Jack Black is right about the Bible - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

Jack Black is right about the Bible 🔗 **Source:** [Jack Black is right about the Bible](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmDafl_kmqk) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [biblical_criticism, religious_interpretation, hermeneutics] > author: Kipp Davis > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmDafl_kmqk > date created: 2024-12-19 14:30 > > # 🏷️ Title: Jack Black is right about the Bible >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Examine gender-based stoning laws in Deuteronomy 22 — biblical analysis needed #biblical_law - [H2] Research post-biblical tripartite law division origins — theological history #hermeneutics - [H3] Study covenant code slavery provisions in Exodus 21 — comparative analysis #ancient_law ## 🧭 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 - [Biblical Criticism Analysis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmDafl_kmqk) - [Kipp Davis YouTube Channel](https://www.youtube.com/@kippdavis) ## 📝 Summary - What happened: Biblical scholar Kipp Davis analyzes a content creator's response to Jack Black's criticism of biblical picking and choosing - Why it matters: Demonstrates how interpretive traditions are imposed on biblical texts rather than derived from them - Key stakeholders: Religious communities, biblical scholars, anyone engaging with scriptural interpretation - Risks and tradeoffs: Challenges traditional apologetic methods while requiring deeper textual literacy - Bottom line: All biblical interpretation involves picking and choosing; the question is whether this is done transparently ## 📖 Main Content Davis argues that every approach to biblical interpretation necessarily involves "picking and choosing" which passages to prioritize, center, or subordinate. He challenges a content creator's apologetic response to Jack Black's observation about biblical contradictions, demonstrating that the Bible contains gender-based stoning laws (contrary to the creator's claim) and that slavery provisions in Exodus 21 describe actual enslavement with some legal protections. The analysis reveals three key interpretive strategies used to manage biblical contradictions: old covenant vs. new covenant distinctions, tripartite division of laws (moral/ceremonial/civic), and post-biblical theological frameworks imposed to create artificial unity. Davis contends that these approaches are not derived from the biblical text itself but are later theological constructions designed to resolve textual tensions. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/SmDafl_kmqk?t=0) — [H1] Introduction to picking and choosing critique - Key idea: Content creator accuses Jack Black of twisting scripture by noting contradictions - Evidence: "This is just classic Satan... He'll take the word of God and twist it" #### ⏱️ [00:30](https://youtu.be/SmDafl_kmqk?t=30) — [H2] Every believer follows a God of their own making - Key idea: All biblical interpretation involves constructing a version of God through selective emphasis - Evidence: "Every person ostensibly following the God of the Bible is following a God of their own making" #### ⏱️ [01:15](https://youtu.be/SmDafl_kmqk?t=75) — [H1] Gender-based stoning laws exist in scripture - Key idea: Deuteronomy 22 prescribes stoning non-virgin brides with no reciprocal law for men - Evidence: "All the men of the city were supposed to stone her... no such reciprocal law" #### ⏱️ [02:00](https://youtu.be/SmDafl_kmqk?t=120) — [H2] Marriage as property transaction in biblical context - Key idea: Women's sexual availability and reproductive capacity were commodities to be purchased - Evidence: "When a man married a woman, he was purchasing her procreative capacities and sexual availability" #### ⏱️ [02:45](https://youtu.be/SmDafl_kmqk?t=165) — [H1] Old covenant vs new covenant picking and choosing - Key idea: This distinction requires choosing which New Testament passages override others - Evidence: "Gospel of Matthew insists the Mosaic law will continue until heavens and earth pass away" #### ⏱️ [03:30](https://youtu.be/SmDafl_kmqk?t=210) — [H2] New Testament contains contradictory positions on law - Key idea: Matthew emphasizes law continuation while Paul suggests law fulfillment ends obligations - Evidence: "Jesus ratchets up the severity of the law... Your righteousness must exceed the Pharisees" #### ⏱️ [04:15](https://youtu.be/SmDafl_kmqk?t=255) — [H3] Tripartite law division is post-biblical construct - Key idea: Moral/ceremonial/civic law categories were created centuries later, not found in scripture - Evidence: "Civic law is the third designation... made centuries later closer to Aquinas" #### ⏱️ [05:00](https://youtu.be/SmDafl_kmqk?t=300) — [H1] Exodus 21 describes actual slavery with sex trafficking - Key idea: The Hebrew term 'amma' refers specifically to enslaved girls used for sexual purposes - Evidence: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave... 