Alex O’Connor CHALLENGES Christian Apologist on Slavery in the Bible

Ajouté : 2026-05-20

[00:00:00]And Moses instructs his his combatants, "Now kill all the boys and kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Hey everyone.

[00:00:11]Welcome back to the channel, your home for the most heated debates breaking down the moments where faith meets sharp questioning.

[00:00:20]Today we are watching Alex O'Connor sit across from Jonathan, a Christian apologist, and the conversation takes a turn straight into one of the most uncomfortable corners of biblical scripture.

[00:00:33]Alex pulls out specific verses, reads them word for word, and asks Jonathan to give a straight moral answer.

[00:00:41]What follows is a back-and-forth you genuinely have to see to believe, ending with a concession most apologists never make on camera. Stick around all the way through because the final exchange is where the entire defense unravels in real time, and you do not want to miss that moment. Also, drop a comment letting me know which city or country you are tuning in from.

[00:01:07]I love seeing how far this channel reaches and reading where everyone is from honestly makes my day. All right, let's get straight into it.

[00:01:15]Um how do you account for for instance the at the very least uh lack of condemnation for slavery and at worst advocacy for it in the Bible?

[00:01:25]>> So do you consider slavery immoral? Yes.

[00:01:28]But you're a moral subjectivist.

[00:01:30]Depends what you mean by moral subjectivist.

[00:01:32]And now you're doing a Muhammad Hijab on me. You're you're that would be that would be >> Okay, so I'm I'm going to address the question, but >> Yeah, that's that that would be that would be a tu quoque a tu quoque fallacy, which is just to say uh you as well, which is just to sort of say that it's hypocritical to make a claim like that. Like I'm not the one who's claiming moral objective objectivity here. Um you're claiming that there is moral objectivity. You claim that the source of that moral objectivity has provided certain ethical codes, and so you're the one who has to justify that based it together. Okay, so so you wouldn't say slavery's wrong then. You just say that in my opinion I don't like it. Is that Is that correct?

[00:02:05]>> No, I would I would say that it is wrong with reference So the subjectivity of morality doesn't lie at the level of the action. It lives it lies at the level of the motive. I'm a psychological utilitarian. I think that all action is motivated by desire, and the only thing that's desired is is pleasure, but I think that there are objective derivatives you can take from that. I know for a fact or I can't know for a fact in certain instances, but at least in principle there are objective facts to be known about how to achieve that end goal. So when I say that something's wrong, what I mean is that that is not the best way to achieve the shared end goal. But in that sense I can say that it is wrong. Yes. Okay. So let's let's move on then to actually address the question on slavery.

[00:02:44]So repeat your the way you worded your question again on slavery. Well, I can't remember, but but some something something along the cuz it was the reason I was asking you about the case analogous to Abraham, which is that there are certain things in the Christian doctrine, and and if you want to know why I'm not a Christian, one of the reasons for that is because I can't throw my weight behind a doctrine that fails so utterly to uh to condemn one of the worst atrocities in human history. Okay. Um so um I you know that there there is condemnation of slave trading in scripture. Yes. Right. Okay. So So it's about um Like I like I say, there there are there are things that are condemned and there are things that are condoned in the Bible, but when we get down to the specificity. So for instance, you could talk about in the New Testament where it says that the the What is it? The slave or or some phrase like that is is not going to make it to heaven. Well, okay, but that that's quite broad. You go into the book of Exodus and you find very specific examples of how to treat individuals who are in in what what might be called voluntary servitude.

[00:03:42]Now, the Bible might not call that slavery, or it might call it slavery but mean voluntary servitude, but by today's standard we certainly consider it uh to be at the very least immoral and at the very worst slavery. Yeah, so there's a lot of context on on the topic of slavery, and often we tend to retroject our understanding of kind of North American slave trade into into the biblical text.

