Why did Jesus ignore slavery when it was right in front of his eyes ?
by mP 12 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
blondie
Just reporting, not supporting
Slavery was still part of the Law, though "regulated" when Jesus was said to live on earth. Later it was said his death put aside the Jewish Law. The WTS also reasons:
*** w77 3/15 p. 191 Questions From Readers ***
Still, God’s Word does not charge the Christian congregation, through its overseers, with the obligation to become acquainted with all the details of civil and criminal law so as to enforce these. We can see this in how Paul handled the case of Onesimus.
Onesimus was a slave of a Colossian Christian named Philemon. For some selfish reason Onesimus fled to Rome so he could lose himself in the masses of people there; he may even have robbed his master before fleeing. In Rome as a runaway slave (Latin, fugitivus) Onesimus came in contact with Paul, became a Christian and ministered to Paul. In time the apostle urged Onesimus to return to his legal master, Paul even encouraging Philemon to receive Onesimus as a brother and to treat him kindly.—Philem. 8-22.
Take note that while Onesimus was in Rome the apostle Paul did not hand him over to the Roman authorities for punishment as a fugitive slave and possibly a thief. We know from his writings that Paul believed that a Christian should obey the law of the land, but plainly he did not consider it the congregation’s duty to serve as an arm of the government in policing individuals’ lives. Also, we can observe that Onesimus’ situation was not treated as a barrier to his getting baptized. Eventually Onesimus, likely motivated by counsel such as had been written earlier in Romans 13:1-5 and by Paul’s personal urgings, chose to return to his legal master.
It was using the same weird thinking that the WTS did not move against the Jim Crow laws in the US and practiced segregation in their congregations and at conventions.
Feb 1, 1952 Watchtower. Questions from Readers
If the Watchtower Society is free from racial prejudice, why does it tolerate segregation at its assemblies in certain sections of country? Is this not a course of compromise?-F. C., Wisconsin.
Why do we tolerate the segregation laws and policies of certain governments and organizations of this world? Because Jehovah has not commissioned us to convert the world, which is wicked beyond recovery and hence will be destroyed. Jehovah has commissioned us to preach the gospel. Now what should we do? Drop preaching to fight racial issues? We never have separate meetings and baptisms when we can have them together. But when impossible, shall we have separate meetings and baptisms, or none at all? Shall we serve spiritual food to all, even if separately, or serve it to none? Shall we provide baptism for all, even if separately, or provide it for none?
Should we buck Caesar's segregation laws, when they do not force us to violate God's laws? God does not forbid separate assembly and baptism, and he commands assembly and baptism. (Matt. 28:19; Heb. 10:25)So should we disobey God to fight a racial issue? To buck the segregation laws would bring on disruption of the witness work, halting of it, mob violence, and possible loss of life. Only laws prohibiting gospel-preaching will we buck at that price.
Some may argue segregation is prohibited by God, citing Galatians 3:28 (NW): "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus." That Paul spoke in a spiritual sense and not in a literal, physical sense is obvious, since actually there were male and female, slave and free, Jew and Greek. Because of the existence of Jew and Greek he specially accommodated himself and his preaching to such classes. (1 Cor. 9:19-22) His recognition of slave and freeman we will consider in more detail, since it bears directly on segregation. How so? Because segregation is rooted in slavery, is the outgrowth and hangover of slavery. Segregation, the stain left by slavery, is a lesser evil than slavery. So if the Bible does not instruct Christians to fight slavery it would not sanction them to battle the lesser evil of segregation, at the expense of gospel-preaching.
Even within the Christian congregation Paul did not protest the slavery of his time. Onesimus was Philemon's slave, and both were Christians. (Philem. 10-16) Paul wrote Timothy, who pictured the society of witnesses today: "Let as many as are slaves under a yoke keep on considering their owners worthy of full honor." Why? "That the name of God and the teaching may never be spoken of injuriously." Kingdom preaching and Jehovah's vindication are the issues to keep foremost, not creature equality and racial issues. "Moreover, let those having believing owners not look down on them, because they are brothers. On the contrary, let them the more readily be slaves, because those receiving the benefit of their good service are believers and beloved." (1 Tim. 6:1, 2, NW) Here again note that the slavery of those times existed even within the Christian congregation.
