Question about johnathon edwards

[quietstorm]

In my Baptist History Class I took last spring I learned that Johathon Edwards was a slave owner. However my Baptist History teacher went on to talk about how he was a great theologian and a great man of God. He justified him being a slave owner but simply saying "he was a man of his day". Maybe its just me but I have a hard time reconciling the idea of a slave owner being a "great man of God". I have even heard people say things like "well he treated his slaves good etc". I guess I am just one to believe that as a great man of God you should be fighting against a system that inslaves people and treats them like property. At that time you had mad Christians who spoke up against the system of slavery and in my eyes those people would be considered "great men or women of God". I'm not sure if Edwards spoke on the issue or apologized for being apart of the system of slavery but could somebody who might know more about him explain why he is considered "a great man of God".

1 John 4:20-21 19(A)We love, because He first loved us.

20(B)If someone says, "I love God," and (C)hates his brother, he is a (D)liar; for (E)the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, (F)cannot love God whom he has not seen.

21And (G)this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God (H)should love his brother also

[the answer]

i haven't studied this, so i may change what im bout to say. slavery isn't always bad. in fact in the bible there was slavery. personally i don't have much of a problem with slavery (put ya jaw back up, let me explain)

for blacks slavery was bad becuase they were RIPPED from theirr homes and FORCED to do labor in the hot sun, and horrible conditions. they were raped and beaten. no human being deserves to endure this.

however, some people treated their slaves more like servants. they gave them food, a place to stay, and treated them live humans.

if this is how JE treated his slaves, then i don't see what would be so bad. today we have butlers, right? we don't see that as immoral, due to the way they are treated.

SO that's my take ...for now

[quietstorm]

admin said:

i haven't studied this, so i may change what im bout to say. slavery isn't always bad. in fact in the bible there was slavery. personally i don't have much of a problem with slavery (put ya jaw back up, let me explain)

for blacks slavery was bad becuase they were RIPPED from theirr homes and FORCED to do labor in the hot sun, and horrible conditions. they were raped and beaten. no human being deserves to endure this.

however, some people treated their slaves more like servants. they gave them food, a place to stay, and treated them live humans.

if this is how JE treated his slaves, then i don't see what would be so bad. today we have butlers, right? we don't see that as immoral, due to the way they are treated.

SO that's my take ...for now

Whats good answer thanks for responding fam. Just a few comments though. The Butler comparison will not work because butlers have the freedom to come and go as they please and they also weren't purchased like a piece of property. My problem is why Edwards took part in the system of slavery and even supported it cause like you said

admin said:

for blacks slavery was bad becuase they were RIPPED from theirr homes and FORCED to do labor in the hot sun, and horrible conditions. they were raped and beaten. no human being deserves to endure this.

From reading up on Edwards there were cats who spoke up against him owning slaves but yet he wrote back at them defending his "right" to own slaves and not only that he defended the system of slavery. I'm just trying to understand why professors at my seminary justify him supporting slavery instead of flat out calling him wrong for doing so. As Christians I pray that we fight against any system that views people as property instead of defending it.

[the answer]

GOOD POINT BOUT THE BUTLER.

So u see participating in the system as just as bad as treating the slaves badly? Did edwards beat his slaves? were they treated bad?

[quietstorm]

admin said:

GOOD POINT BOUT THE BUTLER.

So u see participating in the system as just as bad as treating the slaves badly? Did edwards beat his slaves? were they treated bad?

Whats good? What I am saying is that as a Christian I believe the best course of action will be to speak up against a system such as slavery instead of embracing it. Similar to how cats now a days speak up against movements they feel are unbiblical such as "word of faith". When Edwards was confronted by the fact he took part in slavery he defended the system of slavery as opposed to doing all he could to speak against it. If he treated his "property" better than other cats that still does not dismiss the fact he took part in a system that is not consistent with a biblical worldview.

P.s. I just want to make it clear that I am not saying that I feel Edwards was not a Christian I am just trying to reconcile the concept of a great man of God who also owned slaves up until he died.

[ChristVader]

As of late my post have been too caustic for some. So here is just a sample of Gods Logic on the subject. Notice He never tells anyone to Hate the System HE is establishing. He does as Answer said, tell us to Love within the system. I am sure JE knew these passages well. Just as a bonus too, God happened to Mandate the DP(Death Penalty) here in the same passage.


Exodus 21
1 "These are the laws you are to set before them:

Hebrew Servants
2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Personal Injuries
12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.
15 "Anyone who attacks [c] his father or his mother must be put to death.

16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.

17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.

18 "If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist [d] and he does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed.

20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

26 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.

28 "If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death. 30 However, if payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded. 31 This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter. 32 If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels [f] of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.

[cderolic]

Yo QS, I don't think Edwards treated his slaves like the images that are portrayed in the media and in one sided history text books. From my understanding, he owned slaves because it was a good investment. He had the money and in his time slavery was a big part of the economic system. I will like to think that he treated his slaves well and perhaps shared Christ with them and his love.

