Why did they change the sterilization beliefs?

by mkr32208 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Dragonlady76

  If the WTBS wants to impose birth control standards, then they should help support the families financially.
• 

  Glofishy

  I think their position on in-vitro fertilization is remarkably consistant with what I would think a true anti-choice organization should believe. It's a position that probably is not popular I'm sure. A lot of churches out there claim to be pro-life, but refuse to even speak out against in-vitro fertilization procedures. They mix politics and religion only if it's convenient for them.

  I'm a pro-choice Christian, but I would and have personally refused to partake in in-vitro fertilization because while I am pro-choice politically, I am pro-life personally. While I may not agree with those that would impose their religious beliefs on others through legislation, I find the JW's to be consistant in this matter. Not that I don't have a lot of other gripes against the organization, cause I do. Well, it's not like they are out there pushing for legislation either, hehe.
• 

  Doubtfully Yours

  Right now, sterilization is a "don't ask, don't tell" issue inside the WTBTS.

  Many, many, many sisters have had their tubes tied rigth after they've delivered the desired number of children. Many even elders' wives and nobody dares contest it.

  Some sisters at the hall are even quite open about it and nobody objects. It's a dead subject, do whatever you're comfortable with type deal in the Spanish congregations where I attend.

  DY
• 

  JW Ben

  I have done some reaserch on this matter, and in the Watchtower 1 December 1961 p. 735 there is a question from readers on this matter.

  No wgere did they say out right that serilization was wrong. However the article was not in favour of it. They used many Bible passages to say that the Bible standard was that the sex organs were sacride for example they say that in the Israelites time a man taht had his testcles squashed was not able to serve in the temple. (Deut 23:1)

  BUT they did not acctually say do not do. It was strongly talkewd down.

  In 1969 15 December p. 767 they again refer back to Deut 23 and say that is the only indaction in the Bible of Gods view of male sterilisation. Strongly recomend that a person think about that but do not say NO you can not have it done. but say a mature christian should consider theose things before making a decition.

  Awake 2 August 74 p 16 says deliberate unneccessar sterilzation would reflect a lake of respec for God

  Watchtower Marc 1 p 158 was a question asking if a man allowed himself or his wife to be strerilized could he be used in the cong, basicly they give several things to be considered and said if it does not offened any one it is up to the local body of elders to decide.

  After that it is a matter of conscience.

  In 1999 the question was asked agin and they remind the readers of the gift of chilkdre from God and say it should not be viewed lighty but as a serios thing to contemplate and it was up to the individual.
• 

  Scully

  *** w99 6/15 pp. 27-28 Questions From Readers ***

  Questions

  From Readers

  Since

  sterilization procedures are now said to be reversible on request, might a Christian view them as a birth-control option?

  Sterilization has become the most widely used means of family planning. For many people, its acceptability seems determined by social and educational background, as well as by religious views. The aspect of religious belief comes into play with Jehovah?s Witnesses, who share the psalmist?s desire: "Instruct me, O Jehovah, in your way, and lead me in the path of uprightness." (Psalm 27:11) What is involved in sterilization procedures?

  Male sterilization for birth control is called a vasectomy. Two small sperm cords, or tubes, in the scrotum are cut and blocked. This can be done in various medical ways, but the intent is to make it impossible for sperm to pass from the testicles. Female sterilization is called tubal ligation. It is usually done by cutting and tying (or, burning) closed the Fallopian tubes, which carry eggs from the ovaries to the uterus.

  It was long considered that these steps were permanent?that they produced irreversible sterilization. But some people, because of regretting their step or as a result of new circumstances, have sought medical help to undo a vasectomy or tubal ligation. With the advent of specialized instruments and microsurgery, attempts at reversal have been more successful. It is not uncommon to read that with selected candidates there can be 50 to 70 percent success in reversing a vasectomy by rejoining the severed ends of the tiny tubes. Rates of 60 to 80 percent success for reversing female tubal ligation are claimed. Some who have learned about this have felt that sterilization need no longer be viewed as permanent. They might believe that a vasectomy and tubal ligation can be viewed as being in the same category as oral contraceptives, condoms, and diaphragms?methods that can be discontinued if a pregnancy is desired. Yet, some sobering aspects should not be ignored.

