “credit card debt” analogy as misleading. Video timestamp cited in Notes. - He claims Exodus allows beating slaves without penalty if death is delayed. [Ex 21:20–21](https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.21.20?lang=bi) - He cites kidnapping bans as applying to Israelites, not foreign slave trade. [Ex 21:16](https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.21.16?lang=bi), [Deut 24:7](https://www.sefaria.org/Deuteronomy.24.7?lang=bi) - He asserts some antebellum statutes restricted lethal beatings more explicitly. Primary text may require archival access; link unavailable. - He concludes that communal ethical consensus should overrule harmful ancient norms. ### 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=9) Opening claim and thesis ### [H1] Speaker claims slavery is not inherently evil > [!quote] [Is biblical slavery more compassionate?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ) by an unnamed author via [[YouTube]]. Published [MISSING]. Accessed {{date:YYYY-MM-DD}}. > “The institution of slavery is not inherently evil.” Sets the debate frame and stakes. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=9) #share ID:rw_yt_0009 ### [H2] Pastor urges Christians defend slave ownership stance > [!quote] [Is biblical slavery more compassionate?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ) > “every Christian in today's society should be able to defend what I just said.” Positions defense as required. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=33) #xref ID:rw_yt_0033 #### ⏱️ [00:02:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=143) Modesty context ### [H3] Modesty passages target wealth signaling behaviors > [!quote] [Is biblical slavery more compassionate?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ) > “Biblical modesty always and only refers to avoiding displays of wealth and status.” Clarifies frequent misreadings of modesty texts. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=223) #xref ID:rw_yt_0223 ### [H4] Bible lacks commands for women to cover > [!quote] [Is biblical slavery more compassionate?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ) > “There isn't a single syllable of the Bible that admonishes women to cover up…” Counters culture-war claims about attire. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=241) #share ID:rw_yt_0241 #### ⏱️ [00:04:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=269) Slavery scope ### [H5] Bible endorses or condones slavery throughout > [!quote] [Is biblical slavery more compassionate?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ) > “the Bible does endorse slavery from beginning to end.” Establishes textual baseline before ethics. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=289) #articleseed ID:rw_yt_0429 #### ⏱️ [00:06:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=419) Wages claim ### [H6] Bible does not state wages for debt slaves > [!quote] [Is biblical slavery more compassionate?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ) > “There is no part of the Bible that suggests that debt slaves were paid.” Guides fact-checking on “paid servitude” claims. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=418) #addendum ID:rw_yt_0658 #### ⏱️ [00:08:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=500) Analogy critique ### [H7] Biblical debt slavery differs from modern credit > [!quote] [Is biblical slavery more compassionate?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ) > “This is not remotely comparable to credit card debt.” Flags category errors in rhetoric. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=500) #articleseed ID:rw_yt_0820 #### ⏱️ [00:05:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=353) Forms of slavery ### [H8] Hebrew Bible includes child slavery provisions > [!quote] [Is biblical slavery more compassionate?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ) > “there was absolutely child slavery in the Hebrew Bible.” Notes scope beyond debt servitude. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=353) #articleseed ID:rw_yt_0553 #### ⏱️ [00:16:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=963) Kidnapping statute ### [H9] Exodus 21:16 targets kidnapping of Israelites > [!quote] [Is biblical slavery more compassionate?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ) > “This is Exodus 21:16, not Deuteronomy 21:16.” Sets correct verse and scope. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=961) #articleseed ID:rw_yt_1603 #### ⏱️ [00:21:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=1263) Beating outcomes ### [H10] Exodus 21 allows nonfatal beating without penalty > [!quote] [Is biblical slavery more compassionate?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ) > “then there's no punishment because the slave was his kf… property.” Highlights differential protection by status. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=1260) #xref ID:rw_yt_2103 #### ⏱️ [00:27:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ&t=1651) Legal comparison ### [H11] Antebellum statutes sometimes outprotect biblical laws > [!quote] [Is biblical - Summary: #maklelan2965 @ReformationRedPill (NB: At one point I refer to the death penalty for violating dietary restrictions, and that was inaccurate. Don't know why that came up in my head, but I failed to self-censor. My apologies for the error.) - URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k9TOmOP5iQ Hey everybody, I'm Dan Mlelen. I'm a scholar of the Bible and religion. And over the last week or so, I've been tagged an awful lot in this video. The institution of slavery is not inherently evil. I know some of you guys are upset by that. Some of you guys are saying, "I've been saying that for years." Okay, I'll take it a step further. It is not inherently evil to own another human being. I know. Just wait. Some of you guys are really upset, but let's talk through this because it is very important that every Christian affirm what I just said. And not only should they affirm it, every Christian in today's society should be able to defend what I just said. Now, before we get to these comments and particularly followup to these comments, I want to point out that this is not the first time I have run into this individual saying rather ill-advised things on the internet. This is Joshua HS who's a pastor. He has a podcast called Reformation Red Pill and he's actually mentioned in my recent book because almost two years ago he was making a big deal out of modesty. So for instance, here's a Twitter post from January of 2024 where uh he's going off on a screed about women dressing modestly and about the middle of that post he says this is because female sensual self-expression is a core idol of our feminist culture. You know this is true because if you dare to call women to biblical modesty, you will be instantaneously subjected to a cacophony of howling of harpies demanding your patriarchal head on a spike. Now, this is actually not what the Bible is talking about when it talks about modesty, and I pointed as much out below in my response at the bottom. Biblical modesty always and only refers to avoiding displays of wealth and status. There isn't a single syllable of the Bible that admonishes women to cover up so they don't distract slashattract men. Joshua here bllightly confuses his right-wing authoritarian identity politics for the Bible. And Joshua got ratioed by my response. So obviously he had to block me. Uh but in a previous tweet he had said, "I was once put into the position of having to address a woman for regularly not wearing a bra to church on Sunday." Can you imagine? I was accused of body shaming. The truth is, it is incredibly unloving to allow a fellow sister in Christ to continue causing brothers to stumble without addressing it. It is unloving to her because she may very well not even be aware what she is doing considering the absurdly sexualized culture she has been catechized in. And if she is aware, all the more reason to confront her. It is also unloving to all the brothers who simply want to worship the Lord without constant lustful temptation. So fellow sisters in Christ, if you see another sister dressing inappropriately for worship, don't gossip about it. Lovingly confront her. I promise it will save her a lot of embarrassment coming from you rather than a pastor or a fellow brother. And remember, modest is hottest. Now, this is the tweet I addressed in chapter 15 of my book, The Bible Says. So, this chapter addresses the notion that the Bible says women need to cover up so that they do not cause men to lust after them. And spoiler alert, there's no syllable of the Bible that says any such thing. But down at the bottom in the red box, I start, "One self-styled, failed church planner named Joshua HS shared a harrowing tale of having to address a woman for regularly not wearing a bra to church on Sunday." Joshua painted himself as the victim of an accusation of body shaming, reminding Twitter it is incredibly unloving to allow a fellow sister in Christ to continue causing brothers to stumble without addressing it. After counseling his audience to lovingly confront women they chose to lear at Joshua concluded and remember modest is hottest because at the end of the day the primary value of women in many Christian circles is still as sexual objects. And I go through in the rest of the chapter to demonstrate that the Bible has not a single word to say about women covering up parts of their body so that men don't lust after them. And it actually points out that if men are lusting after women, they're the ones who are at fault. So Joshua doesn't really have a good grasp on what's in the Bible. But he's right to point out that the Bible does endorse slavery from beginning to end. If it doesn't endorse it, it at the very least condones it. So Joshua is not off the mark in acknowledging that. However, we know better now. the Bible was wrong. And what Joshua is doing is trying to leverage the Bible in order to just endorse a countercultural ethical stance as a piece of costly signaling so he can get attention. But we're going to see in a followup where he discusses this issue on his podcast that he really doesn't understand what's in the Bible. Let's take a look at that video. Doesn't help your case. Whenever you say in the Old Covenant, in the Old Testament, it was just bondervant slavery, >> that does not help your case because it's not true. >> So, this is true. Joshua is acknowledging that a lot of apologists these days will try to make it sound like in the Hebrew Bible, it's just debt slavery that is condoned and endorsed and it's some kind of social safety net that is supposed to be there to help out people who are falling on hard times. And that's wrong on two counts