Without getting into whether owning slaves is wrong or right, allow me to question you on questioning is godliness. You have to be careful to not exalt yourself in questioning his integrity. In your mind, are you more godly than he his because you don't own slaves? I don't think you will think that. I know you are more humble than that. Feel me?

I have a problem with that fact about him too but I have to place myself in that time and not judhe that time inlight of the propaganda that you see today. I have to think to myself whether I would of owned slaves too. Even Black people owned slaves back then but only a hand full. Would you have been one of the hand full? I think Edwards in his defence said something to the effect that those who criticized him are hypocrits because although they don't own slaves, they still bennifit from the slavery yet would not at all live less than the quality of life they have.

In a way, that is true for us. We all look at slavery as an evil thing, which it was, but sometimes forget that we have and are benifiting from it.

[cderolic]

QS, your question is still valid though. Why did'nt Edwards speak against slavery? Perhaps he considered the great awakening much more important. I am thinking that given the great revival of his time, if he was to speak against something that many imbraced and not to mention that they thought nothing wrong about, it would of taken attention off of the revivals that were going on.

Thats just my thoughts. It make sense though don't you think?

[eternal]

I don't see the need to deffend people's evil. No one tries to deny that Paul persecuted the church.

I really don't buy the "man of the time" argument either. John Wesley was also a man of that time, yet was an ardent abolitionist, and fought against slavery until the day he died. People called out the evil of enslaving and dehumanizing real life human beings, possesing the very breath of God within their nostrils. While Edwards was buying and selling human beings to turn a buck, Wesley was doing all he could to free them.

Did Edwards love his neighbor as himself? Did he have pity on his brother? Dude was dirty, and I am uncofortable I suppose trying to have to deffend him based on the idea we like his theology (which I don't but I'm speaking for others here).

[the answer]

I guess the question kinda goes to : Is slavery wrong? I think a certain kind is wrong, but all slavery?

Is it evil to own slaves? i don't think so, if u are talking about slavery closer to the biblical type.

[eternal]

admin said:

I guess the question kinda goes to : Is slavery wrong? I think a certain kind is wrong, but all slavery?

Is it evil to own slaves? i don't think so, if u are talking about slavery closer to the biblical type.

Same word, different things, just like "restrain"


The biblical system was volunatry, and it had a timelimit in seven years, and they were to be tended to, still had human rights, and were to be "furnished liberaly" upon their departure of seven years.

That is the biblical system and it is nothing like what happened in "the good ol days" of america.

Even further Israel rarely maintained this standard and most often refused to release their slaves when their service was up. To this they were condemned by the prophets...

Jer34:13 "Thus says the LORD God of Israel, `I made a covenant with your forefathers in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage, saying, 14 "At the end of seven years each of you shall set free his Hebrew brother who has been sold to you and has served you six years, you shall send him out free from you; but your forefathers did not obey Me or incline their ear to Me. 15 "Although recently you had turned and done what is right in My sight, each man proclaiming release to his neighbor, and you had made a covenant before Me in the house which is called by My name. 16 "Yet you turned and profaned My name, and each man took back his male servant and each man his female servant whom you had set free according to their desire, and you brought them into subjection to be your male servants and female servants."' 17 "Therefore thus says the LORD, `You have not obeyed Me in proclaiming release each man to his brother and each man to his neighbor. Behold, I am proclaiming a release to you,' declares the LORD, `to the sword, to the pestilence and to the famine; and I will make you a terror to all the kingdoms of the earth.

Notice when they did began to flip God's order and consider their finances as more important than human lives, and stole their dignity from them, God was furious, and said they would meet their release...with the sword!

We were much worse than what the Israelites did. Jonathan Edwards includded.

peace.

>>BTW: I wrote a small exegetical paper on the Dt. passage on the rules of slavery if anyone would like to read me hit me up and I can send it to you. But don't steal it and turn it in yourself!<<

[ChristVader]

Year # 1 I buy one Slave.

Year # 2 I buy one Slave.

Year # 3 I buy one Slave.

Year # 4 I buy one Slave.

Year # 5 I buy one Slave.

Year # 6 I buy one Slave.

Year # 7 I buy one Slave. I set # 1 Free.

Year # 8 I buy one Slave. I set # 2 Free.

Year # 9 I buy one Slave. I set # 3 Free. I put into Servitude my friend who owed me 50 head of Cattle so that I don't have to tax the people of God with building a Jail.

Year # 10 I buy one Slave. Slave # 4 doesn't want to be free because he has a house, a job, responsibilities that give him pride and dignity, all the food he NEEDS, etc. Slave # 5 Marries my son, and becomes part of my Family in 100% of what we are and all we posses, thereby proclaiming the very Gospel Message to the World of what Christ did for us.

Year # 11 I buy one slave for Slave # 7 because they had met at the barn and wanted to get married. Slaves #8,9 & 10 put a nail through their ear lobe because of all that I had done for them.


.....................so when did I bring on my self the wrath of God mentioned there in Jeremiah?