  One is that prospects for a reversal can be hurt dramatically by such factors as the amount of damage to tubes during the sterilization procedure, the amount of the tube removed or scarred, the number of years that have passed since the procedure, and in the case of a vasectomy, whether antibodies against the man?s sperm have resulted. And not to be ignored is the fact that facilities for microsurgery may not be available in many areas, or the expense may be prohibitive. Thus, many who might desperately wish to have a sterilization reversed would not be able to. For them it is final. So the above-noted rates for reversals are really just theoretical, not dependable averages.

  Some facts bear on the realities. An article published in the United States on reversing a vasectomy commented that after the $12,000 operation, "only 63 percent of patients can impregnate their partners." Moreover, just "six percent of men who get a vasectomy eventually seek a reversal." In a German study about central Europe, some 3 percent of men who chose to be sterilized later sought reversal. Even if half of those attempts could succeed, it would mean that for 98.5 percent, having a vasectomy amounted to permanent sterilization. And the rate would be higher in lands with few or no microsurgeons.

  Consequently, it is unrealistic to treat male or female sterilization lightly, as if it were temporary birth control. And for the sincere Christian, there are other aspects to consider.

  A central point is that reproductive powers are a gift from our Creator. His original purpose included procreation by perfect humans, who would "fill the earth and subdue it." (Genesis 1:28) After the Flood cut earth?s population to eight, God repeated those basic instructions. (Genesis 9:1) God did not repeat that command to the nation of Israel, but Israelites viewed having offspring as something very desirable.?1 Samuel 1:1-11; Psalm 128:3.

  God?s Law to Israel contained indications of his regard for human procreation. For example, if a married man died before producing a son to carry on his lineage, his brother was to father a son by brother-in-law marriage. (Deuteronomy 25:5) More to the point was the law about a wife who tried to help her husband in a fight. If she grasped the privates of her husband?s opponent, her hand was to be amputated; significantly, God did not require eye-for-eye damage to her or her husband?s reproductive organs. (Deuteronomy 25:11, 12) This law would clearly engender respect for reproductive organs; these were not to be destroyed needlessly.

  We know that Christians are not under Israel?s Law, so the regulation at Deuteronomy 25:11, 12 is not binding on them. Jesus neither ordered nor implied that his disciples must marry and have as many children as possible, which many couples have considered when deciding on whether to use some method of birth control. (Matthew 19:10-12) The apostle Paul did encourage passionate ?younger widows to marry and bear children.? (1 Timothy 5:11-14) He did not bring up the permanent sterilization of Christians?their voluntarily sacrificing their reproductive potential to bear children.

  Christians do well to weigh such indications that God esteems their reproductive ability. Each couple must determine if and when they will employ appropriate methods of family planning. Granted, their decision would be particularly telling if there were confirmed medical assurances that mother or child faced grave medical risks, even a probability of death, with a future pregnancy. Some in that situation have reluctantly submitted to a sterilization procedure as described earlier to make sure that no pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother (who may already have other children) or that of a child who might later be born with a life-threatening health problem.

  But Christians who are not facing such an unusual and distinct risk would certainly want to use ?soundness of mind? and shape their thinking and deeds by God?s esteem for reproductive potential. (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8; 2:2, 5-8) This would reflect mature sensitivity to Scriptural indications. Yet, what if it became publicly known that a Christian blithely disregarded God?s evaluations? Would not others doubt whether he (or, she) was a good example, having a reputation of making decisions in harmony with the Bible? Such a disturbing blemish on one?s reputation could, of course, affect a minister?s being qualified for special privileges of service, though that might not be so if one had in ignorance had this procedure performed.?1 Timothy 3:7.

  [Footnotes]

  "Surgical attempts to reconnect the [vas deferens] have a success rate of at least 40 percent, and there is some evidence that greater success may be achieved with improved microsurgical techniques. Nevertheless, sterilization by means of vasectomy should be considered permanent." (Encyclopædia Britannica) "Sterilization should be regarded as a permanent procedure. Despite what the patient may have heard about reversal, reanastomosis is expensive, and success cannot be guaranteed. For women who undergo reversal of tubal sterilization, the risk of ectopic pregnancy is high."?Contemporary OB/GYN, June 1998.