because debt slavery was not a social safety net. And debt slavery was not the only type of slavery. Debt slavery was primarily, but not exclusively for native Israelites. But there was absolutely child slavery in the Hebrew Bible. And that was intended for everyone who was not a native Israelite. So Joshua is right here, but is now going to be wrong in everything else. He says >> it's not that there was a kind of bondervant slavery. Um and really that the bondervant slavery is when you hear the word slavery, it looks nothing like that. Um it looks like bondervant slavery. It was it was basically an economic arrangement where they were even paid. There is no part of the Bible that suggests that debt slaves were paid. The closest you get is Deuteronomy's insistence. And by the way, this contradicts what we read elsewhere. But Deuteronomy 15 instructs people to give your newly freed debt slave, when their term of service is up, some resources so that when they go out into the world free, they are not immediately out there looking for things to borrow so that they can survive. That's the closest you get. But that is not payment for their service. Nothing in the Bible says that debt slaves were paid. >> Um, they were the property they did. They were owned by a master. Um, so that's where the ownership piece comes in, which was my original thesis that it's not inherently evil for one image, >> which is credit card debt today, just so you know. >> That's Yeah. No, that's exactly right. That's exactly right. Uh, exactly wrong. I'm sure this is these two smiley guys just being facitious. But the ownership of a debt slave is in no way, shape, or form whatsoever comparable to credit card debt. Yes, credit card debt sucks, but the credit card company does not control what you're doing every hour of the day. It does not control your body. It is not able to physically abuse you without any punishment. It is not able to bring a woman to you and say, "Breed me additional enslaved people that I'm going to keep even after you go free. Oh, and I'm keeping the woman, too." Uh, this is not remotely comparable to credit card debt. Um, and so, yeah, it was an economic arrangement. uh and they they would actually be paid earnings to the point where if they the in Leviticus it says if the if that slave becomes rich enough and enriches himself enough he can buy himself out of slavery, he can pay off his debt. He can pay off um the bondervant um or or we get to the year of Jubilee where they are set free. So there's that. >> So again, absolutely nothing indicated they were paid. And this passage in Leviticus is talking about how if an Israelite becomes enslaved to a foreigner, then the Israelites family can redeem them from the foreigner. Or it says if the Israelite prospers, then they can redeem themselves from the foreigner. This is about a specific set of circumstances and it in no way, shape or form whatsoever indicates that that prospering is as a result of payment that they are being given for their enslavement. Why would you enslave someone so that you can earn back the debt that you are owed and then pay them that money anyway? Uh that's not how any of this worked. They're just making stuff up. So there is a bondervant type of slavery. But the problem is there's also another kind of slavery that is not bondervant slavery. Namely in Leviticus 25 um that talks about foreign slaves that you can pass on to your children. Okay. So this is a different type of slavery altogether. This is um it's still not the kind of slavery that you would think of with the transatlantic slave trade which is more racebased slavery. Well, the only real difference is that the transatlantic slave trade was based on race as a question of skin color and the cattle slavery that is endorsed in Leviticus 25 44-46 is ethnically based. So while there is a difference there, that's really the only difference and it's not a significant difference. And the differences that Joshua here is going to try to conjure up are not accurate. Um and uh but it still was a type of slavery where there would be prisoners of war, there would be um different situations they could sell. Most often was the case they would sell themselves into slavery or there'd be prisoners of war, that sort of thing. Uh Joshua has absolutely no clue what most often happened. Yes, prisoners of war is one means of sourcing foreign enslaved folks. But however foreign peoples got their slaves didn't matter to the Israelites. If there were foreign enslaved folks for sale, they could buy them. So that was the main source for chatt slaves was the fact that foreigners were willing to sell them to you and they didn't care where they came from and they would become property of of an Israelite and they could pass those those slaves down to their children. And so now let me just break this down really quickly because I want you to not I want to really distinguish that version even the kind that's not the bond servant slavery the other kind of slavery. I really want to distinguish that from what you tend to think of with the American uh transatlantic slave trade type of system because often you're picturing three things, right? >> Kidnapped. I think it would be inaccurate to say that when people think of the practice of slavery in the pre-Ivil War American South, they think of slaves being predominantly kidnapped. Uh that would be entirely