The underlying argument for gun control seems to be that the availability of guns causes crime. By extension, the availability of any weapon would have to be viewed as a cause of crime. What does the Bible say about such a view?
Perhaps we should start at the beginning, or at least very close to the beginning -- in Genesis 4. In this chapter we read about the first murder. Cain had offered an unacceptable sacrifice, and Cain was upset that God insisted that he do the right thing. In other words, Cain was peeved that he could not do his own thing.
Cain decided to kill his brother rather than get right with God. There were no guns available, although there may well have been a knife. Whether it was a knife or a rock, the Bible does not say. The point is, the evil in Cain's heart was the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon.
God's response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer. Later (see Genesis 9:5-6) God instituted capital punishment, but said not a word about banning weapons.
Did Christ Teach Pacifism?
Many people, Christians included, assume that Christ taught pacifism. They cite Matthew 5:38-39 for their proof. In this verse Christ said: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."
The Sermon on the Mount from which this passage is taken deals with righteous personal conduct. In our passage, Christ is clearing up a confusion that had led people to think that conduct proper for the civil government -- that is, taking vengeance -- was also proper for an individual.
Even the choice of words used by Christ indicates that He was addressing a confusion, or a distortion, that was commonplace. Several times in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount Christ used this same "you have heard it said" figure of speech to straighten out misunderstandings or falsehoods being taught by the religious leaders of the times.
Contrast this to Christ's use of the phrase "it is written" when He was appealing to the Scriptures for authority (for example, see Matthew 4 where on three occasions during His temptation by the devil, Christ answered each one of the devil's lies or misquotes from Scripture with the words: "it is written").
To further underscore the point that Christ was correcting the religious leaders on their teaching that "an eye for an eye" applies to private revenge, consider that in the same Sermon, Christ strongly condemned false teaching: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven..." (Matthew 5:19). Clearly, then, Christ was not teaching something different about self defense than is taught elsewhere in the Bible. Otherwise, He would be contradicting Himself for He would now be teaching men to break one of the commandments.
The reference to "an eye for an eye" was taken from Exodus 21:24-25 which deals with how the magistrate must deal with a crime. Namely, the punishment must fit the crime. The religious leaders of Christ's day had twisted a passage that applied to the government and misused it as a principle of personal revenge.
The Bible distinguishes clearly between the duties of the civil magistrate (the government) and the duties of an individual. Namely, God has delegated to the civil magistrate the administration of justice. Individuals have the responsibility of protecting their lives from attackers. Christ was referring to this distinction in the Matthew 5 passage. Let us now examine in some detail what the Scriptures say about the roles of government and of individuals.
Both the Old and New Testaments teach individual self defense, even if it means taking the assailant's life in certain circumstances.
Self-Defense in the Old Testament
Exodus 22:2-3 tells us "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."
One conclusion which can be drawn from this is that a threat to our life is to be met with lethal force. After the sun has risen seems to refer to a different judgment than the one permitted at night. At night it is more difficult to discern whether the intruder is a thief or a murderer. Furthermore, the nighttime makes it more difficult to defend oneself and to avoid killing the thief at the same time. During the daytime, it better be clear that one's life was in danger, otherwise, defense becomes vengeance, and that belongs in the hand of the magistrate.
In Proverbs 25:26 we read that "A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well." Certainly, we would be faltering before the wicked if we chose to be unarmed and unable to resist an assailant who might be threatening our life. In other words, we have no right to hand over our life which is a gift from God to the unrighteous. It is a serious mistake to equate a civilized society with one in which the decent people are doormats for the evil to trample on.
Trusting God
Another question asked by Christians is "Doesn't having a gun imply a lack of trust that God will take care of us?"
Indeed, God will take care of us. He has also told us that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments. (John 14:15)
Those who trust God work for a living, knowing that 1 Timothy 5:8 tells us "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." For a man not to work, yet expect to eat because he was "trusting God" would actually be to defy God.
King David wrote in Psalm 46:1 that God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. This did not conflict with praising the God "Who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle" (Psalm 144:1).
The doctrine of Scripture is that we prepare and work, but we trust the outcome to God.
Those who trust God should also make adequate provision for their own defense even as we are instructed in the passages cited above. For a man to refuse to provide adequately for his and his family's defense would be to defy God.
There is an additional concern to taking the position that "I don't need to arm myself. God will protect me."
At one point, when Satan was tempting Jesus in the wilderness, he challenged Jesus to throw himself off the top of the temple. Satan reasoned that God's angels would protect him. Jesus responded: "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God'" (Matthew 4:7).
It may seem pious to say that one is trusting in God for protection, and we all must, but it is tempting God if we do not take the measures that He has laid out for us in the Bible.
Role of Government
The Bible records the first murder in Genesis 4 when Cain killed his brother Abel. God's response was not to register rocks or impose a background check on those getting a plough, or whatever it was that Cain used to kill his brother. Instead, God dealt with the criminal. Ever since Noah the penalty for murder has been death.
We see the refusal to accept this principle that God has given us from the very beginning. Today we see a growing acceptance of the idea that checking the criminal backgrounds of gun buyers will lessen crime but we should seldom execute those who are guilty of murder.
In Matthew 15 (and in Mark 7) Christ accused the religious leaders of the day of also opposing the execution of those deserving of death -- rebellious teenagers. They had replaced the commandments of God with their own traditions. God has never been interested in controlling the means of violence. He has always made it a point to punish, and where possible, restore (as with restitution and excommunication) the wrongdoer. Control of individuals is to be left to self-government. Punishment of individuals by the civil government is to be carried out when self-government breaks down.
Man's wisdom today has been to declare gun free school zones which are invaded by gun-toting teenage terrorists whom we refuse to execute. We seem to have learned little from Christ's rebuke of the Pharisees.
Nowhere in the Bible does God make any provision for dealing with the instruments of crime. He always focuses on the consequences for an individual of his actions. Heaven and hell only applies to people, not to things. Responsibility only pertains to people, not to things. If this principle, which was deeply embedded in the common law, still pertained today lawsuits against gun manufacturers would be thrown out unless the product malfunctioned.
Responsibility rightly includes being liable for monetary damages if a firearm is left in a grossly negligent fashion so that an ignorant child gets the gun and misuses it. The solution is not to require that trigger locks be used on a gun to avoid being subject to such a law suit. Some might argue that this is nothing more than an application of the Biblical requirement that a railing be placed around the flat rooftop of a house where people might congregate. But trigger locks are to be used with unloaded guns which would be the same as requiring a railing around a pitched roof where people do not congregate.
Surely in protecting against accidents we cannot end up making ourselves more vulnerable to criminal attack, which is what a trigger lock does if it is in use on the firearm intended for self protection.
The firearm that is kept for self defense should be available in an emergency. Rooftop railings have no correspondence to the need for instant access to a gun. On the other hand, guns that are not intended for immediate use should be kept secured as a reasonable precaution. But to make the owner criminally or monetarily liable for another's misuse violates a basic commandment of Scripture: "the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20b).
Self Defense Versus Vengeance
Resisting an attack is not to be confused with taking vengeance which is the exclusive domain of God (Romans 12:19). This has been delegated to the civil magistrate, who, as we read in Romans 13:4, "is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."
Private vengeance means one would stalk down a criminal after one's life is no longer in danger as opposed to defending oneself during an attack. It is this very point that has been confused by Christian pacifists who would take the passage in the Sermon on the Mount about turning the other cheek (which prohibits private vengeance) into a command to falter before the wicked.
Let us consider also that the Sixth Commandment tells us "Thou shall not murder." In the chapters following, God gave to Moses many of the situations which require a death penalty. God clearly has not told us never to kill. He has told us not to murder, which means we are not to take an innocent life. Consider also that the civil magistrate is to be a terror to those who practice evil. This passage does not in any way imply that the role of law enforcement is to prevent crimes or to protect individuals from criminals. The magistrate is a minister to serve as "an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (Romans 13:4).