[00:04:02]And we have to understand the concept of slavery in its own context. And And I know you've done a lot of videos on this, which I have watched. So I'm aware of your material on this. Um but um in in terms of Hebrew slavery, it was it was it was something that was uh that that when when someone when someone was was a it was often a voluntary way of paying off debt. So if you entered off if you entered into debt and you couldn't pay it, then you could volunteer yourself into slavery as a way of paying off debt. You're you're familiar with that.

[00:04:29]>> Yeah, so let's take that as the context in which we're working in. So it's a kind of voluntary debt payment agreement. You have to understand something right away.

[00:04:38]When Alex challenged Jonathan on the Bible's relationship to slavery, this wasn't some gotcha question pulled out of thin air.

[00:04:46]This is one of the oldest and most damaging cracks in the foundation of Christian apologetics, and the response Jonathan gave you is exactly the kind of dance you see every single time this topic gets raised.

[00:05:02]Alex opened with this.

[00:05:04]Lack of condemnation for slavery and at worst advocacy for it in the Bible.

[00:05:10]And that framing right there is so important, because notice the trap that's been set.

[00:05:16]The defender of scripture now has to either admit the book they called the perfect word of a perfect being failed to clearly condemn human bondage, or they have to twist themselves into knots trying to redefine what slavery even means.

[00:05:32]And what does Jonathan do?

[00:05:34]He immediately goes for the second option. He says this.

[00:05:39]I you know that there is condemnation of slave trading in scripture.

[00:05:43]Notice the move. He's narrowing the scope. He's saying, "Well, the buying and selling of people is condemned, sure, but what about owning them? What about beating them?

[00:05:56]What about inheriting them?"

[00:05:58]Silence on that part. This is the part that blows my mind every time. Alex pushes back with one of the cleanest lines in this entire exchange. He said this.

[00:06:09]"I can't throw my weight behind a doctrine that fails so utterly to condemn one of the worst atrocities in human history."

[00:06:18]And he's right.

[00:06:20]You cannot have a book that supposedly comes from an all-knowing, all-powerful moral authority, and that book takes the time to give specific instructions about food, fabric, and festivals, but somehow forgets to say, "Hey, owning other human beings is wrong."

[00:06:39]That's not a small oversight. That's a foundational moral failure.

[00:06:44]Then Jonathan reaches for the classic escape hatch.

[00:06:47]He says this.

[00:06:49]"In terms of Hebrew slavery, it was something that when someone was a vault, it was often a voluntary way of paying off debt." And here's where you have to pay close attention, because this is the apologetic playbook. Whenever scripture gets uncomfortable, the defender suddenly becomes a historian. Suddenly it's all about context. Suddenly it wasn't really slavery, it was just a contract, just a job arrangement, just a friendly agreement. But the thing is, Alex doesn't take the bait. He lets Jonathan set up that frame knowing full well what's coming next. He's about to read the actual text word for word.

[00:07:27]It's like an employee employee uh kind of contract situation. So imagine that we're in such a situation in the modern age. Um it's it's a voluntary servitude, like like just like having a job for instance, where you're not paid but you're uh given somewhere to live or something like that.

[00:07:42]And then you take an actual quote such as from Exodus 21.

[00:07:46]"Anyone who beats their male or female slaves with a rod must be punished."

[00:07:50]Good start. "If the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished as if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Two problems. First is that even if it's a voluntary servitude contract, I don't think it's ever permissible to allow the person in charge of that contract to mercilessly beat a slave as long as they don't die. If they get up after a few days and everything's fine. Secondly, referring to them as their slave as their property is not the most enticing of prospects. Right.

[00:08:17]So this is in Exodus 21, but uh so the the argument is that so is it permissible then for a slave master to beat his slave to the point of death with an strike of death and then he gets away with it. Basically that's the moral objection that's made. But when you look at the context of this text in Exodus 21, we see that it goes on to say, "When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth."

[00:08:49]I don't think it's literally talking about eyes and teeth, but it's it's making a more general point that if someone is abusing his slave and beating him such that he's causing bodily harm, then there's punishment for that that the slave gets to go free. The guy's going to lose his his Well, that that can't be the case if in the verse that I quoted we're talking specifically about beating a slave with a rod, and it doesn't just say, I'll remind you, that this slave shall only be punished if they die. It says the slave will be punished if they die, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two.