inaccurate. During the transatlantic slave trade, I think most people would think of ships arriving on the shores of the western hemisphere where enslaved folks would be chained and auctioned off. And then in the periods following the outlawing of the transatlantic slave trade, when slavery in the pre-Ivil War American South actually became more prominent, it was primarily through breeding additional slaves that you grew your slave population. But again, if you were purchasing slaves, you were purchasing folks who had been enslaved elsewhere and brought to you and auctioned or sold directly to you. I don't think most people think of kidnapped enslaved folks. And if they do, that is not an accurate representation of what went on in late 18th and early 19th century America with no rights and abused. Like those are the things. Uh there may be some other things that come into your mind, but those are three things that tend to come into your mind. Um and all three of those are explicitly repudiated by the Old Covenant law, by the Old Testament law. >> Uh not really. The only one that I would say is the notion that they had no rights. But that's also a misrepresentation of what went on in the pre-Ivil War American South because enslaved folks did actually have rights. They had laws on the books that were supposed to protect their rights, just like the Bible represents laws on the books that were supposed to protect the rights of enslaved folks. The question is, how did that actually play out practically? Because when we think of the pre-ar American South, we are hearing stories of what actually happened. We are generally ignoring the laws on the books. When we look at the Bible, all we have is the laws that were ostensibly on the books. They actually weren't, but we'll talk about that later. We don't really have the stories of what actually happened. So, this is comparing apples to oranges. But again, uh Joshua here is completely wrong. >> And do you know what the penalty should have been for someone who steals a man? >> The death sentence. >> The death penalty. >> And yet we're too moral to have the death sentence. >> That's right. That's right. >> That's a great That's a great irony. And we would say yes and amen. All the word of the Lord proves true. >> So, this is a bizarre little chime in. I don't know if this guy is emotionally rubbing one out by thinking about the death penalty and how the Hebrew Bible says it's okay. So, that should be what governs our morality today. But that would also mean that uh working on the Sabbath or eating pork should also result in the death penalty, which hopefully this guy doesn't agree with. But at this point, I have no idea. That's exactly right. And I'm going to rattle off these three texts just to show you just to show you my work here. All right, let's see it. Um, you know, uh, so, uh, so, and the point is to get across that the American or the biblical slavery system was actually a incredibly compassionate system that was for the betterment of everyone involved. Like that's that's that's why it existed. >> Yeah. All of that is not just wrong, but profoundly ignorant. >> And and we'll get to well, we'll get there in a second. So kidnapped Deuteronomy 21:16, "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him shall be put to death." >> Oh, did you have that? Sorry about that. >> What? >> I stepped on your toes. I didn't realize you had that. >> Oh, no. That's No, that's great. But that that last piece is actually very important because e so let's say you know someone gets man stolen. They gets they get kidnapped. Now even the person who's found in possession of him is liable to the death penalty. That means that if you were if you were a slave master, you had to make sure that when you went to go to a uh to to purchase a slave that they were not that they were the type of person who either sold themsel they likely in almost every circumstance they sold themselves into slavery um for economic reasons, but uh but you had to make sure that they weren't stolen, that they weren't kidnapped because you were now liable for you and you could face the death penalty for not doing your due diligence there. So there's the kidnapped piece. >> So this is all inaccurate including the citation. And this is Exodus 21:16, not Deuteronomy 21:16, although there is a parallel passage in Deuteronomy that we're going to get to. But additionally, it doesn't say anyone in whose hand the kidnapped person is found is liable to the death penalty. What it says is the stealer of a man, whether he has sold him or he has found in his hands, will be put to death. And so the idea is whether he still has him or not, the one who kidnapped him is being put to death. So it is not saying anyone in whose hand the kidnapped person is found will be put to death. So that is misrepresenting what the text says. But additionally, this is not about foreigners. This is about the native Israelite. Exodus 21 is part of the covenant code which is very very peculiar but also consistent in the language it uses. And when it talks about an ish it's talking about a native Israelite man. If it's talking about a woman it's using isha. If it's talking about a child it's using ben orb of an ish. If it's talking about a foreigner it refers to a foreigner. If it's talking about an enslaved person it refers to an eved. It is very clear about the references to perpetrators