This point is reflected in the legal doctrine of the United States. Repeatedly, courts have held that the government has no responsibility to provide individual security. One case (Bowers v. DeVito) put it this way: "there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
Self Defense in the New Testament
The Christian pacifist may try to argue that God has changed His mind from the time that He gave Moses the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. Perhaps they would want us to think that Christ canceled out the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 or the provision for justifiably killing a thief in Exodus 22. But the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that this cannot be, because "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). In the Old Testament, the prophet Malachi records God's words this way: "For I am the Lord, I do not change" (Malachi 3:6).
Paul was referring to the unchangeability of God's Word when he wrote to Timothy that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Clearly, Paul viewed all Scripture, including the Old Testament, as useful for training Christians in every area of life.
We must also consider what Christ told his disciples in his last hours with them: "...But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one" (Luke 22:36). Keep in mind that the sword was the finest offensive weapon available to an individual soldier -- the equivalent then of a military rifle today.
The Christian pacifist will likely object at this point that only a few hours later, Christ rebuked Peter who used a sword to cut off the ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest in the company of a detachment of troops. Let us read what Christ said to Peter in Matthew 26:52-54:
Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?
In the companion passage in John 18, Jesus tells Peter to put his sword away and told him that He had to drink the cup that His Father had given Him. It was not the first time that Christ had to explain to the disciples why He had come to earth. To fulfill the Scriptures, the Son of God had to die for the sin of man since man was incapable of paying for his own sin apart from going to hell. Christ could have saved His life, but then believers would have lost their lives forever in hell. These things only became clear to the disciples after Christ had died and been raised from the dead and the Spirit had come into the world at Pentecost (see John 14:26).
While Christ told Peter to "put your sword in its place" He clearly did not say get rid of it forever. That would have contradicted what he had told the disciples only hours before. Peter's sword was to protect his own mortal life from danger. His sword was not needed to protect the Creator of the universe and the King of kings.
Years after Pentecost, Paul wrote in a letter to Timothy "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim. 5:8). This passage applies to our subject because it would be absurd to buy a house, furnish it with food and facilities for one's family, and then refuse to install locks and provide the means to protect the family and the property. Likewise it would be absurd not to take, if necessary, the life of a night-time thief to protect the members of the family (Exodus 22:2-3).
A related, and even broader concept, is found in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Christ had referred to the Old Testament summary of all the laws of the Bible into two great commandments: "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and your neighbor as yourself'" (Luke 10:27). When asked who was a neighbor, Christ related the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37). It was the Good Samaritan who took care of the mugging victim who was a neighbor to the victim. The others who walked by and ignored the victim's plight were not acting as neighbors to him.
In the light of all we have seen the Scriptures teach to this point, can we argue that if we were able to save another's life from an attacker by shooting the attacker with our gun that we should "turn the other cheek instead?" The Bible speaks of no such right. It only speaks of our responsibilities in the face of an attack -- as individual creatures made by God, as householders or as neighbors.
National Blessings and Cursings
The Old Testament also tells us a great deal about the positive relationship between righteousness, which exalts a nation, and self defense. It makes clear that in times of national rebellion against the Lord God, the rulers of the nation will reflect the spiritual degradation of the people and the result is a denial of God's commandments, an arrogance of officialdom, disarmament and oppression.
For example, the people of Israel were oppressed during the time of the rule of the Judges. This occurred every time the people apostatized. Judges 5:8 tells us that, "They chose new gods; then there was war in the gates; not a shield or spear was seen among forty thousand in Israel."
Consider Israel under Saul: The first book of Samuel tells of the turning away of Israel from God. The people did not want to be governed by God; they wanted to be ruled by a king like the pagan, God-hating nations around them. Samuel warned the people what they were getting into -- the curses that would be upon them -- if they persisted in raising up a king over themselves and their families. Included in those curses was the raising up of a standing, professional army which would take their sons and their daughters for aggressive wars (I Samuel 8:11).
This curse is not unknown in the United States. Saul carried out all the judgments that Samuel had warned the people about. His build up of a standing army has been repeated in the U.S., and not just in terms of the military, but also the 650,000 full-time police officers from all levels of government.
Saul was the king the Israelites wanted and got. He was beautiful in the eyes of the world but a disaster in the eyes of the Lord. Saul did not trust God. He rebelled against His form of sacrifice unto the Lord. Saul put himself above God. He was impatient. He refused to wait for Samuel because God's way was taking too long. Saul went ahead and performed the sacrifice himself, thus violating God's commandment (and, incidentally, also violating the God-ordained separation of duties of church and state!)
Thus was the kingdom lost to Saul. And, it was under him that the Philistines were able to defeat the Jews and put them into bondage. So great was the bondage exerted by the Philistines that "Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, 'Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears.' But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines to sharpen each man's plowshare, his mattock, his ax, and his sickle;...So it came about, on the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people who were with Saul and Jonathan..." (1 Samuel 13:19-20; 22-23).
Today, the same goals of the Philistines would be carried out by an oppressor who would ban gunsmiths from the land. The sword of today is the handgun, rifle or shotgun. The sword control of the Philistines is today's gun control of those governments that do not trust their people with guns.
It is important to understand that what happened to the Jews at the time of Saul was not unexpected according to the sanctions spelled out by God in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. In the first verses of those chapters, blessings are promised to a nation that keeps God's laws. In the latter parts of those chapters, the curses are spelled out for a nation that comes under judgment for its rebellion against God. Deuteronomy 28:47-48 helps us understand the reason for Israel's oppression by the Philistines during Saul's reign:
Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things, therefore you shall serve your enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of all things; and He will put a yoke of iron on your neck until He has destroyed you.
The Bible provides examples of God's blessing upon Israel for its faithfulness. These blessings included a strong national defense coupled with peace. A clear example occurred during the reign of Jehoshaphat. 2 Chronicles 17 tells of how Jehoshaphat led Israel back to faithfulness to God which included a strong national defense. The result: "And the fear of the Lord fell on all the kingdoms of the lands that were around Judah, so that they did not make war against Jehoshaphat" (2 Chronicles 17:10).
The Israelite army was a militia army (Numbers 1:3, ff.) which came to battle with each man bearing his own weapons -- from the time of Moses, through the Judges, and beyond. When threatened by the Midianites, for example, "Moses spoke to the people , saying, 'Arm some of yourselves for the war, and let them go against the Midianites to take vengeance for the Lord on Midian'" (Numbers 31:3). Again, to demonstrate the Biblical heritage of individuals bearing and keeping arms, during David's time in the wilderness avoiding capture by Saul, "David said to his men, 'Every man gird on his sword.' So every man girded on his sword, and David also girded on his sword" (1 Samuel 25:13).
Finally, consider Nehemiah and those who rebuilt the gates and walls of Jerusalem. They were both builders and defenders, each man -- each servant -- armed with his own weapon:
Those who built on the wall, and those who carried burdens loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked at construction, and with the other held a weapon. Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built (Nehemiah 4:17-18).
Conclusion
The wisdom of the framers of the Constitution is consistent with the lessons of the Bible. Instruments of defense should be dispersed throughout the nation, not concentrated in the hands of the central government. In a godly country, righteousness governs each man through the Holy Spirit working within. The government has no cause to want a monopoly of force; the government that desires such a monopoly is a threat to the lives, liberty and property of its citizens.
The assumption that only danger can result from people carrying guns is used to justify the government's having a monopoly of force. The notion that the people cannot be trusted to keep and bear their own arms informs us that ours, like the time of Solomon, may be one of great riches but is also a time of peril to free people. If Christ is not our King, we shall have a dictator to rule over us, just as Samuel warned.
For those who think that God treated Israel differently from the way He will treat us today, please consider what God told the prophet Malachi: "For I am the Lord, I do not change..." (Malachi 3:6).

