The resources below give greatly differing perspectives on this controversial leader. He is someone well worth studying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHgU1Jw6oyw
https://www.amren.com/features/2017/02/verwoerd-still-matters/
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fdd6/9167a4f75eba3383e6e1a9c05e4a6fb9f6eb.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Verwoerd-Architect-Apartheid-Henry-Kenney-ebook/dp/B01GIT3PZ8
The book of Philemon in the Bible is important to consider on the topic of slavery. The standard interpretation of Philemon in older commentaries (John Calvin, Matthew Henry, and many others) goes something like this:
– Slaveholding is not sinful per se. If slaveholding were sinful per se, then surely the Apostle Paul would have rebuked Philemon for being a slaveholder and would not have sent Onesimus back to Philemon. What would be the point of sending Onesimus back to Philemon, if slaveholding is immoral? For example, if Philemon had been a brothel owner (which is per se sinful) and there were a runaway whore, would the Apostle Paul have addressed the matter in the way he addressed this case, by sending the woman back to the pimp?
– The arguments of verses 13-14 assume that Onesimus was rightfully the chattel slave of Philemon, such that it was Philemon’s choice to decide how Onesimus would be employed. As John Calvin points out, “Paul himself, through modesty, was unwilling to deprive Philemon of his right”.
– In verse 16, when it reads “not now as a servant”, the Apostle Paul did not mean Onesimus was no longer a servant (or chattel slave) of Philemon, but (as Matthew Henry comments) he meant “not merely or so much” a servant. In other words, there is an implied “merely”, even if not express, as can be deduced from the overall context.
In contrast, many modern commentaries interpret verse 16 as stating that Onesimus was being returned to Philemon, but not as a servant. They view chattel slavery as per se wrong, and they assert the Apostle Paul viewed it as wrong, and hence said Onesimus was being returned but not as servant. For instance, Nelson’s Bible Dictionary, as published in 1986, says that the Apostle Paul expected “that Philemon would receive Onesimus back as a brother in the Lord, not as a slave (v. 16)”, as if the two were inherently contradictory. Nelson’s goes on to say that “although Paul never, so far as we know, called for an end to slavery, the Epistle to Philemon laid the ax at the root of that cruel and deformed institution…”
But this modern interpretation begs the obvious question: why is Onesimus even being returned to Philemon if Onesimus has no ownership rights over him? Furthermore, if slavery is inherently sinful, then how do we account for the Old Testament treatment on slavery, combined with no clear statement in the New Testament that chattel slavery is wrong? Where in the Bible can we clearly deduce that slaveholding is a sin? Or is this instead a modern Western view being imposed upon the Biblical text? And if it is an imposition, then it contradicts the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura.
I believe the Bible teaches that chattel slavery is an appropriate punishment for sinful rebellion, and that in a Fallen sinful world slavery can be an appropriate civil response to criminal behavior, some forms of debt which cannot be repaid, conquered enemies in a lawful war, etc. Slavery in such circumstances can be the merciful response. And God has mercifully used it to bring some to Christ who likely would not otherwise have done so. Contrary to the modern view, the Bible teaches that all of Adam’s sinful race deserve to be chattel slaves eternally, which is why Jesus Christ vicariously became a suffering servant to redeem His people.
The struggle of Anglo-Americans against imperial tyranny is not new. It reaches back centuries, and continues to this day. It is rooted in Protestant nationalism, brought to North America primarily by British and Dutch Protestant settlers. Some of its historical manifestations include:
• Obtaining and maintaining the Magna Carta (see https://magnacartaresearch.org/read/magna_carta_1215/!all ) against the opposition of the king and the Papal Bull which sought to nullify it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_papal_bulls and https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/the-papal-bull-annulling-magna-carta )
• John Wyckliffe, the Morningstar of the Protestant Reformation, defends national and individual rights, opposing the usurpations of the Papal Anti-Christ (https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/moversandshakers/john-wycliffe.html )
• English Protestants struggle against “Bloody Mary” and the Pope (see https://www.gotquestions.org/Bloody-Mary.html )
• Scottish Protestants, led by John Knox, struggle against Mary, Queen of Scots, and the Pope
• English Protestants defend their national rights against the Spanish Armada and the Pope
• Dutch Protestants struggle against Spanish imperial rule and the Pope
• English Pilgrims and Puritans leave England to establish a Protestant colony freer from the dictates of the Monarch
• The British colonies that became the USA struggle against imperial rule based in London.
• The anti-federalist struggle to prevent the imposition of Federal Constitution and the illegal abandonment of the Articles of Confederation.
• The on-going struggle for states’ rights against an ever expanding assumption of power by the Federal Government based in Washington, DC, since the adoption of the Federal Constitution, which has brought us to a point where it is a modern tyrannical Babel.
Even today imperialists in Washington, DC and Rome are weaponizing foreigners against Anglo-Americans in order to further their imperial agenda, asserting that Biblical forms of nationalism are wrong and “racist.” Such weaponization of foreigners by imperialists is not new, as exemplified in the US War of Independence in which the following were weaponized:
• French Roman Catholics of Quebec (see https://ushistoryscene.com/article/quebec-act/ . As noted at https://archive.org/details/rulersofevilf.tuppersaussy/page/n195/mode/2up : “To complete the overkill, Parliament passed the Quebec Act, which cut off the claims of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia, and New York to their western lands, and placed these lands, to add insult to injury, under the French Catholic jurisdiction of Quebec.”)
• Hessian soldiers (https://allthingsliberty.com/2022/08/hessians-german-soldiers-of-the-american-revolution/)
• American Indians (https://socratic.org/questions/why-did-more-native-americans-side-with-the-british-than-with-the-patriots)
• African Americans (https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/educational-magazines/native-americans-and-blacks-american-revolution)