Leviticus 25:44-46 does not Support Chattel Slavery

Atheists and other critics will point to these three verses which, in their opinion, is an obvious slam dunk proof that the Bible, the Christian God, condoned and endorsed chattel slavery, just read it for yourself:

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,

According to the critic, these three lines:

1. Allows for the buying of people
2. Who then become the buyer's property,
3. Who can be bequeathed to your children as inherited property
4. For life

The key to understanding this passage is that the Bible prohibited chattel slavery long before Leviticus. 

This passage does not depict involuntary or chattel slavery, but rather a system more akin to employment: voluntary indentured servitude. The case is quite easy to make.

The Anti-Kidnap Law - 

“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)

This verse outlaws involuntary slavery since one cannot take nor hold anyone involuntary 

One might object that this is about kidnapping not slavery. However to force one into involuntary servitude one must first be kidnapped, taken unwillingly and usually by force. This is clear that selling a person or buying someone against their will into slavery was punishable by death in the OT.

But wait, war captives didn't volunteer to become slaves. 

This is an interesting point, however if a city surrendered [for example Deut 20.10], it became a vassal state to Israel, with the population becoming serfs (mas), not slaves (ebed, amah). They would have performed what is called 'corvee' (draft-type, special labor projects, and often on a rotation basis--as Israelites later did under Solomon, 1 Kings 5.27). This was analogous to ANE praxis, in which war captives were not enslaved, but converted into vassal groups:

"The nations subjected by the Israelites were considered slaves. They were, however, not slaves in the proper meaning of the term, although they were obliged to pay royal taxes and perform public works.  [Anchor Bible Dictionary. "Slavery, Old Testament"]

Anti-Return law - "You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you. Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not oppress him." (Deuteronomy 23:15-16, ESV)

Some dismiss DT 23:15-16 by saying that this was referring to other tribes/countries and that Israel was to have no extradition treaty with them. But read it in context and that idea is nowhere to be found; DT 23:15-16 refers to slaves, without any mention of their origin.

"A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to his master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of. This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations, and is explained as due to Israel's own history as slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution. [History of Ancient Near East Law - pg1007]

The importance of Anti-Kidnap law & Anti-Return law

These laws very explicitly outlaw chattel slavery, involuntary servitude. With these two laws, one could not take anyone against their will, sell or possess them, nor could they be returned. Leviticus 25:44-46 is the main verse critics use to argue for chattel slavery, but given these two laws, it's reasonable to concludes that one must read that passage through the lens of indentured servitude.

These two passages lay out the framework of outlaw involuntary slavery and give us what we need in order to evaluate Leviticus 25 correctly.

Let’s examine Leviticus now through the correct contextual lens of the Anti-Kidnap law & Anti-Return law:

“As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.” (Leviticus 25:44, ESV)

Look at the word for “slaves.” In Hebrew, it is the word ebed. As any Hebrew dictionary will tell you, this word can mean “servant,” “slave,” “minister,” “adviser,” or “official.”

Based on Exodus and Deuteronomy verses above, we can reasonably conclude that this word does not mean “chattel slave” in Leviticus 25. The better translation is “servant,” “worker,” or as we’d say today, “employee.”

Next, look at the word “buy.” Exodus 21:16 forbids owning and selling people, so how can Leviticus 25 allow "buying" people? Again, let’s look at what the word means. In Hebrew, this word קָנָה/qanah means “buy,” or “acquire,” or "gained.”  Or in modern phraseology, “hire”; this makes the most sense since this is a voluntary arrangement, the ebed/slave is going freely and can leave anytime. 

Through failed crops or other disasters, debt tended to come to families, not just individuals. One could voluntarily enter into a contractual agreement (“sell” himself) to work in the household of another: What is being bought or sold is one's labor. 

But what about slaves being  “property.”

This fits in well with the idea of one selling their labor. For example: Any professional athlete who signs a contract with a team is their "property" in that they can only play for that team.    

But you can bequeath them

“You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.” (Leviticus 25:46, ESV)

Let’s again clarify this through Exodus and Deuteronomy as this all comes down to what the Hebrew words really means. The word for “inherit,” nahal, can indeed mean “give as an inheritance.” Or it can also mean simply “assign.”  Since Exodus 21:16 forbids owning people, we cannot justify “give as an inheritance” as a translation.

We’re left with “assign,” which happens to make perfect sense in the context. If a man hires a servant, he can assign that worker to work for his son; even after his death if his term of service is still valid.

What about Lev 25:39-40?

These verses say not to make Hebrews slaves

Read the verses:  “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves [ebed] . 40 They are to be treated as hired workers [charash]  or temporary residents ... 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.

The key to understanding this is the phrase "They are to be treated as" in vs 39. This doesn't mean that they are not bond servants [ebed], just that there are to be treated as hired workers [charash]

The diffence between a  ebed = slave, servant and a charash = engraver, artificer is that one seems to more of a skilled lobor poosition -  artisan, blacksmith, carpenters, craftsmen, engraver, jeweler, manufacturers, masons. 

That is the distinction being made here, the type of labor being performed by a Hebrew bond-servant and a non-Hebrew bond-servant.