and victims because the punishments would differ depending on the social status of the perpetrator and or the victim. So, Exodus 21:16 is outlining the kidnapping of native Israelite men. That's what gets the death penalty. And that is no different from the illegality of kidnapping a white man in the pre-Ivil War American South. That in no way, shape, or form whatsoever undermined their practice of slavery. Now, I said we would get to Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 24:7 is the parallel to Exodus 21:16, and it quite clearly and explicitly refers to the kidnapping of an Israelite. It's quite explicit there. And Exodus 21:16 is widely agreed to be a prohibition on kidnapping freeborn Israelite men. This doesn't have anything to do with mitigating or prohibiting the slave trade. Second one with no rights. Deuteronomy 10:19 says to love the sojourer there uh love the sojourer therefore for you were a sojourer in the land of Egypt. And later, I didn't put this one down. Actually, I should have, but um in Leviticus, I think it's 24. You guys can um look this up, but it actually um over and over again all throughout the law, um the law of Moses says to treat, and this is actually, you would think, upside down, it says to treat your brother as you treat the sojourer, your brother who's enslaved, as you treat the sojourer. So there is for the stranger in your land, including a stranger who is enslaved, you are to treat them with utter respect and kindness, compassion, and uh and you are to treat them as an image bearer of God. So none of this is accurate. Joshua seems to be squinting too hard at passages about sojourers and imagining that they're talking about enslaved folks when they're not. But additionally, where he says he thinks there's this thing in Leviticus 24 about treating your enslaved brother as the sojourer, that's all hallucinated. In Leviticus 25, it says that if other fellow Israelites fall on hard times and become dependent on you, this is not debt slavery. It just means they're poor and they need help. It says then you will treat them like the resident alien, like the sojourer in the sense that you will support them. It says you will not loan money to them at interest. It says you will not sell food to them for a profit. You must support them the same way you are required to support a resident alien or a sojourer. Then it starts talking about what happens if they become so dependent on you that they sell themselves to you as a debt slave. Then it stops talking about the sojourer. Then it's just talking about how to treat Israelites who are your debt slaves, which says you should treat them like a hired worker, like a day laborer, something like that, and not treat them harshly like you would an enslaved person. And then verses 44- 46 say, "But as for the foreigner, yeah, you can treat them harshly like an enslaved person." So Joshua is seems to be going off of memory. does not have very clear or good notes in front of him and is wildly misreading and misrepresenting what's actually in these passages. Um, and we know this because we you go on to Exodus and this is the last one. Um, a lot of people will say, "Well, you were just allowed to abuse your slaves." And I'll pull up um a passage in Exodus 21, which I didn't put that one down, but it's a few verses. I think it's 21 like 23 or 24 that talks about if you strike your servant and he dies, then you are to be punished. But if he does not die, then uh it doesn't say you're not to be punished. It just I can't remember exactly what it said. So here Joshua is making stuff up again. and he realizes that he's making stuff up that actually undermines his own point because he's talking about Exodus 21 20 and 21 which say if a man beats his enslaved person with a stick and he immediately dies then the enslaved person will be avenged. Now avenged there is unclear. It doesn't say exactly how. And most scholars agree this is because the text does not distinguish between a debt slave who likely would have been an Israelite or a cattle slave who would not have been an Israelite. The punishment would be different depending on whether this person has beaten to death a native Israelite or a foreigner. It would probably be the death penalty if it were a native Israelite. But then verse 21 says if they survive for a couple of days. And what that means is they managed to survive for a couple of days and then die. Then there's no punishment because the slave was his kf which means silver which means money which means property. Why is there no punishment if it takes a couple of days for the beaten enslaved person to die? It's because it obviously was a disciplinary beating which is perfectly allowable that accidentally resulted in the death of the enslaved person. So it's accidental. The person loses their property that is their enslaved person. No punishment. Joshua realizes that he's saying, "Oh, if you beat him to death, then they'll be avenged. If you beat him and he doesn't die, there's no punishment." And I think Joshua realizes what that means is that you're allowed to beat your slave as much as you want as long as you don't kill them. And he's like, uh, that can't be. Oh, so it doesn't say there's no punishment, but I don't remember what punishment it actually does say. And the reality is it explicitly says there is no punishment. So you could beat your slave and they could be