Paul also wrote: "In whatever state each one was called, let him remain in it. Were you called a slave? Do not let it worry you; but if you can also become free, rather seize the opportunity." If Paul could say this regarding slavery, how much more so can it be said to those discriminated against by segregation laws: "Do not let it worry you." It is no cause for Christian concern or anxiety. But if the Lord's people are in locations where they are free of segregation laws or policies, they rejoice in the greater freedom and delight to be together in assembly. All are slaves of Christ, as Paul goes on to show: "Anyone in the Lord that was called a slave is the Lord's freedman: likewise he that was called a free man is a slave of Christ." (1 Cor. 7:20-24, NW) Surprisingly, some colored brothers have strenuously objected to this, protesting as offensive the use of the word "slave" in the New World Translation. Any who do not wish to be Christ's slave, whether white or black, can cease such service at any time; but they will be slaves nonetheless, only slaves of Satan and sin. (Rom. 6:16-23, NW) Those who magnify human importance soon hide from their view the really vital issues.
Jehovah is no respecter of persons. Neither are his people. But the world in which we live is. Whites are prejudiced against colored, colored are prejudiced against whites. In some colored communities after nightfall a white person would enter at the risk of his very life. To justify this on the grounds that the whites started the discrimination is not Scriptural. (Rom. 12:17) Now, where the danger is extreme should white persons enter these hostile communities and suffer beating and possibly death to prove they have a democratic right to be there? Should a white witness endanger his life to attend a meeting of colored witnesses in such places, or stay overnight with his colored brothers there, just to prove his democratic right to do so?
Many colored persons practice color-prejudice against their own people. Lighter-colored Negroes will shun the darker ones. Some from the Western Hemisphere look down upon the very dark ones from Africa. In South Africa, whites discriminate against the mixed coloreds, the mixed coloreds against the native blacks, the native blacks against the Indian coolies, and in their native India the Indians discriminate against the no caste or outcasts. Who is innocent to throw the first stone? Can we not see that all classes of the human race are evil, that if we start reforming we shall be lost in an impossible task, with endless discriminations and many varieties or injustices to beat down, which crusading social and political organizations of this world have hopelessly fought for years? For us to become like them would be to fail with them, consume our time in such reforms, lose out as Jehovah's witnesses, and please only the Devil.
So let us please God by preaching the gospel despite the undesirable conditions the Devil's world may make for us. Let us not be sidetracked by Satan and caught in a subtle snare camouflaged in lofty motives and ideals. Can we not wait upon Jehovah to avenge the wrongs we suffer now? Really, our colored brothers have great cause for rejoicing. Their race is meek and teachable, and from it comes a high percentage of the theocratic increase. What if the worldly wise and powerful and noble look down on them as foolish and weak and ignoble, not on an equality with self-exalted whites? It is to God's ultimate honor, for he confounds the wise of this world by choosing those the world considers foolish and weak and ignoble. Let us boast in Jehovah and in our equality in his sight, rather than wanting to boast in equality in the world's sight. (1 Cor. 1:26-31, NW) In due time the exalted ones will be humbled, and the humble ones will be exalted. (Matt. 23:12) All of us await this vindication from God, which will come in his due time. Until then, as Paul advised concerning slavery we advise concerning its lingering trace, segregation: "Do not let it worry you." (1 Cor. 7:21, NW) When possible we will meet together, when not possible we will meet separately; but in either event we are always united in spirit, brothers equal in our own sight, in Christ's sight, and in God's sight.
-
maccauk11
the ones who sold the people into slavery were themselves african
-
mP
mp => maccauk11
Slavery in the old days was not based on race, the rich portion of society were equal opportunists. Roman fathers could seell their children into slavery just like Jewish fathers could sell their children.
mp -> blondie:
I appreciate that you do not support slavery. However you have omitted to make a person observation. The ancient Romans were not prejudiced against people on their race. They actualy were pretty multi cultural. Many Caesars were all over the empire, Spain, Africa, the Middle East and more.
Your focusing too much on slavery in American, where skin colour was used to justify this institution. However there were many white slaves in Europe for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slav
The English word Slav is derived from the Middle English word sclave , which was borrowed from Medieval Latin sclavus "slave," [33] itself a borrowing and Byzantine Greek σκλ?βος sklábos "slave," which was in turn apparently derived from a misunderstanding of the Slavic autonym (denoting a speaker of their own languages). The Byzantine term Sklavinoi was loaned into Arabic as Saqaliba by medieval Arab historiographers. [citation needed] However, the origin of this word is disputed. [34] [35]
Yes it does say disputed but its not difficult to see that this did happen in the old Europe. IN fact only 200 years ago when Russia had serfs, everybody there was effectively a slave of the Tsar or one of his aristocratic opportunists. Slavery has nothing to do with racism but is very much based on greed where the master wants workers and uses violence and other similar means to scare his servants.
