1 Why do you worship on Sunday? Why is that your "day of rest"?

The law in the Torah is clear:

Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

Note that:

• Years under some systems sometimes have 365 days, and other times 366, and then sometimes the dates shift as when the Julian calendar was changed to the Gregorian calendar, when, in 1582, October 4 was immediately followed by October 15; and in others, a year may be either twelve or thirteen months.

• Months under some systems have 28, 29, 30 or 31 days, unless the months are directly tied to the Lunar Cycle, in which case months will have either 29 or 30 days, but before mathematical models and physics, you never really knew if the next "month" started tomorrow or the day.

A week, however, is always seven days, and this regularity has not been adjusted for almost three thousand years. Exactly 999999 days before next Saturday was still a Saturday, regardless that calendars have changed since then, or even that one person uses today a Gregorian calendar, while that person's ancestor used a Julian calendar, and while others use a Jewish calendar, while others still use the Islamic calendar. This seven-day cycle has never been adjusted (unless you consider the implications of that one myth that Yahweh stopped the Sun for about a day so that Joshua could continue to slaughter the Amorites).

​

Yahweh, who is also Jesus, was very clear that the Sabbath is a specific day, and that aligns with the period from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday. Jesus is also very clear about the validity of law:

 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

Thus, the day of rest, by the law of Yahweh, and supported by Yahweh in his incarnation as Jesus obligate the believer to continue to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.  

​

The only reason for choosing Sunday as the day of rest was anti-Semitism: the early Christians needed to differentiate themselves from their Jewish roots. Jesus was allegedly resurrected after the Sabbath, meaning after sunset; but it does not say whether or not he was resurrected before midnight or after midnight. Thus, Jesus may indeed have been resurrected Saturday evening, and not Sunday morning. It was only first-century followers of Jesus who began to advocate for Sunday being the day of rest; in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians:

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death... how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher?

Subsequently, on On March 7, 321, Constantine I issued a civil (and not religious) decree making Sunday a day of rest from labor:

All judges and city people and the craftsmen shall rest upon the venerable day of the sun. Country people, however, may freely attend to the cultivation of the fields, because it frequently happens that no other days are better adapted for planting the grain in the furrows or the vines in trenches. So that the advantage given by heavenly providence may not for the occasion of a short time perish.

Note that he even calls it by its pagan "the day of the sun," and not the "day of the Lord."

​

Thus, while a Catholic may choose to follow the edict of Constantine, most protestants should abhor this perversion of Yahweh's commandment. Some protestants do in fact keep Saturday as the day of rest, and in addition to the more well known Seventh-day Adventists, here is a more comprehensive list on Wikipedia. Jesus never said to change the day of worship, neither do any of the gospels, nor do any of the letters of Paul or other early authors and forgers; so why do, for example, Baptists gather on Sunday morning?

​

Looking at every reference to the Sabbath in the Christian scriptures, we have Matthew 12:1-8:

At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the Sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. When the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? How he entered the house of God, and they ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and yet are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

and then again in Matthew 12:9-13:

He left that place and entered their synagogue; a man was there with a withered hand, and they asked him, “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?” so that they might accuse him. He said to them, “Suppose one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath; will you not lay hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and it was restored, as sound as the other.

​

In describing the end of times, which was necessarily after today, we have in Matthew 24:20:

Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. 

If it was Jesus's intention that his followers worship on Sunday, then why does he ask them to pray that a flight that must necessarily come after Jesus has died and is certainly an event that is to still happen in the future is not on the Sabbath?