  Another law that might seem relevant said that no man whose genitals were severely damaged could come into God?s congregation. (Deuteronomy 23:1) However, Insight on the Scriptures notes that this evidently "had to do with deliberate emasculation for immoral purposes, such as homosexuality." Hence, that law did not involve castration or the equivalent for birth control. Insight also says: "Jehovah comfortingly foretold the time when eunuchs would be accepted by him as his servants and, if obedient, would have a name better than sons and daughters. With the abolition of the Law by Jesus Christ, all persons exercising faith, regardless of their former status or condition, could become spiritual sons of God. Fleshly distinctions were removed.?Isa 56:4, 5; Joh 1:12."

  So within 10 years of the Donation Arrangement? becoming the source of revenue for the WTS, it becomes necessary to inform JWs that reversing a vasectomy or tubal ligation is very expensive - about $12,000 US. I like how they mention the money FIRST, before trying to rationalize the negative rhetoric against voluntary sterilization with scriptures, and then drops the bomb how going through with a sterilization procedure "could" disqualify someone from Privileges?. How transparent can you get?

  ***

  g96 10/8 pp. 12-14 Who Should Decide Family Size? ***

  Who

  Should Decide Family Size?

  BY AWAKE! CORRESPONDENT IN BRAZIL

  ONLY three days old, the boy was abandoned in a plastic bag in a subway station. But a Brazilian newspaper noted that several families offered to adopt the baby.

  Although that particular type of incident is rare, the number of unwanted and abandoned children throughout the world is growing. Responsible parenthood is too often lacking. Is contraception the solution? Would it be wrong to plan the size of one?s family?

  According to the World Health Organization, about 50 percent of pregnancies worldwide are unplanned. Often a pregnancy is not only unplanned but also unwanted.

  Many seek to avoid pregnancy, perhaps because of health, housing, or work problems. Hence, contraceptive methods, such as birth-control pills or condoms, are common. Abortion and sterilization are also used as birth control methods. Regarding abortion in Brazil, the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo reports: "The World Health Organization estimates that annually 5 million of the 13 million women who get pregnant in Brazil interrupt the pregnancy clandestinely." Also, Time magazine reported that 71 percent of Brazilian women of childbearing age who live with a mate practice birth control. Of these, 41 percent use the pill and 44 percent have been sterilized.

  A survey shows that 75 percent of Brazilians think that it is necessary to plan the number of children. Others reject family planning because of belief in destiny or because of thinking that it is God?s will that a family have ?as many children as God sends.? Who should decide the size of the family?the couple or national or religious interests?

  Birth

  Control?Why Controversial?

  Although permitting the rhythm method, the Roman Catholic Church, Brazil?s largest religion, objects to contraceptive methods, whether they are abortive or not. Stated Pope Paul VI: "Every conjugal act [has] to be open to the transmission of life." Pope John Paul II said: "Contraception, judged objectively, is so profoundly illicit that it can never, for any reason, be justified." As a result, many Catholics hesitate to regulate the size of their family, considering contraception a sin.

  On the other hand, the medical journal Lancet declares: "Millions will spend their lives uneducated, unemployed, ill-housed and without access to the most elementary health, welfare and sanitary services, and unchecked population increase is a major causal factor." Hence, fearing overpopulation and poverty, certain governments encourage family planning, despite objections of the church. For example, "Costa Rica reduced the average number of children [per family] from 7 to 3," says biologist Paul Ehrlich.

  The UN publication Facts for Life?A Communication Challenge states: "After a woman has had four children, further pregnancies bring greater risks to the life and health of both mother and child. Especially if the previous births have not been spaced more than two years apart, a woman?s body can easily become exhausted by repeated pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, and looking after small children."

  Large families are still common where infant mortality is high, particularly in rural areas of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Why? Many are not familiar with contraceptive methods. One factor in some areas may be that, as one legislator said, "a man still considers himself a real man only if his wife gets pregnant every year." Jornal da Tarde mentions another possible factor, especially from the woman?s viewpoint: "The children are one of their rare sources of pleasure and bring a sense of personal accomplishment." Also, Paulo Nogueira Neto, former secretary of the environment in Brazil, stated: "A child is the social security of the poor population."