[00:09:20]Recovery implies physical injury, and not to be punished implies that they are not to be punished. Now, there may be exceptions to that. But the point of the matter is that if if you think it's okay in any context, and you can say like that the verses you quoted are making a more general point, well, who are you to decide what's making a general point and what's making a specific point? And again, I would stress that since slavery is so obviously a moral abomination, why would it be so unclear? If God is not the author of confusion, then God can't be the author of these passages.

[00:09:53]Um so I so slave slavery and then the North American you know uh 19th century sense certainly is abomination but the slavery in the biblical sense at least in the Hebrew sense is I think it has a lot of context which we can we can get into. Well, let's do so. Yeah, I've been waiting. I mean look, I think that it's also about And here is where the entire defense collapses.

[00:10:18]Alex pulls out Exodus chapter 21 and reads it directly into the conversation.

[00:10:23]He said this, "Anyone who beats their male or female slaves with the rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two since the slave is their property."

[00:10:39]Let that sink in for a second.

[00:10:41]Let me break down why this matters.

[00:10:45]We were just told this was voluntary, just a debt arrangement, just a friendly contract. And yet the very same book describes beating these people with rods. It describes them as property, not employees, not contractors, property.

[00:11:05]And the only legal consequence kicks in if the person actually dies. If they survive a day or two, no punishment at all.

[00:11:13]This is the part that blows my mind.

[00:11:15]If this was really just a job, why is there a clause about beating?

[00:11:20]Why is there a clause about ownership?

[00:11:24]Why does the moral lawgiver of the universe sound exactly like every ancient legal code that protected the property rights of slaveholders?

[00:11:33]Jonathan tries to escape with this move.

[00:11:36]He said this, "It's making a more general point that if someone is abusing his slave and beating him such that he's causing bodily harm, then there's punishment for that. And honestly, this is where Alex hits him with one of the most underrated lines of the entire debate."

[00:11:55]He said this, "Who are you to decide what's making a general point and what's making a specific point?" That is the killer question.

[00:12:03]Because once you admit that you, a reader thousands of years removed, get to decide which verses are literal and which are general, me you bas- you've abandoned the whole concept of a clear divine moral guide. You're now just picking and choosing based on whatever sounds good to modern ears. And then Alex lands the finishing blow on the section. He said this, "Since slavery is so obviously a moral abomination, why would it be so unclear if God is not the author of confusion? Then God can't be the author of these passages." Here's what people don't realize.

[00:12:43]He's using their own theological framework against them. The Bible itself claims God is not a god of confusion. So either the text is clear or the text isn't from where they say it's from.

[00:12:55]There's no third option.

[00:12:57]Yes, I it's 18th 18th century American slavery was was horrendous. So is any version of slavery in any context in any point in history that allows a slave master to beat their slave with a rod? Surely you must agree with this. Um there there is a there there is a form of discipline in slavery, yes.

[00:13:17]Um but but the context makes it clear that they were not supposed to to produce permanent bodily harm.

[00:13:23]>> I'm I'm I'm not asking you to describe slavery. I'm I'm asking you to offer a moral judgment upon it. Do you think it's morally permissible for anybody, even if it is a voluntary service contract, to beat their slave with a rod and specifically not be punished if they get up after recovering after a few days, recovery implying that they have been physically harmed?

[00:13:41]>> But you understand the point that I'm making that they were not supposed to cause permanent bodily harm.

[00:13:45]Even so, and and I I I still don't I still don't know if that is entirely reliable because you could just as easily make the case that they were talking specifically about the bodily parts you're mentioning because they're particularly important to certain areas of life. Um even if it was just somebody's arm being broken, I still think that that's morally indefensible.

[00:14:02]Um yeah, I would say that that would be morally indefensible, which is why uh they would lose the slave if they caused permanent bodily harm, such as someone's arm being broken. But they are not to be punished if the slave gets up after recovering from the beating with a rod.