​

In Mark 2:23-28, we have a passage similar to that in Matthew:

One Sabbath he was going through the grain fields, and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food, how he entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions?” Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the Sabbath, so the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

Despite the authors of the gospels being divinely inspired, it seems that the authors cannot agree upon the exact words of Jesus. The story in Mark 3:1-5 also parallels that in Matthew:

Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. They were watching him to see whether he would cure him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. And he said to the man who had the withered hand, “Come forward.” Then he said to them, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. He looked around at them with anger; he was grieved at their hardness of heart and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

Similarly, Luke 6:1-5 has yet another version of the above Sabbath story:

One Sabbath while Jesus was going through some grain fields, his disciples plucked some heads of grain, rubbed them in their hands, and ate them. 2 But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” Jesus answered, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? How he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and gave some to his companions?” Then he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

In all of these, we have the common phrase:

1. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.

2. ...so the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.

3. The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.

There is no suggestion that the Sabbath is to be in any way diminished. Similarly, this is followed by Luke 6:6-10:

On another Sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught, and there was a man there whose right hand was withered. The scribes and the Pharisees were watching him to see whether he would cure on the Sabbath, so that they might find grounds to bring an accusation against him. But he knew what they were thinking, and he said to the man who had the withered hand, “Come and stand in the middle.” He got up and stood there. Then Jesus said to them, “I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to destroy it?” After looking around at all of them, he said to him, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so, and his hand was restored.

Once again, there is no suggestion that the Sabbath is to be diminished. What is funny, however, is that the authors cannot even get their stories straight:

He left that place and entered their synagogue; ...

On another Sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught, ...

Was it the same Sabbath or a different Sabbath? Would a divinely inspired author who is already copying not realize that the first was right and that the author should not change the story?

​

The author of Luke contains one unique story about the Sabbath in Luke 13:10-17:

Now he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. And just then there appeared a woman with a spirit that had crippled her for eighteen years. She was bent over and was quite unable to stand up straight. When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said, “Woman, you are set free from your ailment.” When he laid his hands on her, immediately she stood up straight and began praising God. But the leader of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had cured on the Sabbath, kept saying to the crowd, “There are six days on which work ought to be done; come on those days and be cured and not on the Sabbath day.” But the Lord answered him and said, “You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger and lead it to water? And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen long years, be set free from this bondage on the Sabbath day?” When he said this, all his opponents were put to shame, and the entire crowd was rejoicing at all the wonderful things being done by him.

Once again, Jesus says nothing about not observing the Sabbath, but only teaches how the Sabbath should be observed. There is no suggestion that any of his followers should no longer follow the Sabbath laws.

​

Luke 14:1-6 also teaches only how to observe the Sabbath:

On one occasion when Jesus was going to the house of a leader of the Pharisees to eat a meal on the Sabbath, they were watching him closely. Just then, in front of him, there was a man who had edema. And Jesus asked the experts in the law and Pharisees, “Is it lawful to cure people on the Sabbath or not?” But they were silent. So Jesus took him and healed him and sent him away. Then he said to them, “If one of you has a child or an ox that has fallen into a well, will you not immediately pull it out on a Sabbath day?”

​

There are additional narratives in John 5:1-17, John 7:19-24, John 9:1-27

​

Now, finally we get to Paul, who does say something about the Sabbath in his letter to the Colossians 2:16-17:

Therefore, do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food or drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or Sabbaths. These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the body belongs to Christ.

If you are not aware, Jewish months start after the new moon, and these days, too, are considered holy. This is followed by some interesting text in Colossians 2:20-23:

If with Christ you died to the elemental principles of the world, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations, “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? All these regulations refer to things that perish with use; they are simply human commands and teachings. These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-imposed piety, humility, and severe treatment of the body, but they are of no value in checking self-indulgence.

Paul seems to be suggesting that all of the Sabbath rules are simply "human commands and teachings." In this case, if Paul is saying anything, he is saying that there is no need to follow the laws of the Sabbath; he never once says that those rules should be transposed to another day. If anything, Paul is saying there should be no equivalent day of rest.