at death's door, but survive for a day or two and then pass away and there would be no punishment. According to the Bible, yes, that is abuse. The Bible explicitly allows you to abuse an enslaved person. And as long as you don't immediately kill them, but you know, beat them to within an inch of their life and then they die a day or two later, you're in the clear. No punishment at all because they were your property. Joshua doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about. And even in trying to make up lies about what the Bible says, he stumbles over his own ignorance because he doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about. Um, but the key word there is if you strike your slave and he dies, the word punished there is the death penalty. No, it absolutely indisputably is not. The verbal root is nam. It occurs in the passive. It means to be avenged. And as I already pointed out, most scholars agree it is unclear precisely what the punishment is because it would be different depending on whether the slave was a native Israelite or a foreigner. Okay, so you receive the death penalty for taking the life of your slave. Um, and then it goes on a couple of verses later in verse 26 and it says, "When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and he destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth because of a slave, the male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth. So right there, that is nothing like, you know, the transatlantic slave trade. >> Not at all. The horrors of of Frederick Douglas, if you read his his biography, which I have. Yeah. It's it's not at all. >> So this is an attempt to paint the legislation of the Hebrew Bible as if it takes a far more compassionate and progressive approach to slavery and protecting enslaved folks. Now, Joshua has wildly misunderstood and misrepresented what's actually going on in these texts, but let's take what they actually were intended to do and let's compare it to the actual legislation of the pre-Ivil War American South because they never brought that up. They're talking about the abuses that we read about in some of these diaries. Again, as I pointed out, we have some of the accounts of what actually happened, the facts on the ground from the pre-Ivil War American South. We only have the laws that were ostensibly on the books in the Bible. Let's look at the laws that were on the books in the pre-Ivil War American South. This is the civil code of the state of Louisiana from 1825. Let's go down to where it addresses slaves. That's chapter three. And I want to look at the second article in chapter 3. That's article 173 at the bottom of the page. The slave is entirely subject to the will of his master who may correct and chastise him. And now here discipline is uh a euphemism for beating them. So you may beat them though not with unusual rigor nor so as to maim or mutilate him or to expose him to the danger of loss of life or to cause his death. So according to the laws on the books in the pre-Ivil War American South, the slave was more protected than the laws on the book in the Bible. Because in the Bible, if you beat a slave and it took him a couple days to die, you are free and clear. No punishment whatsoever. According to the Civil Code of the State of Louisiana from 1825, and by the way, this wording is preserved in every subsequent edition of the Civil Code of the State of Louisiana all the way down to the 1860s. You're not allowed to cause the death of your slave through a beating at all. So, if you did beat a slave and it took him a couple of days to die, at least according to the laws on the books, Louisiana would punish the enslaver. The Bible says no punishment at all. So the pre-Ivil War American South laws are actually more compassionate than the Bible's laws. Now, if we want to try to understand if the enslaved person was actually treated that way, we just don't have the data to know. Most likely, of course not, cuz most likely what went on on the ground was probably closer to what went on on the ground in the pre-Ivil War American South. So Joshua doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about, is wildly misunderstanding and misrepresenting these texts, and is not even comparing apples to apples, is comparing apples to oranges, because again does not have the first clue what he's talking about. Um, >> so, so, so that is the apologists are right to say that slavery in the Old Testament, in the Old Covenant was different than you're picturing. >> No, they're not. They're entirely mistaken. And you, Joshua, are entirely mistaken. >> That's an important thing to make. But the thing that remains the same is getting back all the way to the beginning with Ali Best Ducky's original statement, which was that it is inherently evil or sinful for one person to own another. The Bible just does not say that. >> No, the Bible doesn't say that. And the Bible is wrong just like you are wrong. And it's up to us to determine what's right. It is the consensus that determines what is right and wrong. It is not the Bible because the Bible is wrong about so many things. And it's right about a lot of things too. But for this discussion, the Bible is woefully and profoundly wrong. Almost as wrong as you, Joshua. And the fit for this video has been Spider Punk., Is Biblical Slavery More Compassionate?, Dan McClellan, 01k8e591awx7yva2taevfk3980.