'amma' is a specific kind of enslaved girl, a sex slave" #### ⏱️ [05:45](https://youtu.be/SmDafl_kmqk?t=345) — [H2] Rights granted to slaves don't eliminate slavery status - Key idea: Even pre-Civil War American slavery included some legal protections for enslaved people - Evidence: "Law code of Louisiana from 1825... master not allowed to beat enslaved person to death" #### ⏱️ [06:30](https://youtu.be/SmDafl_kmqk?t=390) — [H3] Exodus 21 allows resale but restricts foreign sale - Key idea: Sex slaves could be sold to other Israelites but not to foreign peoples - Evidence: "He shall have no right to sell her to foreign people... can sell her to other Israelites" #### ⏱️ [07:15](https://youtu.be/SmDafl_kmqk?t=435) — [H2] Limited freedom conditions in covenant code - Key idea: Female slaves only gain freedom if marital rights are diminished after second marriage - Evidence: "She shall go out without debt... only if he diminishes food, clothing, or marital rights" #### ⏱️ [08:00](https://youtu.be/SmDafl_kmqk?t=480) — [H1] Satan not identified with Garden of Eden serpent - Key idea: Satan as individuated evil figure developed after Hebrew Bible completion - Evidence: "Satan not the name of individuated malevolent figure until after Hebrew Bible was complete" #### ⏱️ [08:30](https://youtu.be/SmDafl_kmqk?t=510) — [H2] Garden serpent was factually correct - Key idea: Adam and Eve didn't die as threatened and did become god-like as serpent predicted - Evidence: "God acknowledges... they have become like one of us, like one of the gods" #### ⏱️ [09:00](https://youtu.be/SmDafl_kmqk?t=540) — [H3] Word of God refers to message, not medium - Key idea: Biblical phrase "word of God" means God's message or Jesus, never the scriptural texts - Evidence: "Never refers to the Bible... refers to God's message and to Jesus" #### ⏱️ [09:30](https://youtu.be/SmDafl_kmqk?t=570) — [H1] Confusing Bible with interpretive tradition - Key idea: Apologists mistake their theological framework for the biblical text itself - Evidence: "You are confusing the Bible for your interpretive tradition regarding the Bible" ## 📚 References - [Kipp Davis YouTube Channel](https://www.youtube.com/@kippdavis) - [Biblical Criticism Resources](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmDafl_kmqk) - [Academic Biblical Studies](https://learn.wordpress.org/) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - Davis demonstrates that biblical interpretation always involves prioritizing some passages over others, making "picking and choosing" inevitable rather than illegitimate - The content creator's apologetic strategies (old/new covenant, tripartite law division) are post-biblical theological constructs imposed on the text rather than derived from it - Biblical slavery laws in Exodus 21 describe genuine enslavement with some legal protections, not voluntary servitude as commonly claimed by apologists ## 📰 Newsletter Biblical scholar Kipp Davis offers a masterclass in textual analysis, demonstrating why honest engagement with scripture requires acknowledging interpretive choices rather than claiming textual neutrality. His analysis reveals how modern apologetic strategies often impose later theological frameworks onto ancient texts, creating artificial unity where the biblical authors themselves present diverse and sometimes contradictory perspectives. For anyone engaged in religious dialogue or biblical study, Davis models rigorous textual analysis that respects both the complexity of ancient documents and the intellectual honesty required for meaningful interpretation. This approach offers valuable lessons for any community grappling with authoritative texts - transparency about interpretive methods strengthens rather than weakens engagement with foundational sources. Resources: [Learn WordPress](https://learn.wordpress.org/), [Developer Docs](https://developer.wordpress.org/), [WP-CLI](https://wp-cli.org/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Developer advocacy: Create educational content about interpreting technical documentation with same rigor as biblical criticism - Education: Workshop on recognizing interpretive frameworks in technical writing - Developer experience: Develop tools for tracking interpretation consistency across documentation #### Community - Contributors: Training on avoiding anachronistic interpretations of legacy code comments - Maintainers: Guidelines for transparent decision-making when code conflicts arise - Sponsors: Clear documentation of values-based decision criteria #### WordPress - Documentation: Style guide emphasizing textual accuracy over apologetic consistency - Community: Guidelines for productive disagreement about core values and implementation - Training: Course