Peter Hammond
The Christian at War (part 1)
I am a Christian who has spent the last twelve years working as a missionary in the war zones of Southern Africa. I have ministered to soldiers, guerillas and terrorists on all sides of the wars in Angola, South West Africa/Nambia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and South Africa. I have witnessed the persecution of the church by Marxist regimes, atrocities by terrorists and I have see the results of war, counselling both the victims and the combatants.
As a theological student, I tackled the controversial subject of war and the Christian - from both sides. I have been both a convinced pacifist and an active soldier. I have also sought, as a missionary, to apply the teachings of the Bible to the realities around me. I have walked amongst the unburied corpses of the killing fields of Mozambique and I've cradled in my hands the dead and dying. I've walked through devastated towns in Angola, where not a living being remained - only wrecked houses, decomposing corpses and revolutionary slogans. As a missionary, I've ridden through an ambush on my motorbike scrambler, preached under mortal fire, witnessed at ambush sites, shown Christian films to terrorists, been arrested and imprisoned, been led handcuffed and blindfolded through the streets of Livingstone and Lusaka, escorted to prison in Maputo in a Soviet Mi 8 Hip helicopter and come under fire on many occasions.
Most of all, as a Bible reading, Bible-believing Christian I have spent days, nights, weeks, months and years agonizing, praying and studying over this subject of War and the Christian.
What is the Christian response to war? Should a Christian be involved in the active military defense of his country?Is it ever permissible to take the life of another?Is pacifism the answer to violence?
The changing face of warfare
There was a time in warfare when the men at arms fought the opposing army on a pre-arranged battlefield. Conflicts between nations were settled by soldiers on the field of battle - and civilians, especially women and children, were kept out of the firing line.
For centuries a code of honor precluded the endangering of innocent lives. Soldiers fought openly - in uniform - against armed and uniformed foes. Non-combatants were respected. Women and children were protected. At times conflicts were limited to two opposing champions - such as David and Goliath - deciding the fate of their nations in honourable hand to hand combat. Their respective armies were bound to respect the outcome of such duels. In the Middle Ages in Europe such practices became commonplace with knights fighting for their cause and country according to a set code of conduct.
In modern times, however, warfare has deteriorated dramatically. More and more civilians have been caught in the crossfire as mobile total warfare has devastated whole towns and villages.
This century began with scorched earth tactics and concentration camps during the Anglo-Boer war. The frustrated British army resorted to burning down the Boer farm homes, the destruction of their crops and the detaining of the Boer women and children in concentration camps. This marked a new low in battlefield standards. Unable to win by conventional warfare the British Empire resorted to what was in effect terrorism. They targeted the civilian homes and the women and children who, until then, had been respected and protected.
During the Second World War, whole cities were targeted for mass bombings. A thousand bomber aircraft would fill the skies and rain death and destruction upon the cities of Europe. Instead of targeting legitimate military targets at he front, these aircraft were used to massacre hundreds of thousands of women and children at home.
Since that terrible war, the face of battle has changed. Now civilians are no longer isolated from the cruel effects of war. No longer are civilians merely endangered by the crossfire of conflict. Now women and children seem to be the main targets of the enemy.
Those who place land mines in dirt roads know that they have more chance of killing unarmed civilians than anyone else. By placing bombs in restaurants and shopping centres terrorists are targeting our wives and our children. Those cowards who throw petrol bombs or hand grenades into homes at night are wanting to murder the innocent. And now we even see terrorists bursting into church services and murdering Christians while they worship God. Such people are not only enemies of society, they are enemies of God.
To such people God's Word declares:'Surely God will crush the heads of His enemies, the skulls of those who go in their sins.' (Psalm 68:21)
To us the Bible commands: 'Do not be afraid... remember the Lord who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons and your daughters, your wives and your homes.' (Nehemiah 4:14)
The pacifist position
Pacifists claim that non-resistance and passive inactivity will break the cycle of violence. They say that to defend oneself will prevent war and that non-violence will result in peace. However, it is important to distinguish between the various motivations which lead people to adopt these views. Some pacifists are CONSISTENT PACIFISTS, claiming they would never involve themselves in either national defence or self defence. They would generally claim a spiritual motivation for refusing to protect even family members. Most are pacifists are actually SELECTIVE PACIFISTS, refusing to involve themselves in the national defence of (normally) Western democracies, but being willing to fight in certain other circumstances. These selective pacifists are often politically motivated, although they may use some religious arguments to justify their political stance. Many of these politically motivated, selective pacifists actually support violent revolutionary movements. Most are motivated by selfish desires to avoid discomfort, discipline, danger or being separated from their girlfriend, mother or home comforts.
Pacifism is an non biblical position. Although being able to appeal to superficial arguments of conscience and quote the odd verse out of content - the whole spirit and thrust of pacifism is anti Christian. Pacifists may be sincere - but they are sincerely wrong.
A Christian, by definition, must be active - with his or her sleeves rolled up, being willing to get his hands dirty protecting the innocent, defending the defenceless and saving lives from unprovoked aggression. Christian love is not mere words and sentiments. True love shows itself in action. (1 John 3:18). If all the people with a conscience refuse to fight then it will leave the battle fields in the hands of men without a conscience.
A false idea of man
Pacifism finds it's rots in HUMANISM. Despite some impressive but superficial Christian pretension, pacifism is humanism. In common with humanism, pacifism shares a false idea of man. It sees man as basically good. To the pacifist all people are just too good to kill. Neither rapists, murderers nor terrorists deserve to be stopped, in the view of the pacifist.
In contrast to this notion of people being basically good, the Bible teaches us that 'the heart of man is desperately wicked and deceitful';that they are quick to hurt and kill;they leave ruin and destruction wherever they go... everyone has sinned and is far away from God's saving presence.' (Romans 3:15,23) Pacifists often display more concern for the aggressor then for the defender, more sympathy for the criminal then for his victim.
A false idea of God
Pacifism also has a false idea of God. It fails to understand the holiness and justice of God. It ignores the wrath of Almighty God against sin. The pacifist seems to fail to understand the nature of God. They must see God as a pleasant, amoral softie - either to blind to see sinful man for what he is or too gentle to punish evil. What kind of God would be unmoved by ruthless sadists torturing Christians in concentration camps? Do we really think that God will not punish those who kill and cripple the innocent through car bombs, limpet mines and land mines?
Do we really believe that God does not require us to stop murder - whether by abortion or arson, whether by muggers or Marxists.
God is not a pacifist!
The creator of all life (John 1:1-3) 'determines whether you live or die' - Daniel 5:23.
God killed everyone on earth, except Noah, his family and the animals - in THE FLOOD (Genesis 6:5-7;13;7:4;23).
God killed every Egyptian first-born as a judgement on Egypt and in order to free the Israelites on the night of THE PASSOVER (Exodus 12:12;29).
God destroyed the Egyptian army in the RED SEA (Exodus 14:13-31; 15:1-18).
The Lord caused the earth to open up and swallow the Jews who rebelled against Moses (Numbers 16:20,21;23-35).
God killed 185,000 Assyrian soldiers who were attacking Jerusalem (2 Kings 19:32-35).
God killed Annias and Sapphira because of their lying (Acts 5-1-11); and Herod because of his pride (Acts 12:23), and God continues to use 'My four dreadful judgments - sword and and wild beasts and plague' (Ezekiel 14:21), in order to lead sinful people to repent.
'I and I alone, am God; no other God s real. I kill and I give life, I wound and I heal, and no one can oppose what do.' (Deuteronomy 32:39)
Neither is Jesus a pacifist
Our Lord Jesus may have been meek but He was never mild! His teaching was powerful, dynamic, direct and uncompromising. This tough carpenter from Nazareth was able to survive forty days fasting in the desert and forty lashes from the brutal Roman whip. He could walk hundreds of kilometers in the blazing heat of Palestine's inhospitable terrain and He could walk through a murderous mob with such a presence that no-one dared stop Him (Luke 4:28-30).
When Jesus saw how corrupt men were desecrating the temple with their money-grabbing greed, He made a whip, overturned their tables and drove them forcibly from God's House (Matthew 21:12-13).
When Jesus returns to this world it will be as the conquering King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The Bible teaches us that the first time Jesus came as a Saviour - and all who turn from their sin and trust in Christ, following Him in obedience, are saved. But when Jesus comes again it will be as Judge - and all who have not repented and obeyed will be condemned and eternally punished. The Scripture warns us that when Jesus returns He will annihilate the forces of the false church and the Antichrist. We are told that rivers of blood will flow from the carnage of mankind's rebellion against Christ (Revelation 14:19-20).
'With justice He... makes war... He will rule them with an iron sceptre. He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty... King of Kings and Lord of Lords.' (Revelation 19:11,15,16).
An unrealistic view of society
Pacifism also has an unrealistic view of society. The reality of this world is that it is a fallen world, inhabited by sinful mankind in rebellion against the Creator. Idealistic fantasies about a world of peace and Utopia without war are cruelly false and dangerously deceptive. In the Bible we are warned that those who say 'Peace! Peace!' when there is no peace are 'loathsome' false prophets (Jeremiah 6:!4; 8:11). Jesus warned us that 'wars and revolutions' would increase (Matthew 24:6,7; Luke 21:9,10). We are warned in the scriptures that 'While people are saying 'Peace and Safety', destruction will come on them suddenly.' (I Thessalonians 5:3)
'PEACE' seems to be the modern equivalent of Baal worship. There is an irrational deifying of peace. This selfish materialistic age has made an idol out of peace. 'Peace at any price' inevitably leads to tyranny and destruction - the peace of a graveyard.
People say that war is hell - but often peace is worse. More people died in the peace following the revolution in CAMBODIA than died in the entire war before it. Three-milion Cambodians (40% of the population) were slaughtered by Pol Pot's Marxist Khmer Rouge in the 'peace' following 1975. In fact, more people have been tortured, maimed and massacred in times of peace than in times of war during this century!
Have we become so soft, decadent and self-seeking that we are no longer willing to risk our lives for anything? Is nothing worth fighting for? Do we have nothing worth defending? Do we care so little for others that we're unwilling to risk anything for their protection? Are we so engrossed in watching videos, in 'wine, women and song' that we can no longer tell the difference between right and wrong? Or don't we even care?
For centuries Christians have believed that there were worse things than war. For our ancestors death in battle was not the worst thing that could happen to them. An eternity in hell was. They did not fear death. They feared God. They realised that death for the Christian is not fatal. They had a clear belief in eternal life. Principles were more important then personal safety. Duty, honor, country, family and God meant more to them than selfish desires for peace and safety. And thank God for that because the faith and freedoms we enjoy were won and preserved by their blood, sweat and sacrifices.
The wise Christian does not seek to selfishly avoid the problems of this world, but courageously steps out in faith to be part of the solution. We should recognize that sinful man needs to be restrained by laws and by force, that liberty needs to be defended, that our freedoms came through, and often need to be maintained by hard fighting.
If all Christians became pacifists,would all muslims, atheists and communists also become pacifists?
Not likely.
It bothers me that the anti-defense, ban-the-bomb, end-conscription draft-dodgers and pacifists often demonstrate in London, Washington, Bonn and Cape Town - but seemingly never in Moscow, Havana, Tripoli, Tehran, Maputo, Lasaka, Harare, or Luanda.
Why?
It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism - while the wolf remains of a different opinion. The Bible declares: 'Blessed are the peacemakers' - Matthew 5:9. NOT blessed are the pacifists! You have to make peace. It takes action. For the pacifists hoping for worldwide peace - Jesus said: 'Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.' (Matthew 10:44)
An inadequate understanding on Scripture
Pacifists also often have an inadequate understanding on the Bible. Are they aware that God is not a pacifist? Do they realise that God has specified certain circumstances in which men have been commanded to kill?