[00:14:14]>> word punished there in Hebrew means punishment by death. So they get the death penalty. If they kill the slave, they get the death penalty. Okay, what about Numbers 31? Yeah. I don't want to run out of time here. I'm sure you're familiar. Um oh, actually I don't I I don't know where we are on time. 30 seconds. [clears throat] Okay, we'll try it for 30 seconds. Um Numbers 31, of course uh in fact I'll just quote it. Uh Moses instructs the following to They're they're they're attacking the the the Midianites and essentially committing a a genocide against the the Midianites.

[00:14:39]And Moses instructs his his um combatants, "Now kill all the boys and kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Now, I'm not entirely sure what a bunch of aggressive males would want with a bunch of virgin girls. I'll leave that up to the imagination of the audience. But to me, this seems not just slavery of in terms of like a voluntary service contract, this seems a fairly grotesque form of sexual slavery being quite clearly advocated here. Even in the course of war, I don't think that's acceptable. Should one minute response.

[00:15:15]Okay. Um so this is in in Numbers 31 and uh so on on the on the issue of um of the um killing so there's there's a whole range of moral arguments that we need to get into on genocide. I I understand. So Um and on whether it's always wrong to kill innocent people, for example. Um so I'm not convinced that it's always wrong to kill innocent people.

[00:15:36]>> Yeah, no me me neither. But it but it's it's always wrong to keep them as slaves.

[00:15:39]>> And and I also think in terms of killing innocent people, I think it's difficult to make moral judgments on um on an omniscient being who has access to um things that can happen in the future as consequences. Right. May- maybe we could just put it up to a divine mystery of why the moral creator of the universe would allow people to take sex slaves, but I don't think that's really convincing me.

[00:16:00]Yeah, I I I I I confess I do struggle with the with with this text. So I don't uh um I don't know the answer to that question. Um but I think it's I think it's one of the more difficult And this is the moment that exposes everything.

[00:16:16]Alex stops letting Jonathan retreat into vague philosophy and pins him down with one direct demand.

[00:16:24]He said this, "I'm not asking you to describe slavery.

[00:16:28]I'm asking you to offer a moral judgment upon it."

[00:16:33]Because that's the whole game right there.

[00:16:37]Apologists love to describe. They love to give context. They love to explain the historical setting.

[00:16:44]What they don't love is being asked the simple question, was it wrong, yes or no?

[00:16:50]And then comes the moment everyone needs to see.

[00:16:54]Alex moves to Numbers chapter 31.

[00:16:57]He reads it directly. He said this, "Kill all the boys and kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man."

[00:17:10]I want you to read that again slowly.

[00:17:11]Read it in your head. This is not Alex paraphrasing.

[00:17:15]This is not a hostile interpretation.

[00:17:17]This is the actual instruction in the actual text. The young women, the ones who had never been with a man, were spared for the soldiers. After their families had been wiped out, Alex described it correctly. He said this, "This seems a fairly grotesque form of sexual slavery." And here's the moment that ends the entire exchange.

[00:17:43]Jonathan, a trained apologist sitting across from Alex, finally admits the truth.

[00:17:50]He said this, "I confess I do struggle with this text.

[00:17:54]So I don't I don't know the answer to that question." That is the sound of a defense collapsing in real time.

[00:18:01]No clever workaround. No historical hand wave.

[00:18:07]Just an honest concession that he cannot square this passage with the idea of a perfectly moral creator.

[00:18:16]And let me give you a piece of historical context that matters here.

[00:18:21]For most of recorded history, conquering armies treating women as spoils of war was depressingly common across many ancient civilizations. That's documented. What makes this specific text different is the source.

[00:18:36]This isn't just describing what happened. This is presented as instruction from the highest moral authority in the universe.

[00:18:45]That distinction is everything.

[00:18:47]So what do you guys think of this?

[00:18:50]Leave your thoughts down in the comments. Please like and subscribe. And I will see you in the next video.