So once again, one must ask: why even adhere to Sunday as a day of rest, if the only reason that it is a day of rest is that Constantine I declared the pagan "day of the sun" to be such a day, while Jesus never suggested that the Sabbath should be diminished, only that how it is observed, and in the end, Paul only said that it is not necessary to follow the laws of the Sabbath, just like he is saying it is not necessary to follow the dietary laws or the laws on maintaining ritual purity.

​

2 Do you support slavery as described in the scriptures?

Have you ever punched someone so hard that they writhed in pain for three hours? Have you ever been struck in the face that you were knocked unconscious for six hours? Now, if you yourself or your family or your friends were being threatened by another person, and to stop that person from committing bodily harm, it may actually be necessary to subdue an individual, but even then, to hit them that hard that they are unconscious for twelve hours would hardly be your intention, and yet, in the "heat of the moment," it may happen that such an offender may be so harmed. Never-the-less, we still abide by the understanding that the response should be proportional to the threat: once the offender is constrained, you cannot subsequently inflict retributional pain and physical punishment. 

Contrast this with Exodus 21:20-21:

When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished.

But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner’s property.

That's right: if you take a baseball bat and hit your slave so hard that the slave dies, then you will be punished; however, if you hit your slave so hard as to cause internal bleeding or rupturing of an organ, but the slave is still able to live for two days, then you are not punished. If you hit your slave and break an arm, or break a leg, or break that slave's rib cage, that's okay. The slave may be of less use to you, but at the same time, the owner could use a slave as an example to other slaves. It is quite clear: the slave is the property of the owner, like a tent or a cow or some food. Remember, your god, Yahweh, chose this to be one of his many commandments, a part of the covenant with the children of Israel.

​

There is one situation where harming a slave may result in the slave obtaining that slave's freedom in Exodus 21:26-27:

When a slaveowner strikes the eye of a male or female slave, destroying it,

the owner shall let the slave go, a free person, to compensate for the eye.

If the owner knocks out a tooth of a male or female slave,

the slave shall be let go, a free person, to compensate for the tooth.

Consequently, Yahweh believes that bodily harm is okay, but blinding a slave in an eye or knocking out a tooth are grounds for being obligated to release that slave. There is no mention of broken bones or maiming, so this is a clear admonition to striking a slave on the head, the most likely target that may lead to loss of teeth, loss of a eye, or unconsciousness or death.

It is much better to strike your slave on the back, in the stomach, on the arms or legs;

just--whatever you do--avoid striking the head.

​

We will now go through many of the references to slavery, first in the Judean scriptures, and then in the Christian scriptures. While the scriptures generally refer to "master," we will always refer to the status of the slave as the property of the slave's "owner."

​

2.1 Judean scriptures

The verses discussing slavery are found in Exodus and Leviticus, two books of the Torah. We will continue examining Exodus first, then Leviticus and then we will return to Genesis.

​

Male slaves do have one benefit, as described in Exodus 21:2:

When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt.

That male slave's marital status when he is set free depends on when he got married, as described in Exodus 21:3-4:

If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him.

If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone.

Thus, a single male who is enslaved, if he is given a wife, then that wife and all children from that marriage are the property of the master. There is a way for that slave to keep his wife and children, and that is to forfeit the right to freedom forever:

But if the slave declares, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person,’

then his master shall bring him before God.

He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost, and

his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and

he shall serve him for life.

That is correct: the male slave not only gives up any chance for freedom forever, the slave is also mutilated using an awl. It is not sufficient to have that slave acknowledge that he wishes to remain with his owner, nor does that slave have a second opportunity after another seven years to go free.

​

Female slaves are not so lucky, as Exodus 21:7-11 describes:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave,

she shall not go out as the male slaves do.

​

This seems to describe sexual slavery, where the owner, if he takes this slave as a concubine,

If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed;

he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her.

​

Rather the owner can also gift this sexual slave as a concubine for his son:

If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter.

​

If the owner takes this sexual slave as a concubine, there are still other restrictions:

If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the

1. food,

2. clothing, or

3. marital rights

of the first wife. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.