Christianity and Pacifism

Christians are peaceful people; the Bible tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves (Leviticus 19:18). But when we are attacked, as we were on September 11, 2001, what is the appropriate response? Is the Christian permitted to use violence in self-defense? Many people say that Jesus was a pacifist, and so Christians should support a non-violent response to terrorist attacks. Is this right? Should we turn the other cheek to bin Laden?

TURN THE OTHER CHEEK

Those who feel that Christians should refrain from retaliation point to Jesus' words, "Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also"(Matthew 5:39). While it might seem that Jesus is calling for pacifism at first glance, a simple analysis of the words used reveals that this is not the case. Note the specification of right cheek. Why would He need to make such a specification? In fact, it doesn't really make much sense, because if someone were to hit you on your right cheek, it means they either hit you from behind or they caught you with a left hook. Most people, however, are right-handed, and have not had boxing lessons. Therefore, in the majority of cases, you are going to get slapped on your left cheek.

Actually, the phrase used in this passage is a Jewish idiom which refers to a slap with the back of your hand; in other words, an insult. If someone insults you, you should not insult them back. People who use this verse further fail to mention that this is a situation involving individuals and does not apply to governmental affairs. The government is not a personality and has no thoughts or actions of its own. It exists to see that justice is done. Timothy J. Demy notes,
Critics of pacifism note that the principal problem with pacifism is that it misidentifies the morality of the individual as justification for (or morality of) the behavior of the state. 1
In fact, in this very sermon Jesus made the distinction between individuals and governments when He said:
Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny. (Mat. 5:25-26)
Jesus did not tell the judge or the officer to turn the other cheek or to void the law. God has commanded the governing authorities to uphold the law without mercy (Heb. 10:28; Rom. 13:3-4).

FORGIVE OUR DEBTORS

Further justifications for pacifism are given based on the Lord's Prayer. "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors"(Matthew 6:10-12). Once again, two points are missed. First, forgiveness does not equal pardoning the offense. When God forgives us He doesn't necessarily remove the consequences of our sins. Second, you cannot forgive/pardon someone for something they did to someone else. If someone owes you money, I can't come out of nowhere and tell that person that they don't need to pay you. Similarly, those who have lost loved ones can forgive bin Laden for the grief he has caused them, but they can't forgive the crime committed against their loved ones, nor against the other victims of the attacks.

JESUS WAS NOT A PACIFIST

People who claim that Jesus was a pacifist are ignoring more than half the Bible. Jesus was not a prophet with His own agenda; Jesus was and is God. He is the God of the Old Testament. Jesus is Jehovah, the God who commanded the Israelites to go to war. David said, "Blessed be the LORD my Rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle (Psalm 144:1)." We know that Jesus was not a pacifist (someone who denounces all forms of violence for any reason) because the Bible says that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore (Hebrews 13:8). He did not change His mind suddenly in the New Testament, so any teachings must be taken in that context.

Some pacifists have objected to this reasoning by proposing the heretical idea that God's dealings with the ancient Israelites took into consideration their "uncivilized" nature. Not only does this ignore the simple fact that the ancients were just as civilized as we are today, it forces us to conclude that our holy God lowers His standards when we can't meet them. This would negate the need for a Saviour and therefore must be rejected as heresy.