[cderolic]

eternal said:

I don't see the need to deffend people's evil. No one tries to deny that Paul persecuted the church.

I really don't buy the "man of the time" argument either. John Wesley was also a man of that time, yet was an ardent abolitionist, and fought against slavery until the day he died...Wesley was doing all he could to free them.

If you are taking the "man of his time" point to mean that therefore slavery was right than I would not buy it either.

However, he still was a man of his time just like we are people of our time. Many Christians in Edward's time would puke at some of the things we support and accept.

Many in the 1800s embraced slavery as well as opposed it just like many imbrace or oppose homozexuality today.

Slavery was a moral issue as well as a political issue.

[cderolic]

Just to add, we forget that even Black folks owned slaves back then.

[quietstorm]

eternal said:

Dude was dirty, and I am uncofortable I suppose trying to have to deffend him based on the idea we like his theology

I feel you E. Honestly fam this is what it boils down to for many cats. If he wasnt considered to be a "great theologian" then we wouldnt be having this convo.


Romans 1:32
"32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."

[eternal]

cderolic said:

Just to add, we forget that even Black folks owned slaves back then.

Cruz, Black folks sin too, just ta let ya know I really don't see the relevance of that statement.

______________

christvader said:

.....................so when did I bring on my self the wrath of God mentioned there in Jeremiah?

Doesn't look like you did. Now, could you explain the relevance of your post?

peace.

[cderolic]

eternal said:

cderolic said:

Just to add, we forget that even Black folks owned slaves back then.

Cruz, Black folks sin too, just ta let ya know I really don't see the relevance of that statement.

Dag eternal, chill out, no one is debating here. The relevence of that statement was to show you that slavery was so ingrained in that world at the time that even black people owned slaves.

However, to even say that is a sin is to only assume. Remember that slavery in of itself is not a sin. American slavery was a sin. But only in its origin and some in practice. But after years of slavery, many of the slaves consented to having a master because to them, it was security and even companionship. Contrary to the bias historical text books in schools, not all slavery was horific. Many of the masters and the slaves along with the family had a great relationship.

[cderolic]

quietstorm said:

eternal said:

Dude was dirty, and I am uncofortable I suppose trying to have to deffend him based on the idea we like his theology

I feel you E. Honestly fam this is what it boils down to for many cats. If he wasnt considered to be a "great theologian" then we wouldnt be having this convo.


Romans 1:32
"32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."

You are absolutly right QS. Since we know more than just him owning slaves, but also that he was a great theologian, and one that has lead many to Christ, one who was the leader of one of the biggest revivals in America, we can have an objective convo rather than bashing him for something we no very little about.

You see, all we know is that he owned a couple of Black folks. Thats it. We don't know the relationship that they had. Most likely it was a good relationship and most likely he was used by God to speak into their lives and be an example of godliness. Perhaps the arrangment they had was antithetical to the arrangments of others and thus was a testimony of God's goodness. Edwards must of purchased them from another slave owner and thus perhaps the slave went from a bad situation into a good one.

So, yes, if we only knew that he owned slaves perhaps we will be less objective and end up bashing the dude.

[eternal]

cderolic said:

Dag eternal, chill out, no one is debating here. The relevence of that statement was to show you that slavery was so ingrained in that world at the time that even black people owned slaves.

However, to even say that is a sin is to only assume. Remember that slavery in of itself is not a sin. American slavery was a sin. But only in its origin and some in practice. But after years of slavery, many of the slaves consented to having a master because to them, it was security and even companionship. Contrary to the bias historical text books in schools, not all slavery was horific. Many of the masters and the slaves along with the family has a great relationship.

Sorry if that sppeared harsh, that was not my intention at all. My bad attempt at dry humor. Sorry again.

Slavery did not only exist in N. America. Slavery has been happening for a long time, its just that the american form occured under the banner of Christian freedom, and it can pretty consensualy be characterized as a rascist endeavor as well. Though the biblical model uses the same word, "slave" it really denotes a completely different phenomonon than what we see in our countries foundation, and in other major abuses throughout history.

And slaves accepting their position is natural. There is a brainwashing that would take place. They would be seperated from their fathers and children, and taught to be completely dependent upon their white slave masters, and even thankful! They were taught they were subhuman, beaten and mentaly programed to just go with the flow. When emancipation came, many slaves didn't know what to do. They had no skills, and they had no confidence. Many saw no other choice but to return back to massa, and others were so brainwashed to think that massa was actuall good to him, despite being called a n!gger, despite having to sleep in outhouses, despite laboring hard in the sun all day, despite not being able to be around their own family cuz they were sold so as to not develop a family bond and to break their spirits, etc.

There were training guides who would come to the plantations and teach the masters how to control their slaves, how to brainwash them, etc.

peace.

[eternal]

Cruz, reading your response to QS, I wonder what you think of John Wesley, who in my mind was a powerful man of God. He was a staunch abolitionist. Was he fighting against the goodness of God when he was freeing slaves both physicaly and mentaly?