What about  “forever,” or “for life.” 

Exodus 21 clarifies:

But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his servant forever. (Exodus 21:5–6, ESV)

Note who has the power in this situation. The master cannot force the servant to stay. The only way a servant becomes a servant forever is by the servant’s own choice.

Leviticus 25:46 seems to refer to servants who have chosen to voluntarily serve perpetually. A man could assign these servants to his children, to work for them. Leviticus 25:46 clarifies Exodus 21:5–6, stating that the service is to the family, not simply to the individual.

Also, remember Deuteronomy 23:15–16. Any servant can choose to go free at any time — even those who decided to serve perpetually.

If a man assigns a servant to work for his son, but the son begins mistreating the servant, that servant can leave. They are not bound to an abusive situation.

If you let the entire Law inform the translation of Leviticus, any hint of involuntary slavery disappears.

When you let the foundation of Exodus 21 and the clarification of Deuteronomy 23 speak, you end up with a perfectly moral code of employment for foreigners.

The problem for critics

The Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) is a method of reasoning used to determine which explanation of a set of facts or evidence is the most plausible. This is commonly used in all fields of inquiry, including science.

Where the atheists and other critics fail with LV 25:44-46 is that they do not follow that IBE

One criteria for the IBE is explanatory scope: The most likely hypothesis will explain a wider range of data than will rival hypotheses.  The critics just usually just uses a few while ignoring those that challenge their view.   How do critics explian verses like Deuteronomy 23:15–16 and Exodus 21:16?

Excursus - Bowen's Argument Concerning Exodus 21:16 Examined [Excerpted from here] 

Bowen's first question, "is this passage describing a Hebrew slave or foreign slave"? [113] then looks at verses 1 through 6 to show that the passages begin with laws regarding Hebrew slaves. Bowen attempts to make a connection between the word "eved ivri" (Hebrew slave) and similarities between the word "habiru/hapiru" that was used to describe groups of outsiders or outlaws and other Ancient Near East texts [114]. He reaches his conclusion: "the passage is speaking about the laws concerning slavery of the Israelite". [115]  

So, Bowen's argument is that the use of "eved ivri" [Hebrew slave] means this Ex 21 is about Hebrew slaves.  

The first problem is that "eved ivri" is not found in vs 16. In fact, after being used in verse 2, it's not used again in all of Exodus 21.  

Bowen wants us to think that all the following verses pertain to laws regarding Hebrew slaves. I will grant that the context to verse 11 seems to be in regard to Hebrew slaves.

However, starting in verse 12 we get four verses starting with "whoever", then ten starting "when men" or "when a man does x" versus. [There is one "when an ox", and one "when a fire" verse] This strongly suggests that Exodus 21 switch gears in verse 12 to another topic that extends to all people - personal injuries, manslaughter, murder, theft, etc 

So to think that verse 16 is about a Hebrew slave based on the use of "eved ivri" in verse ONE seems to fall apart.... given the multitude of "whoever" and "when a man" verses. 

Secondly, the writer who chose to use "eved ivri", chose not to use that term, and instead a different identifier - the terms translated "whoever" and "when a man". And in verses 20 and 22 the writer uses ebed (slave)- not "eved ivri" (Hebrew slave). Bowen's argument falls apart right here. 

Given Bowen's argument relies on specific words being used in verse 2, and the fact they not only are they not used elsewhere, but different words were used, this strongly indicates that we are no longer talking about Hebrew slaves exclusively in the rest of Exodus 21. 

Are we to think that laws in verses 12 to 36 about personal injury, manslaughter, murder, theft etc only concern Hebrew slaves but not the general population? 

No, The best explanation is that verse 12 veered off onto other topics which include all people and thus Ex 21:16 deals with any and all persons.

An Objection from Reddit

Prudent-Town-6724 responded to my post on Reddit   [edited for clarity -  you can click the linfk for the full comments]

In response to my statement about Exodus 21:16 - that the verse outlaws involuntary slavery since one cannot take nor hold anyone involuntary he wrires: 

The laws of the Roman Republic and late the Roman Empire prohibited kidnapping: Are you going to argue that Ancient Rome didn't have slaves?

My Reply: This seems to be a bit of whataboutery I am not making an argument about Roman laws I made a argument about the OT law.  If you think Roman law can shed light on whether the OT condoned chattel slvery, make your argument. 

Prudent-Town-6724: Deuteronomy 20 makes clear that Israelites (in theory) should only have relations with foreign states to the extent that the foreign states submitted to Israel and became their client states doing labour for them. So the idea IS to be found.

My Reply: Deuteronomy 20 is about "When you go out to war against your enemies... [vs 1] 

Prudent-Town-6724: Also the anti-return law is also explicable as a desire to profit from the presence of an economic producer - most states in antiquity wanted to increase their populations.

My Reply: What? Is this supposed to be a koan? I have no idea what your point is. 

Prudent-Town-6724: Exodus 21:1 makes clear that the following verses are referring only to Hebrew slaves, not foreigners. In particular, there is a continuous sequence of nouns and pronouns from verse 1 to verse 6 (he, the slave etc.) that make clear verses 1 to 6 form a single unit.