We have a record of Jesus meeting a Roman centurion--an army officer who most likely achieved his rank because he was skilled at battle. After talking with this soldier for a few minutes, Jesus did not tell him to put down his sword, nor did he tell him to retire from the military. Instead, he praised the man's faith, saying that he had more faith than anyone He had met (Matthew 8:5-13).

THE CHRISTIAN ATTITUDE TOWARD WAR

To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven...A time of war, And a time of peace (Ecclesiastes 3:1,8)
Demy continued with the following statement after criticizing pacifism:
At the other end, the principal problem with the crusade is that the church incorrectly identifies itself with the function of the state, and a theocratic one at that.2
We are not a theocracy. Our situation, therefore, is different from that of ancient Israel. God is not using the United States to punish evil nations. Demy quotes Christian philosopher Arthur Holmes, who said, "To call war anything less than evil would be self-deception. The Christian conscience has throughout history recognized the tragic character of war. The issue that tears the Christian conscience is not whether war is good, but whether it is in all cases avoidable."3

Pacifists note that there will never be a "war to end all wars." While this is true, it does not mean that we should not strive to eliminate as much evil as we can. There will never be peace without war. No one can argue that America's peace with Germany and Japan are not the direct result of America defeating them in war. Nor can anyone argue that Hitler would not have continued his quest if no one had stood up to him. If good people simply looked the other way when evil people did terrible things, this world would be run by people like Hitler, Stalin and bin Laden.

War is never a good thing. War is a result of man's fallen nature. The root cause of war is sin. Ken Ham writes this about the terrorist attacks:
The Bible makes it clear that death is the penalty for our sin. In other words, it is really our fault that the world is the way it is. When we sinned in Adam, we effectively said that we wanted life without God. All of us also sin individually—Romans 3:23. God had to judge sin, as He warned Adam He would (Genesis 2:17, cf. 3:19). In doing so, God has given us a taste of life without Him—a world that is running down—a world full of death and suffering. As Romans 8:20–22 says, the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs. Man in essence forfeited his right to live.4
A further objection is that the Church in the apostolic period abstained from combat and military service. While this is not wholly true (please see Absolute Pacifism?), it should be noted that any military campaigns at the time would not have satisfied the requirements of the just war theory. Throughout history, Christian theology has put forth the idea of "just war." Demy explains what is involved in the just war:
Just cause--All aggression is condemned in just war theory. Participation in the war in question must be prompted by a just cause or defensive cause. No war of unprovoked aggression can ever be justified. Only defensive war is legitimate.

Just intention (right intention)--The war in question must have a just intention, that is, its intent must be to secure a fair peace for all parties involved. Therefore, revenge, conquest, economic gain, and ideological supremacy are not legitimate motives for going to war. There must be a belief that ultimately greater good than harm will result from the war.

Last resort--The war in question must be engaged in only as a last resort. Other means of resolution such as diplomacy and economic pressure must have been exhausted.

Formal declaration--The war in question must be initiated with a formal declaration by properly constituted authorities. Only governments can declare war, not individuals, terrorist organizations, mercenaries, or militias.

Limited objectives--The war in question must be characterized by limited objectives. This means that securing peace is the goal and purpose of going to war. The war must be waged in such a way that once peace is attainable, hostilities cease. Complete destruction of a nation's political institutions or economic institutions is an improper objective.

Proportionate means--Combatant forces of the opposition forces may not be subjected to greater harm than is necessary to secure victory and peace. The types of weapons and amount of force used must be limited to only what is needed to repel the aggression, deter future attacks, and secure a just peace. Therefore, total or unlimited warfare is inappropriate. ("You don't burn down the barn to roast the pig.")

Noncombatant immunity--Military forces must respect individuals and groups not participating in the conflict and must abstain from attacking them. Since only governments can declare war, only governmental forces or agents are legitimate targets. This means that prisoners of war, civilians, and casualties are immune from intentional attacks.5
I would classify the war against terrorism as a just war. I think the seven qualifications above have been met. Christians are called to "Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked (Psalm 82:3-4)." Our hearts and minds must be set on spiritual things, but this does not merit ignoring the evils of this world while pursuing our lofty goals. We are not here by accident. I think that Christians can support this war with a clear conscience, and if called into it can participate without fear of condemnation.

God bless America.

---Additional comments----

Why I believe the war in Iraq was justified.

Just cause. It was originally a war to protect our ally, Kuwait. The Gulf War never ended, because Iraq did not comply with the terms of surrender. The White House did not emphasize this point enough, in my opinion. This was not a matter of simply pre-empting the use of WMD. The production of WMD was forbidden by the terms of surrender in 1991, and since they were still being produced (regardless of whether or not they were successful, although I believe they were), the war was never officially over.

Just intention. The intent was to prevent Hussein from using his WMD. This is justified, in my opinion.

Last resort. Over a period of 12 years, Hussein defied the resolutions of the United Nations. He was in direct violation of his terms of surrender. Further resolutions would not have helped at all. This war was a last resort (and should have taken place in 1998 when the original inspectors were kicked out).

Formal declaration. Congress has the authority to declare war. They granted authority to the President to declare war in this situation, and he rightly exercised it.

Limited objectives. Since Iraq was a dictatorship, deposing the dictator eliminated the political institution by default. There was no objective to eliminate the state of Iraq, and in fact, the United States is actively helping to rebuild Iraq, even though this is not our responsibility (blame for the war lies solely on Hussein). In the past, the losing party was required to pay reparations.

Proportionate means. This war had the fewest casualties of any in history.

Noncombatant immunity. No civilians were targeted.