  What

  the Bible Says

  Did you know that God?s Word, the Bible, leaves it to the husband and wife to decide family size? It also shows that marriage is appropriate, whether for procreation or for showing affection by honorable sexual intimacy.?1 Corinthians 7:3-5; Hebrews 13:4.

  But did God not tell Adam and Eve in Paradise to "be fruitful and become many and fill the earth"? (Genesis 1:28) Yes, yet nothing in the Bible shows that we are under that same command today. Writer Ricardo Lezcano pointed out: "It seems somewhat contradictory to apply to [billions of] human beings the same formula that was applied to the only two inhabitants of the planet." Even if the decision is to have no children at all, this is a personal choice to be respected.

  Interestingly, the New Catholic Encyclopedia notes that the view of Jehovah?s Witnesses is Bible based. It states: "Except for birth control, which they leave to the couple?s own decision, their conjugal and sexual morality is quite rigid." It adds: "They regard the Bible as their only source of belief and rule of conduct."

  Are all methods for limiting family size valid? No. Since life is sacred, God?s Law to Israel decreed that one who caused an abortion be treated as a murderer. (Exodus 20:13; 21:22, 23) In the case of sterilization, such as by a vasectomy, the decision is one of personal conscience, since this is not directly mentioned in the Bible. "Each one will carry his own load." (Galatians 6:5) And as there are various methods of birth control, medical guidance can help a couple decide whether they wish to employ a particular one or not.

  Make

  Decisions You Can Live With

  Not everything in life can be planned. But would you buy a car or a house without giving serious thought to what is involved? A car or a house can be sold again, but children are not returnable. When planning a pregnancy, then, should not the husband and wife?s ability to provide life?s necessities be considered?

  Surely, we would not want our family to be undernourished, nor would we want to be a burden on others. (1 Timothy 5:8) At the same time, besides food and shelter, children need education, moral values, and love.

  In addition to calculating what is required in terms of work, money, and patience, the wife?s health has to be considered. The wise timing of pregnancies saves lives and promotes better health. Facts for Life says: "One of the most effective ways of reducing the dangers of pregnancy and child birth for both mother and child is to plan the timing of births. The risks of child-bearing are greatest when the mother-to-be is under 18 or over 35, or has had four or more previous pregnancies, or when there is a gap of less than two years since the last birth."

  Couples thinking about having children ought to consider that, as the Bible foretold, we are surrounded by a world filled with crime, famine, war, and economic uncertainty. (Matthew 24:3-12; 2 Timothy 3:1-5, 13; Revelation 6:5, 6) Genuine love for children will help couples to be realistic regarding the world we live in, appreciating that raising children is in our time a great challenge. So rather than just letting things happen and having as many children as come along in hopes that everything will turn out right, many prefer to choose how large their family will be so that their children will enjoy a greater measure of happiness and security.

  Besides helping us to make wise decisions on family matters, God?s Word gives us a solid hope for the future. The Bible shows that it is the Creator?s purpose for humans to live forever in peace and happiness on a paradise earth. To accomplish this, God will soon bring this wicked system of things to an end. Then, in a righteous new world free from poverty and overpopulation, children will never again be thrown away because of being unwanted.?Isaiah 45:18; 65:17, 20-25; Matthew 6:9, 10.

  Clearly, consideration for each other and for the children, as well as a balanced view of procreation, will help a couple to decide the size of their family. Instead of just letting things take their own course, they should prayerfully seek God?s guidance. "The blessing of Jehovah?that is what makes rich, and he adds no pain with it."?Proverbs 10:22.

  [Footnote]

  See The Watchtower, May 1, 1985, page 31.

  [Picture on page 12]

  Millions of children are abandoned

  [Picture on page 13]

  Children need loving care

  Interesting how they refer to the New Catholic Encyclopedia when it conveniently confirms their beliefs as Bible Based?
• 

  Scully

  Notice the very strong discouragment from having children in this article:

  ***

  w88 3/1 pp. 18-22 Childbearing Among God?s People ***

  Childbearing

  Among God?s People

  "May Jehovah . . . increase you a thousand times."?DEUTERONOMY 1:11.