My Reply: The Anti-Return law is in verse 16, not verse 1-6. Furthermore, the phase "whoever" is used 4 times, the phrase "when a man" is used 6 times after verse 12 [ESV] So, if the logic is that "Hebrew slave" [used once] means the whole chapter is about Hebrew slaves, then wouldn't "whoever" [used 4x] and "when a man" [used 6x] after vs 12 mean that those verse are referring whoever and any man?  The "Hebrew slave in verse 1" argument implodes upon itself given the data above. 

Another  Objection from Reddit - cod3man

But there are plain statements of it, like the mentioned Leviticus 25:44-46, which explicitly says you can take slaves and they will become your property, repeatedly and with multiple clarifications as well as with an opposite example. It's hard to imagine a clearer way to convey "chattel slavery is allowed" than that. 

My Reply: One of the basics of a well thought out theory [of anything] is to accouint for all of the data. But cod3man refers to just 3 verses. While blatantly ignoring the anti-kidnap law, the anti-return law, the anti-opression laws, the nuances of the Hebrew word ebed [slave or servant] and etc, etc, etc. cod3man is like a flat-earther who looks at only data points that "justify" his view, ignores the rest, then calls it a day.  I can only provide the data, and argument, but I cannot make somebody thibk critically. 

Objection A - Your first quote basically undermines your whole argument except for the assertion that it doesn’t mean what it obviously means. To say this line about slavery isn’t really about slavery, and this line about slavery isn’t really about slavery … until you realise it’s about slavery. You are just trying to fix it with playing with language.

Reply: What the critic apparently doesn't understand is that the English word "slavery" comes from the Hebrew word "ebed" which means 1) slave, servant, subjects servants - worshippers (of God), servant (in special sense as prophets, Levites etc), servant (of Israel), servant (as form of address between equals)

For it to mean any of those it would have to be derived from the context. For it to mean "chattel slave", it would have to be derived from the context. The critic cannot just assume that it means this. They have to do the work to show that it does. 

I've made my argument with the Anti-Kidnap law & Anti-Return law; this objection just an unjustified assertion that 1) slavery must mean "chattel slavery" and 2) ignores any argument or evidence contrary to that. One can simply apply Hitchens's razor to this objection: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Objection B - Under what condition is it ok to own other human beings as property? I'll provide a hint - never. It is never ok to own another human being as property

Reply: Well good since my argument is that the Bibkle does not condone nor endorse owning another human being as property

Objection C - A professional athlete is not the property of the team. Not in any way. The professional athlete can break that contract if they want. There might be financial consequences, but they are allowed to leave at any time. A slave is not. A slave cannot break the contract and leave. A slave will be killed for such.  The profession athlete also is not a permanent employee of the team. A slave is permanently owned. A professional athlete gets to negotiate their contract. 

Reply: in a sense a professional athlete is not the property of the team. He can be traded [or sold]to another team, there are restrictions on his behavior even off the field. And a OT servant can break their contract as well - see above the Anti-Return law. A servant is only stays until the till the end of the servitude contract. And then they can negotiate another one.  Thank for pointing out the similarities!

Objection D - I don't expect a reply, since it seems like you have no interest in replying to the responses here.

Reply: Correct. Here's why 

Objection E  Using entirely separate passages only works if one presupposes the Bible to be univocal, and there is nothing to suggest this.

Reply: You don't define "univocal", But if you mean the view that the Bible speaks in One voice i.e. the doesn’t itself in any significant way, then showing how all the verses about slavery are actually about indentured servitude and not chattel slavery would be proof of univocality

Objection F - Exodus 21:16 is a punishment for kidnapping, yes, but it is not a restriction on buying kidnapped persons. Exodus 21 nowhere bans the owning of another human being

Reply:  Did you read the verse? Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”  Death penalty for stealing, selling, or in possesion - a buyer would be in possesion.  What do you think in possesion of someone against their will is but ownership? 

Objection G - Deuteronomy 23 contains a law against returning slaves who have fleed. It does not have any restrictions on a master for trying to stop their escaping, but once they are escaped, other Israelites should not return the slave. It also doesn't say that the master cannot retrieve the slave themself.

Reply:  For the master to forcibly take back a servant, that would be kidnapping resulting in the death penaly

Objection H - You also ignore for the most part how the Israelites were commanded to take slaves in war if a city did not surrender and were defeated in battle (Deuteronomy 20).

Reply: not sure why you say thisa since I addressed war captives above in the post

Objection I - Exodus 21:5–6 is about Hebrew servants. A couple lines before, Exodus literally clarifies "if you buy a Hebrew servant".

Reply: Read the "Excursus" above where I shoot down this argument that Exodus 21 is about Hebrew slaves 

Objection J -  Leviticus 25:44-46 states that “you can buy slaves from foreign countries… -you can give them to your children as property; You can make them slaves for life." Those three sections clearly indicate that God allows (or commands) the Israelites to buy slaves, own them as “property”, give them as property to their children, and make them slaves for life without freeing them.