Apart from the fact that the woman is being sold into sexual slavery, some may actually see this as "just". What is not clear is are these the only two options? Can a female slave be given as the wife of a male slave of that owner, as described above?  

​

We are also told the exact value of a slave in Exodus 21L32:

If the ox gores a male or female slave,

the owner shall pay to the slaveowner thirty shekels of silver, and

the ox shall be stoned.

Thus, a slave is worth approximate 300 grams of silver, 10 ounces of silver, or on the order of 200 USD.

​

There is one admonition against slaver, in Exodus 21:16, it says:

Whoever kidnaps a person, whether that person has been sold or is still held in possession, shall be put to death.

This specifically condemns the act of kidnapping a free individual and any subsequent sale of that victim into slavery.

​

Remember, these are not the laws of that society, but rather the explicit words of Yahweh:

Yahweh said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites: ... These are the ordinances that you shall set before them: When you buy a male Hebrew slave, ...”

These are allegedly the words of Yahweh and of Jesus, Jesus allegedly being one third of Yahweh, or perhaps another third of the one god if Yahweh is equated with the “father” while Jesus is the “son.”

​

Leviticus

Leviticus 19:20-22:

“If a man has sexual relations with a woman who is a slave, designated for another man but not ransomed or given her freedom, an inquiry shall be held.

They shall not be put to death, since she has not been freed, but he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the Lord, at the entrance of the tent of meeting, a ram as guilt offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of guilt offering before the Lord for his sin that he committed, and the sin he committed shall be forgiven him.

That's right, if you rape a female slave, you must offer up a ram. A slave is worth 200 USD while today a ram is between 200 and 500 USD, so a ram is worth more than a slave. Of course, the priest gets to have fresh meat that evening for dinner.

​

In Leviticus, written later, we see clarification to what is said in Exodus 21: In Leviticus 25:39-46, it begins with:

If any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that they sell themselves to you,

you shall not make them serve as slaves.

They shall remain with you as hired or bound laborers.

They shall serve with you until the year of the Jubilee.

Then they and their children with them shall go out from your authority;

they shall go back to their own family and return to their ancestral property.

For they are my servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt;

they shall not be sold as slaves are sold.

You shall not rule over them with harshness but shall fear your God.

Thus, if a Judean sells himself to another to pay for a debt, this should not be considered slavery, but rather closer to the concept of indentured servitude, where the individual may go free after some period of time. This passage is in line with Exodus 21, with the admonition that Judeans are not to "be sold as other slaves are sold." The only missing point is what happens if the indentured servant is given a wife by the owner. However, what is clear is that both of these passages refer to Judean slaves being given their freedom in the year of the Jubilee, a gift not granted to any other slave from any other nation.

​

If you happen to be a Canaanite or Hittite or Jebusite or Egyptian or from any other nation and you are a slave, it is much more harsh:

As for the male and female slaves whom you may have,

it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves.

You may also acquire them

1. from among the aliens residing with you and

2. from their families who are with you who have been born in your land;

they may be your property.

You may keep them as a possession for your children after you,

for them to inherit as property.

These slaves are mere chattel, like tents, animals and food. They can be traded, they can be bequeathed to your children; they may never go free. Also, if the children of a Judean servant whose mother was given to that servant by the owner are the property of that owner, then most certainly the children of any foreign slave will continue to be slaves.

​

The passage continues to contrast the treatment of foreign slaves and Judeans who are in indentured servitude:

These [foreign captives] you may treat as slaves,

but as for your fellow Israelites,

no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

This implicitly says that foreign slaves may be ruled over with harshness. As for who was most likely to be the victim of Judean slavery? Their kin from around their lands, the Canaanites, but that is a story we will see when we return to Genesis.

​

Deuteronomy

Under the rule of King Josiah came the Deuteronomic reform with the discovery of a lost fifth book of Moses.