The underlying argument for gun control seems to be that the availability of guns causes crime. By extension, the availability of any weapon would have to be viewed as a cause of crime. What does the Bible say about such a view?
Perhaps we should start at the beginning, or at least very close to the beginning -- in Genesis 4. In this chapter we read about the first murder. Cain had offered an unacceptable sacrifice, and Cain was upset that God insisted that he do the right thing. In other words, Cain was peeved that he could not do his own thing.
Cain decided to kill his brother rather than get right with God. There were no guns available, although there may well have been a knife. Whether it was a knife or a rock, the Bible does not say.
The point is, the evil in Cain's heart was the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon.
God's response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer. Later (see Genesis 9:5-6) God instituted capital punishment, but said not a word about banning weapons.
Did Christ Teach Pacifism?
Many people, Christians included, assume that Christ taught pacifism. They cite Matthew 5:38-39 for their proof. In this verse Christ said: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."
The Sermon on the Mount from which this passage is taken deals with righteous personal conduct. In our passage, Christ is clearing up a confusion that had led people to think that conduct proper for the civil government -- that is, taking vengeance -- was also proper for an individual.
Even the choice of words used by Christ indicates that He was addressing a confusion, or a distortion, that was commonplace. Several times in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount Christ used this same "you have heard it said" figure of speech to straighten out misunderstandings or falsehoods being taught by the religious leaders of the times.
Contrast this to Christ's use of the phrase "it is written" when He was appealing to the Scriptures for authority (for example, see Matthew 4 where on three occasions during His temptation by the devil, Christ answered each one of the devil's lies or misquotes from Scripture with the words: "it is written").
To further underscore the point that Christ was correcting the religious leaders on their teaching that "an eye for an eye" applies to private revenge, consider that in the same Sermon, Christ strongly condemned false teaching: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven..." (Matthew 5:19). Clearly, then, Christ was not teaching something different about self defense than is taught elsewhere in the Bible. Otherwise, He would be contradicting Himself for He would now be teaching men to break one of the commandments.
The reference to "an eye for an eye" was taken from Exodus 21:24-25 which deals with how the magistrate must deal with a crime. Namely, the punishment must fit the crime. The religious leaders of Christ's day had twisted a passage that applied to the government and misused it as a principle of personal revenge.
The Bible distinguishes clearly between the duties of the civil magistrate (the government) and the duties of an individual. Namely, God has delegated to the civil magistrate the administration of justice. Individuals have the responsibility of protecting their lives from attackers. Christ was referring to this distinction in the Matthew 5 passage. Let us now examine in some detail what the Scriptures say about the roles of government and of individuals.
Both the Old and New Testaments teach individual self defense, even if it means taking the assailant's life in certain circumstances.
Self-Defense in the Old Testament
Exodus 22:2-3 tells us "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."
One conclusion which can be drawn from this is that a threat to our life is to be met with lethal force. During the day, presumably because we can recognize and later apprehend the thief if he escapes, we are not to kill him in non life-threatening circumstances.
In Proverbs 25:26 we read that "A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well." Certainly, we would be faltering before the wicked if we chose to be unarmed and unable to resist an assailant who might be threatening our life. In other words, we have no right to hand over our life which is a gift from God to the unrighteous. It is a serious mistake to equate a civilized society with one in which the decent people are doormats for the evil to trample on.
Trusting God
Another question asked by Christians is "Doesn't having a gun imply a lack of trust that God will take care of us?"
Indeed, God will take care of us. He has also told us that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments. (John 14:15)
Those who trust God work for a living, knowing that 1 Timothy 5:8 tells us "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." For a man not to work, yet expect to eat because he was "trusting God" would actually be to defy God.
King David wrote in Psalm 46:1 that God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. This did not conflict with praising the God "Who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle" (Psalm 144:1).
The doctrine of Scripture is that we prepare and work, but we trust the outcome to God.
Those who trust God should also make adequate provision for their own defense even as we are instructed in the passages cited above. For a man to refuse to provide adequately for his and his family's defense would be to defy God.
There is an additional concern to taking the position that "I don't need to arm myself. God will protect me."
At one point, when Satan was tempting Jesus in the wilderness, he challenged Jesus to throw himself off the top of the temple. Satan reasoned that God's angels would protect him. Jesus responded: "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God'" (Matthew 4:7).
It may seem pious to say that one is trusting in God for protection, and we all must, but it is tempting God if we do not take the measures that He has laid out for us in the Bible.
Role of Government
The Bible records the first murder in Genesis 4 when Cain killed his brother Abel. God's response was not to register rocks or impose a background check on those getting a plough, or whatever it was that Cain used to kill his brother. Instead, God dealt with the criminal. Ever since Noah the penalty for murder has been death.
Nowhere in the Bible does God make any provision for dealing with the instruments of crime. He always focuses on the consequences for an individual of his actions. Heaven and hell only applies to people, not to things. Responsibility only pertains to people, not to things.
Resisting an attack is not to be confused with taking vengeance which is the exclusive domain of God (Romans 12:19). This has been delegated to the civil magistrate, who, as we read in Romans 13:4, "is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."
Private vengeance means one would stalk down a criminal after one's life is no longer in danger as opposed to defending oneself during an attack. It is this very point that has been confused by Christian pacifists who would take the passage in the Sermon on the Mount about turning the other cheek (which prohibits private vengeance) into a command to falter before the wicked.
Let us consider also that the Sixth Commandment tells us "Thou shall not murder." In the chapters following, God gave to Moses many of the situations which require a death penalty. God clearly has not told us never to kill. He has told us not to murder, which means we are not to take an innocent life.
Consider also that the civil magistrate is to be a terror to those who practice evil. This passage does not in any way imply that the role of law enforcement is to prevent crimes or to protect individuals from criminals. The magistrate is a minister to serve as "an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (Romans 13:4).
This point is reflected in the legal doctrine of the United States. Repeatedly, courts have held that the government has no responsibility to provide individual security. One case (Bowers v. DeVito) put it this way: "there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
Self Defense in the New Testament
The Christian pacifist may try to argue that God has changed His mind from the time that He gave Moses the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. Perhaps they would want us to think that Christ canceled out the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 or the provision for justifiably killing a thief in Exodus 22. But the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that this cannot be, because "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). In the Old Testament, the prophet Malachi records God's words this way: "For I am the Lord, I do not change" (Malachi 3:6).
Paul was referring to the unchangeability of God's Word when he wrote to Timothy that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Clearly, Paul viewed all Scripture, including the Old Testament, as useful for training Christians in every area of life.
We must also consider what Christ told his disciples in his last hours with them: "...But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one" (Luke 22:36, emphasis added). Keep in mind that the sword was the finest offensive weapon available to an individual soldier -- the equivalent then of a military rifle today.
The Christian pacifist will likely object at this point that only a few hours later, Christ rebuked Peter who used a sword to cut off the ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest in the company of a detachment of troops. Let us read what Christ said to Peter in Matthew 26:52-54: Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?
In the companion passage in John 18, Jesus tells Peter to put his sword away and told him that He had to drink the cup that His Father had given Him.
It was not the first time that Christ had to explain to the disciples why He had come to earth. To fulfill the Scriptures, the Son of God had to die for the sin of man since man was incapable of paying for his own sin apart from going to hell. Christ could have saved His life, but then believers would have lost their lives forever in hell. These things only became clear to the disciples after Christ had died and been raised from the dead and the Spirit had come into the world at Pentecost (see John 14:26).
While Christ told Peter to "put your sword in its place" He clearly did not say get rid of it forever. That would have contradicted what he had told the disciples only hours before. Peter's sword was to protect his own mortal life from danger. His sword was not needed to protect the Creator of the universe and the King of kings.
Years after Pentecost, Paul wrote in a letter to Timothy "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim. 5:8). This passage applies to our subject because it would be absurd to buy a house, furnish it with food and facilities for one's family, and then refuse to install locks and provide the means to protect the family and the property. Likewise it would be absurd not to take, if necessary, the life of a night-time thief to protect the members of the family (Exodus 22:2-3).
A related, and even broader concept, is found in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Christ had referred to the Old Testament summary of all the laws of the Bible into two great commandments: "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and your neighbor as yourself'" (Luke 10:27). When asked who was a neighbor, Christ related the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37). It was the Good Samaritan who took care of the mugging victim who was a neighbor to the victim. The others who walked by and ignored the victim's plight were not acting as neighbors to him.
In the light of all we have seen the Scriptures teach to this point, can we argue that if we were able to save another's life from an attacker by shooting the attacker with our gun that we should "turn the other cheek instead?" The Bible speaks of no such right. It only speaks of our responsibilities in the face of an attack -- as individual creatures made by God, as householders or as neighbors.
National Blessings and Cursings
The Old Testament also tells us a great deal about the positive relationship between righteousness, which exalts a nation, and self defense.
It makes clear that in times of national rebellion against the Lord God, the rulers of the nation will reflect the spiritual degradation of the people and the result is a denial of God's commandments, an arrogance of officialdom, disarmament and oppression.
For example, the people of Israel were oppressed during the time of the rule of the Judges. This occurred every time the people apostatized. Judges 5:8 tells us that, "They chose new gods; then there was war in the gates; not a shield or spear was seen among forty thousand in Israel."
Consider Israel under Saul: The first book of Samuel tells of the turning away of Israel from God. The people did not want to be governed by God; they wanted to be ruled by a king like the pagan, God-hating nations around them. Samuel warned the people what they were getting into -- the curses that would be upon them -- if they persisted in raising up a king over themselves and their families. Included in those curses was the raising up of a standing, professional army which would take their sons and their daughters for aggressive wars (I Samuel 8:11).
This curse is not unknown in the United States. Saul carried out all the judgments that Samuel had warned the people about. His build up of a standing army has been repeated in the U.S., and not just in terms of the military, but also the 650,000 full-time police officers from all levels of government.
Saul was the king the Israelites wanted and got. He was beautiful in the eyes of the world but a disaster in the eyes of the Lord. Saul did not trust God. He rebelled against His form of sacrifice unto the Lord. Saul put himself above God. He was impatient. He refused to wait for Samuel because God's way was taking too long. Saul went ahead and performed the sacrifice himself, thus violating God's commandment (and, incidentally, also violating the God-ordained separation of duties of church and state!)
Thus was the kingdom lost to Saul. And, it was under him that the Philistines were able to defeat the Jews and put them into bondage. So great was the bondage exerted by the Philistines that "Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, 'Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears.' But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines to sharpen each man's plowshare, his mattock, his ax, and his sickle;...So it came about, on the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people who were with Saul and Jonathan..." (1 Samuel 13:19-20; 22-23).
Today, the same goals of the Philistines would be carried out by an oppressor who would ban gunsmiths from the land. The sword of today is the handgun, rifle or shotgun. The sword control of the Philistines is today's gun control of those governments that do not trust their people with guns.
It is important to understand that what happened to the Jews at the time of Saul was not unexpected according to the sanctions spelled out by God in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. In the first verses of those chapters, blessings are promised to a nation that keeps God's laws. In the latter parts of those chapters, the curses are spelled out for a nation that comes under judgment for its rebellion against God. Deuteronomy 28:47-48 helps us understand the reason for Israel's oppression by the Philistines during Saul's reign: Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things, therefore you shall serve your enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of all things; and He will put a yoke of iron on your neck until He has destroyed you.
The Bible provides examples of God's blessing upon Israel for its faithfulness. These blessings included a strong national defense coupled with peace. A clear example occurred during the reign of Jehoshaphat. 2 Chronicles 17 tells of how Jehoshaphat led Israel back to faithfulness to God which included a strong national defense. The result: "And the fear of the Lord fell on all the kingdoms of the lands that were around Judah, so that they did not make war against Jehoshaphat" (2 Chronicles 17:10).
The Israelite army was a militia army (Numbers 1:3, ff.) which came to battle with each man bearing his own weapons -- from the time of Moses, through the Judges, and beyond. When threatened by the Midianites, for example, "Moses spoke to the people , saying, 'Arm some of yourselves for the war, and let them go against the Midianites to take vengeance for the Lord on Midian'" (Numbers 31:3). Again, to demonstrate the Biblical heritage of individuals bearing and keeping arms, during David's time in the wilderness avoiding capture by Saul, "David said to his men, 'Every man gird on his sword.' So every man girded on his sword, and David also girded on his sword" (1 Samuel 25:13).
Finally, consider Nehemiah and those who rebuilt the gates and walls of Jerusalem. They were both builders and defenders, each man -- each servant -- armed with his own weapon: Those who built on the wall, and those who carried burdens loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked at construction, and with the other held a weapon. Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built (Nehemiah 4:17-18).
Conclusion
The wisdom of the framers of the Constitution is consistent with the lessons of the Bible. Instruments of defense should be dispersed throughout the nation, not concentrated in the hands of the central government. In a godly country, righteousness governs each man through the Holy Spirit working within. The government has no cause to want a monopoly of force; the government that desires such a monopoly is a threat to the lives, liberty and property of its citizens.
The assumption that only danger can result from people carrying guns is used to justify the government's having a monopoly of force. The notion that the people cannot be trusted to keep and bear their own arms informs us that ours, like the time of Solomon, may be one of great riches but is also a time of peril to free people. If Christ is not our King, we shall have a dictator to rule over us, just as Samuel warned.
For those who think that God treated Israel differently from the way He will treat us today, please consider what God told the prophet Malachi: "For I am the Lord, I do not change..." (Malachi 3:6).