Reply: You just totally ignored my argument; I can only post it, I cannot make anyone read it ot consider it.

Objection K - I find it interesting how men always ignore the women and children in these passages. According to Exodus 21:1-6, children born to slaves are slaves for life.

Reply: see the link below

Objection L - I love how you quoted the part of Exodus 21 that shows a man staying with his master because he loves his wife and children, without even trying to address the problems inherent in that situation. see Exodus 21:3-6  So what you presented as a person willingly giving themselves over to slavery is in fact someone whose family is being held ransom toward that end.

Also of note is the following verse 7, which torpedoes your notion that slaves could go free / terminate their employment at will, as well as the notion that all slaves gave themselves over voluntarily.

Reply:  See the links for Exodus 21:1-6 and Exodus 21:7-11 below

Objection M- Every time you this, you get eviscerated. As in debunked, refuted, disproven. I don't think that you care what the bible says. God allowed chattel slavery in certain circumstances. There is no honest question about that.

Reply: Yeah, I get a lot of people asserting that I'ves been debunked, refuted, and disproven. But invariably the fail to actually engage the actual points in the argument. Critics seem to have a visceral,  irrational reaction to the idea that it's indentured servitude. 

Other posts on slavery

Seven Facts About Biblical Slavery Prove that It Was Not Chattel Slavery

Has My "Seven Facts About Biblical Slavery Prove that It Was Not Chattel Slavery" Been Debunked?

Exodus 21:1-6 - An Involuntary Slave for Life?

Exodus 21:7-11 Protection for Female Servants

Kidnapping, Slavery, Exodus 21:16. and Joshua Bowen

An Undivided Heart

Among the gods, there is none like you, Lord; no deeds can compare with yours. 9 All the nations you have made will come and worship before you, Lord; they will bring glory to your name. 10 For you are great and do marvelous deeds; you alone are God. 11 Teach me your way, LORD, that I may rely on your faithfulness; give me an undivided heart, that I may fear your name. 12 I will praise you, Lord my God, with all my heart; I will glorify your name forever. 13 For great is your love toward me; you have delivered me from the depths, from the realm of the dead. Psalm 86:8–13

David asks for an “undivided heart” (verse 11). A divided heart can have many forms. There is the insincere heart, in which what is said out loud is not matched by the inner attitude (Psalm 12:1). There is the irresolute heart, which cannot fully commit itself (James 1:6–8). Even hearts regenerated by the Spirit and loving God retain much of their older willful resentment of his authority (Romans 7:15–25). David’s goal is not psychological healing for its own sake, but to “fear” God—to give him joyful, awe-filled love with his entire being. The way to this new heart is not introspection but deliberate worship (verse 12). “I will praise you,” he says.

Jesus the Messiah

In Luke 18:31 we read: Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled.

This is high Christology - the claim that Jesus makes regarding himself being the fulfillment of the ancient Jewish Messianic promises. There are things that are going to unfold and happen in Jerusalem when Jesus gets there. It’s like Jesus us saying to his disciples, “You’ve heard of these things before. You’ve longed for these things to happen. Now’s the time.”

1. In Genesis, God gave specific promises to the tribe of Judah regarding the covenant God made between himself and Israel. For example, Genesis 49:10 says “The scepter will not depart from Judah.” There was a man named Jesse who was of the tribe of Judah. Jesse had a son named David.

2. Isaiah 11:1 says “A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.” The word “Branch” is commonly used to refer to the Messiah. The idea is that from Jesse, who is from the tribe of Judah, there’s going to come a “Messiah” who will bear fruit. There’s going to be a lasting kingship through David.

3. In Jeremiah 23:5 God said that he will raise from David’s line “a righteous Branch, a king who will reign wisely.”

4. In the book of Isaiah we see references to someone called “the servant of the Lord.” Which means, “Messiah.” “Anointed One.” The Greek words for “the Messiah” are “the Christ.”

5. Isaiah 42:1-4 say that the Messiah will not stop [i.e. falter] until he brings justice to the earth.

6. Isaiah 49 says that the “servant of the Lord” has the mission of re-gathering the tribes of Israel to bring them back to God.

7. In Isaiah 49:6 God says he will not only re-gather Israel. “I will make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.”

8. Isaiah 50:6 speaks of the Messiah’s voluntary suffering: I gave my back to those who strike me, and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard; I did not hide my face from disgrace and spitting

9. In Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12 we read that the Messiah will be highly exalted but first will suffer terribly. He will actually be disfigured in his suffering. The words here say the people of Israel didn’t get it. They thought he was suffering for his own sins and wickedness. They didn’t realize he was bearing their sins, suffering for them, and by his wounds there was healing for them. Then these verses speak of his death and his continued life after that.

13 Behold, my servant shall deal wisely, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. 14 Like as many were astonished at thee (his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men), 15 so shall he sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they understand.

53 Who hath believed our message? and to whom hath the arm of Jehovah been revealed? 2 For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He was despised, and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who among them considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due? 9 And they made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul [r]an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

This makes it absolutely clear Jesus is the Messiah; it’s undeniable.