  "LOOK! Sons are an inheritance from Jehovah; the fruitage of the belly is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a mighty man, so are the sons of youth. Happy is the able-bodied man that has filled his quiver with them." So we read at Psalm 127:3-5. Yes, childbearing is a wonderful privilege that the Creator Jehovah granted the first human couple and their descendants.?Genesis 1:28.

  Childbearing

  in Israel

  2

  Large families were considered very desirable among Abraham?s descendants through Isaac and Jacob. Even children born to secondary wives and concubines were considered legitimate. This was the case with some of Jacob?s sons, who became founding fathers of the 12 tribes of Israel. (Genesis 30:3-12; 49:16-21; compare 2 Chronicles 11:21.) While God?s original arrangement for marriage was monogamy, he tolerated polygamy and concubinage among Abraham?s descendants, and this worked for a more rapid increase in population. The Israelites were to become "a people as numerous as the dust particles of the earth." (2 Chronicles 1:9; Genesis 13:14-16) Within that nation would come the promised "seed" by whom "all nations of the earth" would be able to bless themselves.?Genesis 22:17, 18; 28:14; Deuteronomy 1:10, 11.

  3

  Obviously, in Israel childbearing was looked upon as a sign of Jehovah?s blessing. (Psalm 128:3, 4) It should be noted, however, that the opening words of this article, quoted from Psalm 127, were written by King Solomon, and much of this king?s reign was a particularly favorable time for Israel. Of that period the Bible states: "Judah and Israel were many, like the grains of sand that are by the sea for multitude, eating and drinking and rejoicing. And Judah and Israel continued to dwell in security, everyone under his own vine and under his own fig tree, from Dan [in the north] to Beer-sheba [in the south], all the days of Solomon."?1 Kings 4:20, 25.

  Hard

  Times for Children in Israel

  4

  But there were other periods in Israel?s history when childbearing was anything but a joy. At the time of the first destruction of Jerusalem, the prophet Jeremiah wrote: "My eyes have come to their end in sheer tears. . . . Because of the fainting away of child and suckling in the public squares of the town. . . . Should the women keep eating their own fruitage, the children born fully formed?" "The very hands of compassionate women have boiled their own children."?Lamentations 2:11, 20; 4:10.

  5

  Apparently, similar heartrending scenes occurred nearly seven centuries later. Jewish historian Josephus relates that during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., children snatched food from the mouths of their fathers, and mothers took food from the mouths of their infant children. He recounts how a Jewish woman killed her suckling baby, roasted the body, and ate part of it. Bringing children into the Jewish world in the final years leading up to the execution of Jehovah?s judgments against Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. and 70 C.E. could hardly be termed responsible childbearing.

  Childbearing Among the Early Christians

  6

  How was childbearing viewed among the early Christians? First it should be noted that Jesus did away with polygamy and concubinage among his disciples. He reestablished Jehovah?s original standard, namely monogamy, or marriage of one man to one woman. (Matthew 19:4-9) Whereas fleshly Israel became populous through childbearing, spiritual Israel was to grow through disciple making.?Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 1:8.

  7

  If the expansion of Christianity was to come about mainly by childbearing, Jesus would not have encouraged his disciples to "make room" for singleness "on account of the kingdom of the heavens." (Matthew 19:10-12) The apostle Paul would not have written: "He also that gives his virginity in marriage does well, but he that does not give it in marriage will do better."?1 Corinthians 7:38.

  8

  However, while encouraging celibacy for the sake of supporting Kingdom interests, neither Jesus nor Paul imposed it. Both foresaw that some Christians would marry. Naturally, some of these would have children as a matter of course. The Christian Greek Scriptures contain several passages that gave the early Christians direct counsel on the upbringing of children. (Ephesians 6:1-4; Colossians 3:20, 21) If elders or ministerial servants were married, they were to be exemplary parents.?1 Timothy 3:4, 12.