Back to main page.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should Christians Have Guns?
The Biblical Basis for the Second Amendment
by Dan Peters, D. Min.
Guest Editorial
The Biblical Evangelist
Volume XXIX, Number 3
May/August 1998
page 1, 14-16
It's 3 A.M. You wake from a deep sleep to hear noises downstairs. Someone is breaking into your house! What do you do? You reach for the phone, but it is dead. You go out into the hallway. There in your living room is a man you don't know! He turns to you and you see a large knife in his hand! He says, "Go get your wife!" What do you do?
What should you have done? Would an alarm system have kept him out? Would a gun have prevented him from hurting your wife?
Should Christians ever use deadly force to protect their family members? I have believed for many years that law abiding citizens have "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, (which) shall not be infringed." This is part of the U.S. Constitution and seemed to me to be the greatest human guarantee of all the other rights recognized on the Constitution.
Until the "Brady Bill," however, it was all theory for me. Except for my involvement along with my sons in shooting BB guns and 22 rifle shooting at camp, guns were not part of my life. My father had quit hunting before I was born. Since I was never in the military, guns were something on television and in books, not a regular part of my life.
When I realized that efforts were being made to disarm law abiding citizens, I decided to go ahead and buy a handgun for family defense. I bought a used Smith and Wesson 38 special and began shooting targets with my oldest son at a local indoor range. I received training in handgun safety and now keep my gun under lock and key in the house.
As a Christian gun owner I asked myself some questions: "Is it right for a Christian to defend his family? Are lethal weapons in the hands of private citizens in keeping with the Bible?"
I discovered that the Bible has much to say about weapons. The word "sword" appears in over 400 verses in the Old and New Testaments.
The first passage I found that established the right of a homeowner to use deadly force was Exodus 22:2-4: "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double."
The Mosaic Law, established by God for the nation of Israel, provided for family defense by stating that if a thief is killed during a nighttime theft, the homeowner is not liable for his death. If he was breaking in during the daytime and the homeowner killed him, a murder has taken place, and the homeowner is guilty. This shows us that the Bible does not support the use of deadly force by individuals to defend property. It does support the use of deadly force by individuals to protect the lives of family members. [Ed: not sure about the defending property bit, there may be instances where deadly force is justified in defending property. Also, in this instance, it is obvious that the person is a thief, because that is what he is called, as opposed to a rapist or murder or man stealer or child molester, all of which present justifiable killing. If it were not obvious that he were a thief, then he should be treated as a person of the worst possible character and dealt with is the severest possible manner.]
Jesus assumed the right of a man to defend him family by the use of his arms in this quotation from Him in Luke 11:21-22: "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils."
Peace in a man's palace or home is the result of being armed, not disarmed.
Law abiding citizens, trained in the proper use of firearms, can only enhance the peace of our communities. Armed homes are a deterrent to violent crime.
One of the most amazing passages I came across was the one in which we have a record of Jesus instructing His followers to sell some of their clothes and buy a sword. When they indicated they had two swords among the twelve of them, Jesus then said that it was enough, as we see in Luke 22:36 and 38: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.... And they said, Lord, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough."
Jesus did not prohibit his disciples from having lethal weapons, but instead made sure that at least some of His disciples had them. He even suggested the method of funding for the purchase of weapons. "Sell your garment" implies the fairly basic necessity of them being armed during their travels. This cannot refer to a "spiritual" sword since a "spiritual" money bag and knapsack and garment would seem to be stretching an interpretation to fit a preconceived idea.
Jesus stopped His disciples from using their weapons when He was arrested, as we see in Matthew 26:47-52: "And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people. Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him. And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
Jesus upheld the right of His disciples to carry a weapon and held them responsible for their proper use. He also warned that those who use a weapon take the risk of escalation of conflict. But why did Jesus tell Peter to put his sword in its place? Jesus explained why His servants didn't fight in John 18:36: "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."
He didn't say that His servants had no right to fight, He rather explained that because His kingdom did not have its origin in this world His servants would not use physical weapons to fight what is essentially spiritual warfare. We are not to attempt to spread the gospel by the "sword." Those who have attempted to spread the faith by the "sword" have always brought shame to true Christians.
One verse that is used to teach pacifism and disarmament is Isaiah 2:4: "And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
Does this verse teach us to disarm ourselves? No. This verse refers to the future. The Bible teaches that the Millennial Kingdom of God on earth has not yet arrived. There will come a day when the earth will have so much peace that we will no longer need our weapons. Until then, we must be prepared to defend ourselves. We should now follow the command in Joel 3:10: "Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong."
"But didn't Jesus say that we should turn the other cheek?" In Matthew 5:39, Jesus said: "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
This refers to the response of a Christian to less than lethal force. We should allow ourselves to be misused and defrauded for the sake of peace. But this in no way contradicts the responsibility of Christians to defend their loved ones from deadly criminal assault in a free society. Would it ever be right for a Christian to take the life of another human being? What does it mean when the Bible says "THOU SHALT NOT KILL?" Is the sixth commandment an absolute prohibition of all killing? No! What is prohibited here is deliberate unauthorized murder, not legitimate self defense.
The Apostle Peter wrote that believers should ot be murderers in I Peter 4:15: "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters." Personal premeditated murder is always a violation of the unchanging moral law of God.
Another question I asked myself was...
Is God a Pacifist?
He used a sword to block the access of Adam and Eve to the Garden of Eden after they sinned (Genesis 3:24). He stood with a sword to block the way of Balaam and his donkey (Numbers 22:23). He appeared to Joshua as a military commander with a sword in His hand (Joshua 5:13-14). He wears a sword on His thigh (Psalm 45:3). He has a double bladed sword (Revelation 2:12). He says that He kills in Deuteronomy 32:39: "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
God is not a pacifist. He has killed many, as in Noah's flood, and is shown in the Bible as having a sword and using it to bring justice and peace.
"Should government try to bring about peace by confiscating weapons from law abiding citizens?" The only instance of disarming people that I could find [ed: actually, there are more instances] in the Bible was in I Samuel 13:19-22: "Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears: But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock. Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads. So it came to pass in the day of battle,that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan: but with Saul and Jonathan his son there was found."
I discovered in the Bible that weapons confiscation is a method used by "Philistine" governments who seek to make slaves out of the people they rule.
The right to keep and bear arms is not only a basic American right. It is a right given by God in this sinful world. It is assumed in the Bible.
The right to family-defense is presumed from one end of the Bible to the other. The idea that Christians should support the disarming of law-abiding citizens is not in accord with God's will for this age. The disarming of the lawful will only leave the streets and our safety in the hands of criminals and overworked police officers who cannot guarantee our safety.
While Christian people are authorized to defend their families, there is no Biblical basis for personal revenge, hatred or political persuasion by means of arms. Christianity was never meant to be spread by means of the sword. And while we do have a right to self defense, we must decide when it is proper to use it. Difficult choices exist in this evil world. I hope that I never have to use deadly force to protect my family.
If I do, I know from my study of the Bible that it is not wrong to use violence, if necessary, to protect my family from violent criminal assault.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that recognizes the right of a citizen to "keep and bear arms" is in harmony with the teachings of the Bible and should be upheld by Bible believing Christians. Therefore, legislation that has the effect of disarming law abiding citizens should be opposed by Christians who take the Bible seriously.