10. Narrowing it down; in 2 Chronicles 7;19 God says if Israel’s sin reaches a certain level he will destroy the temple [Solomon’s], exile the people, and leave them in a state of judgment.

19 “But if you turn away and forsake the decrees and commands I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, 20 then I will uproot Israel from my land, which I have given them, and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. I will make it a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. 21 This temple will become a heap of rubble. All who pass by will be appalled and say, ‘Why has the Lord done such a thing to this land and to this temple?’ 22 People will answer, ‘Because they have forsaken the Lord, the God of their ancestors, who brought them out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, worshiping and serving them—that is why he brought all this disaster on them.’”

God says to the people of Israel – “Forsake me… and I will destroy the temple in Jerusalem. - All of this happened in history.

11. The prophet Daniel prays in Daniel 9 that God would have mercy.

• God gives Daniel a revelation about the temple being rebuilt.
• Before this new temple is destroyed, Daniel is told that several things are going to happen.
• This includes the bringing of everlasting atonement – the final dealing with sin.

12. The Second Temple is built.

• The prophet Haggai lives to see this second temple built.
• But it’s nothing like the first temple, Solomon’s temple. Solomon’s temple was a stunning physical structure, far more imposing than the second temple. It also had the glory of God there. When sacrifices were offered, fire came down and consumed them.
• The second temple didn’t have the presence of God or the divine fire.

13. BUT… Haggai said the glory of the second temple would be greater than the glory of the first temple:

"For thus says the Lord of hosts: 'Yet once more, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land. And I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with glory, says the Lord of hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, declares the Lord of hosts. The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, says the Lord of hosts. And in this place I will give peace, declares the Lord of hosts

God would fill the second temple with his glory. But when God says he’ll fill the temple with glory, He’s talking about filling the temple with His presence.

14. Then the prophet Malachi, says God Himself… will come to his temple and purify some of his people and bring judgment on others. Malachi uses a Hebrew term that always refers to God himself – the Lord – he will come to this Second Temple.

15. The second temple was destroyed in AD 70. The prophesied visitation of God had to take place before the second temple was destroyed. So guess what’s happening, e.g., a passage like John 7.  "37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. 40 When they heard these words, some of the people said, “This really is the Prophet.” 41 Others said, “This is the Christ.”

16. The prophecy of Haggai is fulfilled when Jesus enters the temple courts and says things like “I am the light of the world,” and “If you are thirsty, come to me.”

Justified True Belief

The Justified True Belief [JTB] account of knowledge is the claim that knowledge can be conceptually analyzed as justified true belief, which is to say that the meaning of sentences such as "Smith knows that it rained today" can be given with the following set of conditions, which are necessary and sufficient for knowledge to obtain:

1) A subject S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if: P is true, and
2) S believes that P is true, and
3) S is justified in believing that P is true

Necessity and sufficiency - A necessary condition is a condition that must be present for an event to occur. A sufficient condition is a condition or set of conditions that will produce the event.

A belief is any claim that you accept. A true belief is any claim you accept that corresponds to how things are in the world, and a justified true belief is a true belief that has proper evidence.

The Three Laws of Logic

As good critical thinker should be well acquainted with the three founding principles of informal logic, the form of logic generally used in debates and arguments.

Understanding of basic logic is important to effectively be able to get across your reasons for being holding the views you have, as well as being able to identify flaws and fallacies in your interlocutor's arguments. So, a good idea to quickly go over the three “laws” of informal logic, how they work and why they are important.

It is one of the pivotal assumptions of western civilization is that there are certain fundamental principles which govern human thinking. They are considered as fundamental in the sense that without these laws, reasoning cannot take place. 

In western tradition, the concept of laws of thought can be traced back to Aristotle (384-322 BCE), the eminent Greek thinker, who is considered to be the pioneer of western logic. Before him, the geometricians and the arithmeticians used proofs in their respective domains. Aristotle was the first to extend the study of formal proof in the domains beyond the realms of geometrical and mathematical thinking. He was also the first to investigate the patterns embedded in human reasoning and the way in which reasoning is processed. 

As part of his project, Aristotle was trying to describe the basic laws by which human thought (and reasoning) can occur.  laws so fundamental that obedience to them is both necessary and sufficient condition for correct thinking. These three laws have traditionally been called:

1) The Law of Identity: “A is A” or “Anything is itself”. If a statement is true, then it is true. It asserts that every statement of the form pp is true, that is it is a tautology. 

2) The Law of Excluded Middle: Anything is either A or not A. Any statement is either true or false – asserts that every statement of the form p V p is true, it is a tautology. 

3) The Law of Contradiction: Nothing can both be A and not A. No statement can be both true and false – asserts that every statements of the form pp is false. 

These are now explained below: 

Law of Identity 

By law of identity, we mean that everything is the same with itself and different from another, e.g., B is B and not B. It says that if any statement is true, then it is regarded only as true. It also means that every statement of the form pp must be true, so the statement is a tautology. Aristotle also talks about the laws of identity. 

It has been also said that each thing like of universal or a particular is composed of its own unique set of features. Things, which have the same essence refers to the same thing, whereas things that have different essence refers to the different thing. Those who violate the law of identity are engaged in the informal logical fallacy, we mean equivocation. 