  9

  The apostle Paul even stated that having children could be a protection for some Christian women. Concerning material relief for needy widows, he wrote: "Turn down younger widows . . . They also learn to be unoccupied, gadding about to the houses; yes, not only unoccupied, but also gossipers and meddlers in other people?s affairs, talking of things they ought not. Therefore I desire the younger widows to marry, to bear children, to manage a household, to give no inducement to the opposer to revile. Already, in fact, some have been turned aside to follow Satan." Such women would be "kept safe through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and sanctification along with soundness of mind."?1 Timothy 5:11-15; 2:15.

  ?Tribulation

  in the Flesh?

  10

  It is noteworthy, however, that in his first letter to the Corinthians, the same apostle Paul suggested a different solution for widows. He qualified his advice on marrying, stating that he gave it "by way of concession." He wrote: "Now I say to the unmarried persons and the widows, it is well for them that they remain even as I am. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to be inflamed with passion. But she [a widow] is happier if she remains as she is, according to my opinion. I certainly think I also have God?s spirit."?1 Corinthians 7:6, 8, 9, 40.

  11

  Paul explained: "If a virgin person married, such one would commit no sin. However, those who do will have tribulation in their flesh. But I am sparing you." (1 Corinthians 7:28) With regard to such "tribulation in their flesh," the New World Translation marginal reference refers us to Genesis 3:16, where we read: "To the woman he [Jehovah] said: ?I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children, and your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.?" In addition to possible marital difficulties, the "tribulation in their flesh" that those who marry would encounter undoubtedly includes problems related to childbearing. While Paul forbade neither marriage nor childbearing, he obviously felt duty bound to warn his fellow Christians that such could bring about problems and distractions that might hinder them in their service to Jehovah."The Time Left Is Reduced"

  12

  In the first century C.E., Christians were not free to lead their lives like worldly people. Their situation would affect even their married life. Paul wrote: "Moreover, this I say, brothers, the time left is reduced. Henceforth let those who have wives be as though they had none, . . . and those making use of the world as those not using it to the full; for the scene of this world is changing. Indeed, I want you to be free from anxiety. . . . But this I am saying for your personal advantage, not that I may cast a noose upon you, but to move you to that which is becoming and that which means constant attendance upon the Lord without distraction."?1 Corinthians 7:29-35.

  13

  Bible scholar Frédéric Godet wrote: "Whereas unbelievers regard the world as sure to last indefinitely, the Christian has always before his eyes the great expected fact, the Parousia [Presence]." Christ had given his disciples the sign of his "presence," and had warned them: "Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming." (Matthew 24:3, 42) The time left was "reduced" in that those first-century Christians had to live constantly in expectation of Christ?s coming. Furthermore, they did not know how much time remained for them individually before "time and unforeseen occurrence" brought their life to a close, ending all possibility for them to ?make their calling sure.??Ecclesiastes 9:11; 2 Peter 1:10.

  14

  For Christians in Judea and Jerusalem, the need to "keep on the watch" was particularly imperative. When Jesus gave warning of the second destruction of Jerusalem, he stated: "Woe to the pregnant women and those suckling a baby in those days!" (Matthew 24:19) True, Jesus did not tell first-century Christians that they should refrain from having children. He simply made a prophetic statement of fact, indicating that when the signal of Jerusalem?s imminent destruction appeared, quick flight would be more difficult for pregnant women or those with young children. (Luke 19:41-44; 21:20-23) Nevertheless, as unrest grew among the Jews in Judea during the years preceding 66 C.E., doubtless Jesus? warning came to the minds of Christians and influenced their attitude toward bringing children into the world in those troubled times.

  Childbearing

  Today

  15

  How should Christians view marriage and childbearing today, in this "time of the end"? (Daniel 12:4) It is truer than ever that "the scene of this world is changing," or, as another translation puts it, "the present scheme of things is rapidly passing away."?1 Corinthians 7:31, Phillips.

  16

  Now, as never before, "the time left is reduced." Yes, only a limited time remains for Jehovah?s people to finish the work he has given them to do, namely: "This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14) That work must be accomplished before the end comes. It is, therefore, appropriate for Christians to ask themselves how getting married or, if married, having children will affect their share in that vital work.