on historical development of WordPress principles ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Religious communities that acknowledge interpretive complexity demonstrate greater intellectual honesty than those claiming textual objectivity - Post-biblical theological frameworks create more internal contradictions than they resolve - Transparent discussion of interpretive choices strengthens rather than weakens textual authority - Academic biblical criticism provides tools applicable to other authoritative text interpretation ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative analysis of apologetic vs. critical approaches to textual contradictions - Historical investigation of when tripartite law divisions entered Christian theology - Cross-cultural study of how enslaved persons' rights functioned in ancient legal codes ### ❓ Questions - How do communities maintain cohesion while acknowledging fundamental textual disagreements? - What distinguishes legitimate interpretation from arbitrary picking and choosing? - Can post-biblical theological frameworks be reformed to better reflect textual diversity? ### 🔮 Future Research - Development of interpretive transparency standards for religious communities - Investigation of how biblical criticism methods apply to other foundational texts - Study of psychological factors in interpretive framework adoption ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Religious educators need training in textual criticism alongside theology - Policy: Religious freedom discussions should acknowledge interpretive diversity within traditions - Education: Biblical literacy requires understanding interpretive history, not just content - Community: Honest textual engagement can coexist with devotional practice ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: 12th-13th grade (advanced academic vocabulary, complex theological concepts) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Video format with speaker emphasis and gestures - Improve: Comparative charts showing different interpretive approaches, timeline graphics #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Full audio lecture format with clear verbal emphasis - Improve: Podcast-style summary with key points highlighted #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Extensive use of specific textual examples and detailed explanations - Improve: Glossary of technical terms, comparison of translation choices #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Step-by-step analysis of specific biblical passages - Improve: Interactive text comparison tools, hands-on translation exercises #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Systematic refutation of opposing arguments with evidence - Improve: Decision trees for interpretive choices, logical fallacy identification #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Response format engaging with community debates - Improve: Moderated discussion forums, collaborative text analysis projects #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Individual critical analysis and reflection prompts - Improve: Self-guided study paths, personal interpretation journals #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Historical context of ancient agricultural societies - Improve: Archaeological connections, cultural ecology of biblical periods ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear verbal presentation suitable for audio consumption - Improve: Transcript with proper heading structure, descriptive text for visual elements #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard YouTube player controls - Improve: Chapter markers, skip-to-content options for long-form analysis #### Contrast and readability - Present: Clear speaker presentation against neutral background - Improve: High-contrast captions, adjustable playback speed #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Responsive video player - Improve: Transcript formatting that scales appropriately #### Media and captions - Present: Auto-generated captions available - Improve: Professional captions with theological terminology accuracy, downloadable transcript #### Forms and interactions - Present: Standard comment and subscription interfaces - Improve: Accessible discussion threading, clear interaction labels ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Acknowledges multiple interpretive traditions within Christianity - Improve: Include non-Western interpretive approaches, interfaith textual criticism perspectives #### Inclusive language - Present: Academic terminology explained in context - Improve: Avoid assuming Christian background knowledge, define all theological concepts #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Systematic, logical progression through arguments - Improve: Clear section breaks, summary statements at regular intervals #### Representation - Present: Focuses on textual analysis rather than personal characteristics - Improve: Acknowledge diverse scholars contributing to biblical criticism field #### Psychological safety - Present: Respectful engagement with opposing viewpoints - Improve: Content warning for challenges to traditional beliefs, affirm legitimacy of devotional approaches ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Uses textual evidence to support interpretive claims systematically - Inductive strength: Draws patterns from multiple biblical passages and traditions - Causal reasoning: Traces development of theological concepts through historical periods - Analogical strength: Compares biblical slavery to documented historical slavery systems #### Fallacies - Ad hominem: Briefly calls opposing view "laughably false" rather than focusing on evidence - Appeal to authority: Relies heavily on academic consensus without acknowledging scholarly disagreement #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Scholarly but passionate, occasionally dismissive of opposing views, committed to textual accuracy over diplomatic presentation ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No denial patterns present - acknowledges complexity rather than minimizing issues - Attack: Critiques interpretive methods rather than personal characteristics of opponents - Reverse victim/offender: No victim/offender dynamics at play in this textual analysis - Emotional cues: Uses frustration and passion to emphasize academic rigor, not to manipulate ## 🎯 Conclusion Davis successfully demonstrates that transparent acknowledgment of interpretive choices strengthens rather than weakens engagement with authoritative texts. His analysis reveals that claims to textual objectivity often mask sophisticated theological constructs that deserve explicit discussion rather than implicit acceptance. For practitioners in any field dealing with foundational documents, the core insight is that interpretive frameworks are inevitable - the question is whether they are acknowledged and examined or hidden and assumed. Honest --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] You can stone your wife or sell your [00:04] daughter into slavery. [00:07] >> Well, we ignore those verses. [00:09] >> Well then, friend, it seems to me you [00:11] pick and choose. [00:13] >> This is just this is classic Satan. [00:15] >> All right, let's see it. [00:17] >> He'll take the word of God because he [00:18] knows the word of God well and he'll [00:19] twist the word of God. observing that [00:21] the Mosaic law has a bunch of different [00:24] prescriptions of stoning and also allows [00:26] a man to sell his daughter into slavery [00:28] is not twisting anything. But as we're [00:31] going to see in this video, this content [00:34] creator twists what's in the Bible in [00:37] order to authorize and justify the [00:41] dogmas that he imposes upon the Bible in [00:44] order to get it to say what he needs it [00:46] to say. And so then you get really [00:48] confused. You're like, "Wait, am I [00:49] following a moral God?" [00:51] >> Every person who is ostensibly following [00:53] the God of the Bible is following a God [00:56] of their own making. So the question is, [00:58] are you making a moral God? [01:01] >> Is the Bible really true? Can I really [01:03] trust the Bible if it says that we're [01:04] called to stone our wives and and sell [01:06] our daughter in slavery? [01:07] >> The question is not, can you trust the [01:08] Bible? The question is, can you trust [01:10] the interpretive tradition that you're [01:12] imposing upon the Bible as a unifying [01:16] framework? This wasn't just like, "Hey, [01:18] stone your wife." It wasn't gender- [01:19] based. [01:20] >> This is false. There were absolutely [01:22] stoning laws that were genderbased. So, [01:25] for instance, in Deuteronomy 22, if a [01:27] man married a woman and somehow [01:29] discovered that she was not a virgin, [01:32] all the men of the city were supposed to [01:34] stone her. And there is absolutely no [01:37] such reciprocal law prohibiting a man [01:40] from engaging in premarital sex because [01:43] men were not prohibited from engaging in [01:45] premarital sex. Because their ideas [01:48] about human sexuality and the propriety [01:50] of sexual intercourse were not based on [01:53] some universal notion of purity. They [01:56] were based on property rights. Because [01:59] when a man married a woman, he was [02:01] purchasing her procreative capacities [02:04] and sexual availability. Those were [02:06] commodities that were bought and sold [02:08] and the woman went along with them. And [02:10] when you purchased a woman's sexual [02:13] availability and procreative capacities, [02:15] you expected both to be in pristine [02:17] shiny new condition. And if they were [02:20] not, well, that's