Law of Non-Contradiction 

This law of non-contradiction comes under the domain of logic. It says that “one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time”. This definition is given by Aristotle. 

It also says that no statement can be both true and false. So, it has been said that every statement of the form p⋅~p must be false, then that statement is regarded as self-contradictory. It has been said that the law of non-contradiction or the principle of non-contradiction means the same thing. It also states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. By the law of non-contradiction, we mean an expression of mutually exclusivity.

Law of Excluded Middle

The law of excluded middle comes under the domain of logic. It also means the principle of excluded middle. 

• It says that either the proposition should be regarded as true or its negation should be regarded as true. 
• It is also known as the law or principle of the excluded third. 
• It says that a statement is either true or false. 
• It has been said that there is no middle ground between being true and being false. 

This law excludes a middle ground between truth and falsity. It has been also state that every statement of form pv~p must be true, then that every such statement is regarded as tautology. 

Pushbacks:

The law of identity has been attacked on the ground that things change, and are always changing. Thus, for example, statements that were true of the United States when it consisted of the 13 original states are no longer true of the United States today with 50 states. But this does not undermine the principle of identity. The law of identity is true, and it does not interfere with our recognition of continuing change. 

The law of non-contradiction has been attacked by on the ground that the world is replete with the inevitable conflict of contradictory forces. The reply is that there are conflicting forces in the real world is true, of course – but to call these conflicting forces “contradictory” is an ambiguous use of that term. Labor unions and private owners of industrial plants may indeed find themselves in conflict – but neither the owner nor the union is the “negation” or the “contradictory” of the other. The principle of contradiction understood in the straightforward sense in which it is intended by logicians is unobjectionable and perfectly true

The saw of excluded middle has been objected to on the ground that it leads to a “two valued orientation” that is, everything in the world must be either “white” or “black”. This objection also arises from the misunderstanding. Of course, the statement “This is black” cannot be jointly true with “This is white” – where “this” refers to exactly the same thing. But although these two statements cannot both be true, they can both be false “This” may be neither black nor white; the two statements are contraries, not contradictory. The contradictory of the statement “This is White” is the statement “it is not the case that this is white” and one of them must be true and the other false. The principle of excluded middle is inescapable.

The Consensus of the Experts Say.....

Do a Google search for the term “global warming consensus” and you’ll find one of the first link for “global warming consensus” is to this NASA webpage with the title “Scientific Consensus” and the following statement:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

Note: this isn't a discussion about global warming, but the misuse of the "Consensus of the Experts" in discussions.

Here’s what Michael Crichton had to say about “scientific consensus” back in 2003 when he gave a lecture at the California Institute of Technology titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming”:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. 

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the "consensus" is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases. In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus, the consensus took one hundred and twenty-five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant, ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.

The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Related: 

The notion of a monolithic “science,” meaning what scientists say, is pernicious and the notion of “scientific consensus” actively so. The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate. The route to truth is the pluralist expression of conflicting views in which, often not as quickly as we might like, good ideas drive out bad. There is no room in this process for any notion of “scientific consensus.” From John Kay’s 2007 op-ed “Science is the pursuit of the truth, not consensus“:

Objection A: You are advocating for science denial,

Reply: No, I am advocating for critical thinking. Simply saying "the consensus of the experts say x" isn't critical thinking - Don't blindly follow anything. Educate yourself, argue the data, follow the argument wherever it leads. 

Objection B: What are the experts basing their opinions on?

Reply: That's the question. If you have read and understood what they were saying, one should never rely on the Consensus of the Experts Fallacy. 

Objection C: I would rather go with the majority of experts than go with the minority.

Reply: That is an intellectually dead way of "thinking".

Objection D: As a layman, consensus is proxy evidence due to the fact I am not capable of evaluating the evidence myself.

Reply: Then you probably should be engaged in discussions, just say that you are not intellectually capable of evaluating the evidence. 

Objection E - Let's argue the data, then instead of seeking to use "scientific consensus on climate change" as justification alone to be skeptical of anthropogenic climate change. Here is my first argument with supporting data: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

Reply: You missed the point of the post, as I noted this isn't a discussion about global warming, but the misuse of the "Consensus of the Experts" in discussions.  But for an alternate view of the climate crisis, you can click here

Objection F - Your last line seems to indicate that you don’t think experts came to a consensus from arguing the data and following the evidence where it led, and I would love to know why you think that.

Reply: The last line is: Argue the data, follow the argument wherever it leads. I'm saying check the experts. Don't them at their word. 

Objection G - Could they be wrong? Sure, it’s happened before, but here’s the thing. Every single time it’s been shown to be wrong, it’s been done with new data.

Reply: Or with a better explanation of the current data. But here’s the thing, simply citing the expert consensus isn't data driven. If you've read and understood why the experts says X, then you should make that argument instead of citing their consensus.

Objection H - Then we can dismiss anything that more than three religious scholars agree on? Good to know.

Reply: I didn't say anything about dismissing scholars; I said get down into the data and their arguments.....