  An

  Ancient Example

  17

  Jesus likened the time of "the presence of the Son of man" to "the days of Noah." (Matthew 24:37) Noah and his three sons had a specific work to accomplish before the Flood. It involved building a gigantic ark and preaching. (Genesis 6:13-16; 2 Peter 2:5) When Jehovah gave instructions about the building of the ark, Noah?s sons were apparently already married. (Genesis 6:18) We do not know exactly how long it took to build the ark, but it seems likely that it took several decades. Interestingly, during all this pre-Flood period, Noah?s sons and their wives had no children. The apostle Peter specifically states that ?eight souls were carried safely through the water,? that is, four married couples but no children. (1 Peter 3:20) The sons? remaining childless was possibly for two reasons. First, in view of the approaching destruction by a deluge of waters, they had a divinely appointed job to do that required their undivided attention. Second, they doubtless <buzz!> felt disinclined to bring children into a world where "the badness of man was abundant in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time," a world "full of violence."?Genesis 6:5, 13.

  18

  This is not to say that the course of action taken by Noah?s sons and their wives before the Deluge was meant to set the rule for married couples living today. Nevertheless, since Jesus compared Noah?s day to the period in which we are now living, their example can provide food for thought.

  "Critical

  Times"

  19

  Like Noah and his family, we are also living in "a world of ungodly people." (2 Peter 2:5) Like them, we are in "the last days" of a wicked system of things that is about to be destroyed. The apostle Paul prophesied that "the last days" of Satan?s system would bring "critical times hard to deal with." Showing that raising children would be one of the things hard to deal with, he added that children would be "disobedient to parents." He stated that people in general, not excluding children and adolescents, would be "unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection." (2 Timothy 3:1-3) While Paul was here prophesying of conditions among worldly people, obviously such prevalent attitudes would make the rearing of children increasingly difficult for Christians, as many have experienced.

  20

  All the foregoing shows that it is necessary to have a balanced view of childbearing. While it can bring many joys, it can also bring many heartaches. It has advantages and disadvantages. Some of these will be considered in the following article.

  Points

  for Review

  · Why were large families desirable in Israel?

  · What indicates that there were times when childbearing brought heartaches to the Jews?

  · How was spiritual Israel to grow in number?

  · How was the ?time left reduced? for the early Christians?

  · What possible reasons are there why Noah?s sons and their wives remained childless before the Flood, and what about the situation today?

  [Study

  Questions]

  1. How does the Bible speak of childbearing?

  2. Why were large families desirable among the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

  3. What was the situation in Israel during Solomon?s reign?

  4, 5. (a) Why was childbearing not always a cause for joy in Israel? (b) What heartrending scenes took place on at least two occasions in Jerusalem?

  6, 7. (a) What practices did Jesus do away with for Christians? (b) By what means was spiritual Israel to grow, and what proves this?

  8. What shows that many of the early Christians were married and had children?

  9. According to the apostle Paul, how would certain Christian women be protected by childbearing, but what would they need in addition?

  10. What different counsel for widows did Paul give in his first letter to the Corinthians?

  11. (a) What would those who marry experience, and how does the marginal reference on 1 Corinthians 7:28 shed light on this? (b) What did Paul mean when he said, "I am sparing you"?

  12. What counsel did the apostle Paul give to married Christians, and for what reason?

  13. In what sense was ?the time left reduced? for the first-century Christians?

  14. (a) How is Matthew 24:19 to be understood? (b) How did Jesus? warning take on added urgency as the year 66 C.E. approached?

  15, 16. (a) How is ?the time left reduced? for Christians living today? (b) What questions should Christians ask themselves?

  17. (a) What work did Noah and his three sons have to accomplish before the Flood, and how long did it apparently take? (b) For what possible reasons did Noah?s sons and their wives refrain from having children during the pre-Flood period?

  18. Although not setting a rule to follow, how does the course taken by Noah?s sons and their wives provide food for thought?

  19. (a) How do our times compare with Noah?s day? (b) What did Paul foretell for "the last days," and how does his prophecy concern childbearing?

  20. What will be considered in the following article?

  [Picture

  on page 21]

  Quick flight from Jerusalem would be more difficult for those with young children