​

In Deuteronomy 15:12-18, we have

If a member of your community, whether a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and works for you six years, in the seventh year you shall set that person free.

And when you send a male slave out from you a free person, you shall not send him out empty-handed.

Provide for him liberally out of 

1. your flock,

2. your threshing floor, and

3. your winepress,

thus giving to him some of the bounty with which the Lord your God has blessed you.

Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you;

for this reason I lay this command upon you today.

This is more than is written in Exodus, no doubt because many owners were sending out their indentured servants in such a state that they had little choice but to come back. The next reiterates the mutilation of those who wish to remain with their owner, but now this includes men and women: they are to become marked slaves:

But if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he is well off with you,

then you shall take an awl and thrust it through his earlobe into the door, and he shall be your slave forever.

This is also for female servants:

You shall do the same with regard to your female slave.

​

It also asks that the owner to consider the act of freeing a servant to be good:

Do not consider it a hardship when you send them out from you free persons, because for six years they have given you services worth the wages of hired laborers, and the Lord your God will bless you in all that you do.

​

In here, it continues with laws regarding the treatment of women, where in Deuteronomy 21:10-14, we have:

“When you go out to war against your enemies and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive,

suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry,

Thus, this is sexual slavery, as the woman has no say in the matter with respect to the marriage. But that is not enough:

and so you bring her home to your house: she shall

1. shave her head,

2. pare her nails and

3. discard her captive’s garb,

Essentially, the woman is to lose all that may make her appear to be beautiful, her hair, her fingernails, and her clothes.

and remain in your house a full month mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 

This, actually, is quite reasonable.

But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and certainly not sell her for money.

You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

So while she was forced to be wife and sexual slave, at least if she is not pleasing, she will be reduced to a mere slave.

​

One of the more interesting verses is found in Deuteronomy 23:15-16:

You shall not return to their owners slaves who have escaped to you from their owners. 

They shall reside with you, in your midst, in any place they choose in any one of your towns, wherever they please;

you shall not oppress them.

This seems to suggest that one should not return slaves to their owners from whom they escaped, but does this mean that any slave who escapes that slave's owner is thus free to live anywhere in Judea? Would a Moabite slave who escapes a Judean owner be allowed to live in Jerusalem? This seems contrary, to say the least, but to try to understand the passage, it is necessary to read the text in totality, starting much earlier: to understand who "they" are when it says "you shall not return to their owners...":

When you are encamped against your enemies, you shall guard against every evil thing.

If one of you becomes unclean...he may come back into the camp.

You shall have a designated area outside the camp to which you shall go...

You shall not return to their owners slaves who have escaped to you from their owners...

The previous passages describe a situation where one is encamped against an enemy, and the definition of "their", at least, if the translators are reasonably faithful to the original text is "belonging to or associated with the people or things previously mentioned or easily identified." In this case, the most easily identified people are "your enemies." Thus, while this could be as magnanimous as it appears at first reading, especially when read in isolation, it really only applies to the escaped slaves of the enemies of the Judeans while the Judeans are camped against them. One must also ask: how do you recognize a slave of a different people? It would be interesting to know if this was interpreted as saying Ammonites or Moabite slaves could now live amounts the Judeans; after all, in the same chapter, we have in Deuteronomy 23:3-6:

No Ammonite or Moabite shall come into the assembly of the Lord even to the tenth generation.

None of their descendants shall come into the assembly of the Lord forever, ... 

You shall never promote their welfare or their prosperity as long as you live.

I would be interested if a Jewish scholar would identify the slaves mentioned as being slaves of any nation, or just Judean slaves. However, as so many apologists claim that verses must be read in context, in this case, hit is humorous that no apologetics on slavery that include this apparently generous and charitable pair of verses bothers to refer to or remark on the surrounding context.

​

Numbers

An example of sexual slavery occurs in Numbers 31:

They did battle against Midian, as the Lord had commanded Moses, and killed every male...