a violation of that [02:22] social contract. So that is why women [02:25] were prohibited from engaging in any and [02:27] all premarital sex. They were a [02:31] commodity to be bought and sold. No such [02:35] expectation was imposed upon men who [02:37] were absolutely not prohibited from [02:40] engaging in premarital sex in and of [02:42] itself. Now there could be inappropriate [02:44] premarital sex depending on the social [02:46] status of the partner, but premarital [02:49] sex in and of itself is nowhere [02:52] prohibited on the part of men. anywhere [02:54] in the Hebrew Bible. So, it is entirely [02:56] false to say that the Bible never [02:58] prescribes stoning in a gender-based [03:01] way. It absolutely does. [03:02] >> This was a law that if you committed [03:04] adultery, yeah, you got stoned. This was [03:05] old covenant. This was the the the civic [03:08] law of the the nation state of Israel. [03:10] >> So, there are two different methods of [03:13] picking and choosing going on in this [03:15] clip. The reference to old covenant and [03:17] the reference to civic laws of the [03:20] nation state of Israel. The old covenant [03:23] kind of picking and choosing has to do [03:25] with the identification of these laws as [03:27] part of the Mosaic law which Christ came [03:30] to fulfill, meaning you're no longer [03:33] under those laws. And there are [03:34] absolutely a lot of passages in the New [03:37] Testament that say that. However, there [03:40] are also passages that deny that. The [03:43] Gospel of Matthew, for instance, insists [03:46] that the Mosaic law will continue in [03:48] effect until the heavens and the earth [03:51] pass away. In fact, Jesus then goes on [03:53] to say, "Your righteousness must exceed [03:56] that of the Pharisees." And then he goes [03:58] on to say, "You have heard that Moses [04:01] said X. Well, I say why." And Jesus [04:06] ratchets up the severity of the law. The [04:09] Gospel of Matthew envisions [04:12] following Jesus by keeping all of the [04:15] Mosaic law. Now, if you don't like that, [04:19] you're going to reinterpret that away. [04:21] That's part of the picking and choosing. [04:23] You are picking which part of the New [04:25] Testament is going to overrule [04:28] which other part of the New Testament. [04:30] It is the process of negotiating with [04:32] the text because the texts are not [04:34] univocal. Even the New Testament itself [04:36] is not univocal. If you want to extract [04:39] a single unified and consistent [04:41] principle from the Bible, you have [04:43] absolutely no choice but to make a [04:46] decision regarding which passages are [04:47] going to be centered and given priority [04:49] and then which passages are going to be [04:51] subordinated to those centered passages, [04:55] reinterpreted, marginalized, or just [04:58] outright ignored. So when you say, "Oh, [05:00] that's old covenant." You have picked [05:02] and chosen. You have chosen Paul and you [05:07] have subordinated Matthew to Paul [05:11] rather than the picking and choosing [05:13] that would go the other way around. [05:14] Those who say, "Well, followers of Jesus [05:17] are required to still keep the law of [05:19] Moses." That would be picking Matthew [05:23] and then subordinating Paul and other [05:25] authors to Matthew. And you can't say, [05:28] "Well, majority rules." That's also [05:30] picking and choosing. You can't say, [05:32] "Well, I'm going to follow what Jesus [05:33] said." Nope. Jesus in Matthew is quite [05:36] clear about the law continuing in [05:39] effect. Jesus in other gospels is a [05:42] little less clear, but seems to suggest [05:45] that the law no longer continues in [05:47] effect for followers of Jesus. So, you [05:49] have no choice but to pick and choose. [05:51] Now, that was the old covenant picking [05:53] and choosing. Then, we have this civic [05:55] law picking and choosing. And this is [05:57] something that is nowhere in the Bible [05:59] at all. And this is the division of the [06:02] Jewish law into either two or three [06:04] categories so that we could pick and [06:07] choose which categories are going to be [06:09] left behind and which categories are [06:10] going to continue in effect. Initially [06:13] it was a bipartite division into moral [06:15] and ceremonial law and we decided the [06:17] moral law stays the ceremonial law goes. [06:20] And while there are some fuzzy notions [06:23] of a distinction between these kinds of [06:26] laws in some parts of the New Testament [06:28] and in the Hebrew Bible, they are [06:31] nowhere near consistent across the New [06:33] Testament or the Hebrew Bible. And what [06:36] belongs in either of those two [06:39] categories is also nowhere prescribed in [06:42] the Bible. And the people who assert [06:43] that bipartite division today make [06:46] different