Jesus himself ran into slaves on several occassions. There were slaves everywhere in his domain and yet at no stage does he condemn it. How could he not see slavery was and would continue to be an evil for many years. How could he failed t o see the future and perhaps say something striaght to save those peoples from their misery.?
-
mP
mp => maccauk11
Slavery in the old days was not based on race, the rich portion of society were equal opportunists. Roman fathers could seell their children into slavery just like Jewish fathers could sell their children.
mp -> blondie:
I appreciate that you do not support slavery. However you have omitted to make a person observation. The ancient Romans were not prejudiced against people on their race. They actualy were pretty multi cultural. Many Caesars were all over the empire, Spain, Africa, the Middle East and more.
Your focusing too much on slavery in American, where skin colour was used to justify this institution. However there were many white slaves in Europe for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slav
The English word Slav is derived from the Middle English word sclave , which was borrowed from Medieval Latin sclavus "slave," [33] itself a borrowing and Byzantine Greek σκλ?βος sklábos "slave," which was in turn apparently derived from a misunderstanding of the Slavic autonym (denoting a speaker of their own languages). The Byzantine term Sklavinoi was loaned into Arabic as Saqaliba by medieval Arab historiographers. [citation needed] However, the origin of this word is disputed. [34] [35]
Yes it does say disputed but its not difficult to see that this did happen in the old Europe. IN fact only 200 years ago when Russia had serfs, everybody there was effectively a slave of the Tsar or one of his aristocratic opportunists. Slavery has nothing to do with racism but is very much based on greed where the master wants workers and uses violence and other similar means to scare his servants.
Jesus himself ran into slaves on several occassions. There were slaves everywhere in his domain and yet at no stage does he condemn it. How could he not see slavery was and would continue to be an evil for many years. How could he failed t o see the future and perhaps say something striaght to save those peoples from their misery.?
-
TOTH
Probably so that His preaching would not be viewed by the Romans as inciting slave rebellion?
-
mP
TOTH:
And why would the son of God be worried about harm from Romans ?
-
Sulla
Yeah. And not a word about torture, either. Or domestic violence, or child labor laws or environmental degradation. WTF?
-
TOTH
mP, not for himself...Maybe just for the movement. Anyways it was just a guess. LOL
-
Band on the Run
The last paragraph concerning "meek and teachable" "colored people" is revolting. It is every bit as sick and deluded as Rutherford's letter to HItler, condemning Jews and contrasting good JWs with bad Jews. Yes, we like our darkies dumb and pliable. For a race that is so genetically hampered why wonders why Southern states forbid teaching reading to slaves. How could teaching them reading help them b/c they are obviously too impaired to read.
I don't believe Jesus ignored slavery. He more or less embraced it. I hope his acceptance of slavery shows his flawed humanity. He was a product of his time. My faith requires me to believe that if Jesus returned today as a physical person, he would condemn slavery loudly. His embrace of slavery makes me wonder about his divinity.
Paul was even worse than Jesus in terms of endorsing slavery. It is very sad that God Himself or his chief proponent in the Western world just accepted an evil status quo. Paul's proud declarations that he was a Roman citizen contrast with his willigness to assign no status to full Christian believers. I also ponder whether a God worthy of worship would condemn people randomly to be first century Mitt Romneys or slaves faced with starvation and abuse. Israel did regulate slavery. A distinction was made between Jewish slaves and foreign slaves. For such a distinction to exist, there had to be some official recognition that slavery was not a great idea.
George Washington wrote throughout his life abou the evils of slavery, and even freed his slaves upon his death (but not Martha's slaves). He never was willing to confront family, friends or local political consequences during his lifetime. Jesus did not even leave a posthumous document or something condemning slavery. In fact, he seems to completely accept the incoming of God's kingdom with slavery a component of the kingdom. I will not lower my morals to accept such a system as holy or Godly.
These old quotes concerning Jews or other races help liberate my mind from the WT. They are patently offensive. Humans making such statements may be understandable since they are products of their culture. Is God or Michael a product of Jewish first century culture? I doubt it.