The Israelites took the women of Midian and their little ones captive, and they plundered all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods...

Then they brought the captives and the plunder and the spoil to Moses...

Moses...went to meet them outside the camp.

Moses became angry...

Moses said to them, “Have you allowed all the women to live? These women here, on Balaam’s advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the Lord.

Now therefore,

1. kill every male among the little ones, and

2. kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him.

But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves....”

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying,

“You ... make an inventory of the plunder captured, both human and animal.

Divide the plunder into two parts, between the warriors who went out to battle and all the congregation.

1. From the share of the warriors..., set aside as tribute for the Lord one item out of every five hundred, whether persons, ... Take it from their half and give it to Eleazar the priest...

2. But from the Israelites’ half you shall take one out of every fifty, whether persons, ...—and give them to the Levites, ...”

The plunder...that the troops had taken totaled...thirty-two thousand persons in all, women who had not known a man by sleeping with him.

The half-share...of those who had gone out to war... The persons were sixteen thousand, of which the Lord’s tribute was thirty-two persons. Moses gave the tribute...to Eleazar the priest...

As for the Israelites’ half...was...sixteen thousand persons. From the Israelites’ half Moses took one of every fifty, both of persons..., and gave them to the Levites...

Thus, out of 64 000 women who were virgins, 32 were given the Eleazar the priest, 320 to the Levites, 15968 to the troops as spoil, and 15680 to the rest of the congregation. But consider what led to this: for every virgin prisoner, there were likely at least as many mothers and wives, and likely as many male children. Like other genocidal events, the warriors went through perhaps two hundred thousand prisoners, and if they saw a mother holding on to a son, this was easiest: they could kill them both. Even if there were 12 000 troops, this would have been a prolonged terror, seeing the victors killing your friends and their sons. However, that would not have been the end of it, for of the hundred thousand women who are left, there really is only one test as to whether the woman had "known a man by sleeping with him." What woman is going to expose herself willingly to her captors, and then if the captor, having made his inspection, determines she is not a virgin, he then proceeds to kill her. Do that a hundred thousand times, with half that number being killed. As for those who survived, 

​

Genesis

Who did the Judean people enslave? Contrary to their shared mythology, the Judean and Samarian Israelites did not descend from an individual who migrated from the Sumerian city of Ur to Canaan, but rather, descended from the nomadic pastoral herders of Canaan who migrated into the Samarian highlands and the Judean mountains when the Bronze Age collapse devastated trade routes, forcing them to settle. As pastoralists, these people would have traded with but also had antagonistic relationships with the settled Canaanites; those who already lived in the cities and towns and villages in the more fertile lands. Thus, the greatest local threat to the pastoral Canaanites were the settled Canaanites, their closest relations. To justify the enslavement of these people, a fanciful story was added to a fanciful flood borrowed from Mesopotamian mythology in Genesis 9:18-27:

​

The sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan...

Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard... He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and he lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside... When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said,

“Cursed be Canaan;
  lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.”

He also said,

“Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem,
  and let Canaan be his slave.
  May God make space for Japheth,
and let him live in the tents of Shem,
and let Canaan be his slave.”

​

It was, of course, believed that Canaan the grandson of Noah was the ancestor of Canaanites, just like Frank is the ancestor of all French and Jerry is the ancestor of all Germans. This curse was understood to apply to Canaan and all his descendants, forever. The punishment is unjust for two reasons: first, as Ham was the individual who saw his father naked, and despite having many children, only the youngest son is cursed; and second, what justification is there for the tenth generation children of Canaan to continue to be slaves to the descendants of Shem and Japheth? 

​

Thus, the Judean scriptures are clear on the treatment of slaves: the slave is the property of the owner, no different from a tent, animals, or food, and the foreign people who were most likely to be enslaved by the Canaanite herders were the settled Canaanites.

​