choices about what's going to [06:47] go in one and what's going to go in the [06:49] other. But civic law is the third [06:51] designation, the tripartite division [06:53] that was made centuries later closer to [06:55] Aquinus. And the idea with the civic law [06:58] is that everything that goes into that [07:00] pot just expired when the people of [07:03] Israel were no longer an actual state. [07:07] And so we don't have to worry about [07:09] those at all. So these are all [07:11] postbiblical ways of trying to negotiate [07:14] with the text to identify the laws we [07:16] want to keep versus the laws we want to [07:18] shed. So that is also picking and [07:21] choosing. But that picking and choosing [07:23] has nothing to do with what's actually [07:25] in the Bible. That picking and choosing [07:27] is entirely post-biblical and arbitrary. [07:30] And then when he's talking about he's [07:32] talking about Exodus 21 where you can [07:33] sell your daughter into slavery. That's [07:34] not true. [07:36] >> It's absolutely true. That's wasn't [07:39] slavery. Uh, this was absolutely [07:42] slavery. Here's the text of Exodus 2:7. [07:45] When a man sells his daughter as a [07:48] slave, she shall not go out as the male [07:51] slaves do. Now, as a slave renders the [07:54] Hebrew phrase la. And amma is a specific [07:58] kind of enslaved girl, specifically a [08:01] sex slave. This is like concubinage. [08:04] This was a person who was absolutely not [08:06] free and who was entirely subject to the [08:10] sexual will of her master. This is a [08:14] slave pure and simple. [08:16] >> And it gave her rights. If she didn't [08:18] want to be with the man, she could [08:19] leave. [08:20] >> So, two issues here. One, the fact that [08:23] the text of the covenant code in Exodus [08:26] 21 gives rights to an enslaved person in [08:29] absolutely no way, shape, or form [08:30] whatsoever makes that enslavement any [08:33] less enslavement. [08:36] Pretty much all civilizations that [08:38] practice enslavement had certain [08:41] restrictions imposed upon slave masters [08:44] or certain rights granted to enslaved [08:46] folks. Even in the pre-Ivil War American [08:48] South, there were rights that were [08:50] granted to enslave folks, at least on [08:53] paper. And keep in mind, when it comes [08:55] to biblical slavery, all we have is what [08:58] is on paper. So, we can look at the law [09:01] code of Louisiana from 1825. [09:04] And it says quite explicitly there that [09:07] a master is not allowed to beat his [09:11] enslaved person to death or even maim [09:15] him. That is a right granted to an [09:17] enslaved person at the very peak of [09:21] pre-Ivil War American Southern slavery. [09:25] So the notion that to grant an enslaved [09:27] person rights somehow magically makes [09:29] enslavement no longer enslavement is [09:32] laughably false. And even more laughably [09:35] false is the notion that the covenant [09:37] code in Exodus 21 allows a girl sold [09:41] into sex slavery to just leave if she [09:45] doesn't like her master. That's [09:48] absolutely false. Here is the entirety [09:51] of the covenant code's treatment of the [09:54] question of sex slavery. Starting in [09:56] verse 7, when a man sells his daughter [09:58] as a slave, she shall not go out as the [10:00] male slaves do. And this is a reference [10:02] to the fact that uh a debt slave, an [10:05] Israelite who has been sold into debt [10:07] slavery or sold himself into debt [10:09] slavery goes free in the seventh year. [10:12] When it comes to female slaves, that is [10:15] not the case. At least not in the [10:17] covenant code. In Deuteronomy 15, it is [10:20] the case that both male and female [10:22] Israelite debt slaves go free in the [10:25] seventh year. Another indication of the [10:28] multivocality of the biblical text. and [10:31] in this case the legislation of the [10:32] Hebrew Bible. But we go on, if she does [10:35] not please her master, who designated [10:37] her for himself as a concubine, [10:41] then he shall let her be redeemed. He [10:43] shall have no right to sell her to a [10:45] foreign people since he has dealt [10:48] unfairly with her. Couple things to note [10:50] here. He shall have no right to sell her [10:52] to a foreign people, which means he can [10:56] sell her to other Israelites. [10:59] what he's not allowed to do is sell her [11:02] out of the country. Um, and the redeem [11:04] part doesn't mean he just gives her her [11:07] clothes and says, "You're free to go." [11:09] The redeem part means he can sell her to [11:12] someone else, either back to the person [11:15] who originally sold her or someone else. [11:19] It's not giving her back to the person [11:22] who originally sold her. Redeem means to [11:25] buy back. there has to be another [11:27] exchange of money. So here it's if the [11:32] man doesn't like her, he can sell her [11:35] again as long as it is not to foreign [11:38] people. But let's continue. If he [11:40] designates her for his son, he shall [11:42] deal with her as a daughter. So all this [11:44] is saying is if he buys a sex slave [11:47] that's to be given to his son as a [11:49] concubine or a wife, then he must treat [11:53] her as if she is a legitimate wife, a [11:56] first wife. Verse 10, if he takes [11:59] another wife to himself, he shall not [12:02] diminish the food, clothing, or marital [12:04] rights of the first wife. [12:07] If he does not do these three things for [12:10] her, she shall go out without debt, [12:12] without payment of money. So there is [12:14] one condition [12:16] in which she is allowed to just walk [12:19] free and that is the condition that she [12:22] has been purchased as a concubine or a [12:25] wife and then the man marries a second [12:28] wife and then diminishes her food, [12:32] clothing or marital rights. In that [12:34] case, she has a claim to make against [12:36] her master and she can walk out free [12:39] without anybody having to pay for her. [12:41] So there is a condition under which she [12:43] walks free. That condition is not that [12:47] she just does not like the guy who [12:49] purchased her. That is laughably [12:52] incorrect. [12:53] >> All this is is going back to the garden [12:54] where where Satan looked at the man and [12:56] woman says, "You can't trust God." [12:58] First, Satan has absolutely nothing to [13:00] do with the Garden of Eden because Satan [13:02] was not the name of an individuated [13:06] malevolent figure until after the Hebrew [13:08] Bible was complete. At best, Satan is an [13:12] office within the divine council that [13:14] could be occupied by anybody in certain [13:18] parts of the Hebrew Bible. And guess [13:20] what? Satan is never anywhere in the [13:22] Hebrew Bible identified in the Garden of [13:25] Eden. But also, guess what? The serpent [13:27] in the Garden of Eden was right. As even [13:30] the text of Genesis 3 makes explicit [13:35] because the serpent tells Eve, "You will [13:37] not die, but you will become like one of [13:40] the gods." That's Genesis 3:5. Now, Adam [13:45] and Eve, do not die according to the [13:47] threat of Genesis 21:17. Whether you [13:50] want to characterize that as a lie or [13:52] God changing their mind or whatever, [13:55] what God threatens in Genesis 21:17 [13:58] simply does not happen. The serpent was [14:00] right. You shall not die. And then in [14:03] verse 22, God acknowledges that the [14:06] other thing the serpent said would [14:07] happen happened. They have become like [14:10] one of us, like one of the gods. The two [14:14] things the serpent said would happen [14:16] happened. the thing God said would [14:18] happen didn't happen. [14:22] If the text of Genesis 2 and 3 has [14:25] absolutely anything to say about what [14:28] happened in the Garden of Eden, the [14:30] serpent was right. Did God really say [14:33] you shouldn't eat the apple? That wasn't [14:34] the serpent's question. Now, who's [14:36] twisting things? So, it is important for [14:39] you to understand the word of God [14:40] deeply. You don't understand [14:44] what even the word of God means in the [14:46] Bible because it never refers to the [14:49] Bible. It never refers to the scriptures [14:51] as scriptures. It refers to God's [14:55] message and to Jesus. And that message [14:59] is the message, not the medium. When you [15:03] understand the phrase word of God to [15:05] refer to the texts of the Bible, you [15:08] misunderstand it to be referring to the [15:10] medium rather than the message. So one, [15:14] you have misidentified what the word of [15:16] God is. Two, you don't know the first [15:19] thing about the word of God. If we [15:21] accept that it refers to the Bible, you [15:24] are woefully inadequately informed about [15:28] the biblical text. What you are informed [15:31] about is an interpretive tradition [15:34] and a negotiating tactic. [15:38] You're familiar with how we have imposed [15:42] unifying frameworks on the text in order [15:44] to get the text to say what we want them [15:47] to say. And so you refer to the end [15:52] result, the outcome of that process of [15:55] negotiation with which you are [15:58] acquainted as if it were the Bible [16:01] itself. And it's not. You are confusing [16:05] the Bible for your interpretive [16:08] tradition regarding the Bible. You need [16:11] to get remedially [16:14] educated about the Bible itself rather [16:17] than just the interpretive tradition [16:20] that allows you to make the Bible say [16:23] what you need it to say. I send a free [16:26] daily devotional every single morning. [16:28] Click the link in my No, I'm good. And [16:30] the fit for this video I think says [16:32] Romans go