Objection I - Consensus of the experts isn’t the evidence. The evidence is why the experts agree, generally. Experts don’t say "it’s true because we agree"—they say it’s true because of XYZ.

Reply: But that not how some play it. They find a consensus and cite it sans any sort of examination. They can't or won't evaluate the data, they can't or won't think critically, they can't or won't come to a conclusion other than what the experts have said. 

Objection J -  If you didn't want people to make the connection that you were a climate change denier, you shouldn't have referenced it 

Reply: Yes, I considered changing that, but I thought that post was clearly about the misuse of scholarly consensus, it wouldn't be a problem. Then I thought it would be fun to see how many thought I was denying science or climate change. Turns out, it's a lot!

Objection K - This all screams as an excuse to dismiss this consensus rather than put the work in ot actually takes to challenge the consensus in the academic community.

Reply: Except I said the exact opposite: Don't blindly follow anything. Educate yourself, argue the data, follow the argument wherever it leads. 

Objection L - Consensus kind of is evidence as far as you the layman is concerned, lest you throw expert knowledge in the bin and give in to the Dunning Kruger effect.  Now of course it isn't "proof" and is in no way a winning argument, but it can certainly be used in conjunction with the supporting evidence that lead to the consensus in the first place.

Reply: First, if I have the data, evidence, and argument, and critically examine them, why would I need a scholarly consensus? 

Secondly, to simply accuse someone you disagree with as experiencing the Dunning Kruger effect isn't the same sas showing that thier understandingg of an issue is incorrect. It's basically an ad hominem attack. 

A Rebuttal to "A Rebuttal to Seven Arguments Which Show That Universalism is a False Doctrine"

This is a response to this rebuttal  of my original Seven Arguments Which Show That Universalism is a False Doctrine that I posted on Reddit


The Aionios Argument

Objection A: Since this judgment of "eternal" fire is said to serve as a warning, it cannot be a reference to a postmortem judgment of the Sodomites. Such judgment could not be observed as a lesson for the living; furthermore, the Sodomites would not presently be experiencing their final punishment, which awaits the day of judgment and the lake of fire. The "consuming fire" is God himself (Heb. 12:29)

Reply: First problem is that Hebrews 12:29 uses the word "katanaliskó" not aionios; the former means "to use up", the latter means "agelong, eternal" - this seems to be equivocating on what is in the text.

Secondly if we use the this defintion of Aionios that is proposed then we will have a problem with the following veres:

Matthew 18:8, “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.”
Matthew 25:41, “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;”

Are we to think that Matthew when says that people are being cast "into the eternal fire", he means that they are cast into God!?!?!

So on those 2 points we can reject this proposed rebuttal.

Objection B: When aionios modifies words like "life," "glory?" "righteous-ness," "salvation," "wrath," and "punishment," could it not be that the writers are simply speaking of these things as coming from God, and being manifestations of His character or attri-butes, which are eternal?

Reply: "could it not be" is not a a convincing argument. To be convincing it should be the best explanation. No reason is given why that is the best explantion, and given the problem with being cast "into the eternal fire" - i.e. God; one can reject this until, at least a cogent argument is presented.

Objection C: Since this judgment of "eternal" fire is said to serve as a warning, it cannot be a reference to a postmortem judgment of the Sodomites. Such judgment could not be observed as a lesson for the living;...

Reply: One can, as countless other Christians have in the past, read this warning and heed it. So, this definately can be a lesson for the living!

Objection D: ....furthermore, the Sodomites would not presently be experiencing their final punishment, which awaits the day of judgment and the lake of fire.

Reply: So what? How does the fact that the day of judgment has not yet been imposed mean that everyone is saved?

Argument 2 - the Two Ways argument

Objection E: The problem with these texts is the attempt to make them a reference to eternal fates in the afterlife. In fact, the condition of those in the afterlife isn’t mentioned explicitly anywhere in the entire OT. The fate of the wicked after death is nowhere mentioned in the entirety of the OT.

Reply: We have the New Testament to refer. See Annihilationism and Revelation 20

Four facts we can glean from Revelation 20

1) The devil was thrown into the lake of fire along with the beast and the false prophet, [vs 10]

2) where they will be tormented day and night forever and ever [vs 10]

3) The lake of fire is the second death. [vs 14]

4) Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was also thrown into the lake of fire. [vs 15]  [See the link above for the full argument.]

Objection F: I would like to add, that there’s an assumption that if God brings a judgement, that the purpose of that judgement is apparently anything other than disciplinary, and isn’t for the purpose of purification. I would like to argue that this assumption is wrong in a future post.

Reply: I have assumed nothing; if that is where the text leads, then I follow.

Argument 3 - the no righteous judgment argument

Objection G: this is an outright straw man. I don’t know of any evangelical universalists that believe God doesn’t exercise judgment upon sinners. The only difference is the universalist believes that God’s judgement upon sinners is for the purpose of reconciliation, and ultimate restoration.

Reply: Perhaps I should rephrase the title of the argument, but it seems you reacted to the title, not the actual argument: Revelation offers a picture of God’s righteous judgment against a sinful world, in overt rebellion against himself, as the bowls of his wrath are poured out in Revelation 16. The Beast, the False Prophet, and the Devil are later seized by the Lord and unrepentant sinners are thrown into “the lake of fire” - which is the second death.

Argument 4 - wise and foolish virgins argument

Objection H: this argument rests upon a futurist interpretation of the Gospel accounts. I am a preterist concerning Matthew 24-25 (most of 25).

Reply: Above. you went on about what you thought I assumed. Yet here you assume preterism, and that is the lens upon which you interpret the Bible. If one is going to offer an objection based on preterism they should at least be able to articulate why it is the correct view.  

Argument 5 - the defeat of God’s last remaining enemy

Objection I: Our debate is ultimately what the apostles believe, as revealed in their letters. This means that any text that’s presented to prove something must be scrutinized in its context. 1 Corinthians 15 is an excellent example of what happens when our theology isn’t derived from a proper understanding of the Bible. 

“But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” ‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭15‬:‭20‬-‭22‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

This is immediately before the passages quoted in the OP. Directly in the same context. Now, unless there’s a valid reason to conclude that the all in Adam isn’t the same all in Christ, then presumably all will be resurrected to life. 

Reply:  The first part of 1 Cor 15:22 is clear. All the descendants of Adam die physically. The phrase in Adam all die means that all who are in Adam die physically. We are all in Adam. The second part of the verse depends on the meanings of the expressions "in Christ" and shall be made alive.

Does in Christ here refer exclusively to believers, as it typically does throughout Paul’s writings when he is referring to those who are in Christ (e.g., 1 Cor 3:1; 15:18; 2 Cor 5:17; 12:2; Gal 5:6; 6:15; Eph 2:13; Phil 1:1)? 

Four reasons that Paul was not teaching universalism in this verse

First of all, notice that “shall be made alive” is future. Believers already have everlasting life (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47). Believers already have eschatological salvation (John 3:17-18; 5:24; 6:35; 11:26; Eph 2:8-9; 1 Thess 5:10).

Second, the context of 1 Corinthians is about believers exclusively, not about believers and unbelievers. See this article entitled “The Strongest Argument for Universalism in 1 Corinthians 15:20–28,” by Andrew Wilson 

And we can note who this epistle was addressed to: the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus - i.e believers

Third, the promise of everlasting life to the believer is an exclusive promise. Only those who believe have that life (John 3:14-18, 36; 5:39-40).

Fourth, the Scriptures are clear that there is no such thing as people dying in unbelief, then later gaining everlasting life (John 8:24; Heb 9:27; Rev 20:15).

Objection J:  The resurrection of the lost means that all of creation has been reclaimed by Christ. For some inexplicable reason, OP has concluded that those in the lake of fire are enemies of God. Why? Christ has already reclaimed them, they belong to Him, even as they’re going through the process of purification before entering into the new Jerusalem. That’s the hinge OP’s entire argument hangs upon, but there’s really no reason to conclude that those Christ has resurrected are His enemies anymore.

Reply: Again see Annihilationism and Revelation 20; we have good reason to conclude that  those in the lake of fire are enemies of God. 

Argument 6 - God delaying the day of judgment argument

Objection K:  the assumption that OP is making is that every single reference to future judgement from the different authors’ perspectives is the same event. It could be, it could not be, but that’s the point of contention.

Reply: This is a strawman fallacy. No where did I say that "every single reference to future judgement from the different authors’ perspectives is the same event.". 

Objection L: Is Peter speaking of an impending national judgement at the hands of the Romans, or a still future eschatological judgement dealing with the afterlife?....Presuming OP affirms eternal Conscious Torment, this presents a problem. It would strongly suggest that, if a future judgement, then Annihilationism would be the exegetically appropriate interpretation. Given OP’s final link, I assume he doesn’t affirm Annihilationism. This is a problem for him if he wants a futurist interpretation of 1 Peter, as well as maintain ECT.

Reply: This is too vague to comment on; You will have to specify which verses you speak of. 

Argument 7 - the removal argument

Objection L: I’m sorry to bang this drum again, but, having a preterist interpretation provides no issue between this passage and universalism. This event already happened when the old religious system of Israel was obliterated. The church “kingdom that cannot be shaken” was in fact not shaken when Israel was almost annihilated.

Reply: It seems that the lynchpin of your rebuttal is preterism. So the ball is in your court to show that it's the correct view. 

Objection M:  “For our God is a consuming fire.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭12‬:‭29‬ ‭NKJV‬‬. As I’ve mentioned, what the purpose and nature of this fire is would have to be examined, but if this fire indeed is a purifying fire,...

Reply: This objection relies on the word "IF" - "if this fire indeed is a purifying fire..."  Well is it? Where is the argument that it is? 

Objection N: then the context suggests that this is the kind of God who’s judgements, always are from the expression of love, as the author stated earlier:  ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭12‬:‭5‬-‭7‬

Reply: To whom do you think the author was speaking to? That's an important element of the context to consider. The preceding was Hebrews 11, the great chapter about those who are walking by faith.  Do all walk by faith? No. In context this to fgaithful believers; you are taking it pout of context to apply it to unrepentant unbelievers