PRAISE THE LORD AND (PLEASE DO) PASS THE AMMUNITION
By Duncan Long
Unfortunately much of the task of disarming the free world is being carried out by many churches and so-called Christian groups. Many of these people claim that their ideas are based on the Bible. However a close look at their most often quoted source, the Bible, can actually turn pacifist arguments against self-defense on their heads. A close look at the Bible will also reveal the moral inadequacy of these groups just as thoroughly as their logical inadequacy was detailed in the previous article. A close look at the Bible actually gives the moral justification in self-defense which many are looking for.
Before launching into even a brief study of the Bible, it's wise to remember that an overview gives a fuller and better idea of what's going on than does a detailed look at a few fragments of the whole. The old joke of the guy who decides to pick out two key verses in the Bible to live by and ends up with "And Judas went and hanged himself" and "Go thou and do likewise" may be funny; unfortunately, those who do this same type of thing by picking and choosing verses to support moral arguments can cause a lot of needless suffering among those foolish enough to pay any mind to them. Nowhere is this more true than when it comes to self-defense.
(By this same token, many liberal theologians like to pick and choose which parts of the Bible were "really inspired" or are factual. Those who argue that some areas of the Bible--which don't support their particular dogma--"don't count" should bare in mind that, by the same logic, those which support their ideas don't necessarily "count" either. If the idea that only part of the Bible "counts" morally is followed, the next logic step is that the whole Bible would then be thrown out and every man will decide morality by his own standards or a when-in-Rome-do-as-the-Romans type of wishy washy value system. And if that's done, the self-defense advocates have won since the majority in the US feel self-defense is justified and the laws support the act as well.)
As to what is actually in the Bible, an overview shows that, far from being an outline of pacifism, the book does support both an individual's--as well as a country's--right to not only defend themselves but to take aggressive action toward enemies. A quick look at Jewish history, as outlined in the early "books" of the Bible, reveals that the Israelis not only went into battle and conquered their enemies, they did so at the COMMAND of God and went with his BLESSINGS.
The Mosaic law (that given to the Jews by Moses and believed by most religious Jews and Christians to have come directly from God) also covers the methods of waging war (in Deuteronomy chapter 20). This chapter makes no mention of NOT killing enemies; rather, it commands the Jews to not destroy the land so that it can't support them after they win the wars they wage.
On the personal level, much the same idea applies. The Bible is NOT inconsistent when it comes to self-defense.
Probably the most misinterpreted passage of the Bible when it comes to persons defending themselves (or countries waging war or capital punishment) is the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." One of the Ten Commandments, this is to be found in Exodus 20: 13.
Unfortunately, what many so-called religious authorities fail to tell when arguing against self-defense by quoting this bit of scripture is that there are several words in the Hebrew language which express the verb "kill." The Hebrew word used in this commandment ALWAYS means "murder" and ONLY in what would now be called a "pre-meditated" murder at that.
Unfortunately, the word "kill" has changed since the time of King James when the first major translation of the Bible into English was carried out. The "kill" would more properly be translated as "murder" as far as modern English usage is concerned and, in fact, many modern translations of the Bible generally use "murder" in this passage. Check it out in a modern language translation of the Bible or--better yet--with someone who knows Hebrew.
This Bible passage deals with murder, not self-defense and it's a grave mistake to interpret is as prohibiting self-defense. Thus the commandment is simply "Thou shalt not MURDER." (And any religious leader using this as an argument against self-defense should be dismissed as a liar or sent back for more theological training.)
Throughout the first few books of the Bible, a basic theme emerges: the Jewish society was to treat crime as a disease to be eliminated. When necessary, criminals were banished from the society or, if they refused to stop their crimes, often even put to death. The idea was to keep the society as pure as humanly possible by purging it of crime.
Where does self-defense fit into the Bibical scheme of things?
In fact, the Bible makes the assumption that men and women will defend themselves against someone intent on harming them. (It's interesting that only in our "enlightened" times do intellectuals start questioning the idea that people have a perfect and natural right to defend themselves.)
However, there's one passage of Mosaic law which does cover accidental killings as well as outlining what constitutes a murder. While it doesn't outline what constitutes self-defense in itself, it does show what it is NOT. The passage is to be found in Deuteronomy, Chapter 19. Here we find that a person who accidentally kills someone has the right to flee to a sanctuary city so that those out to avenge the death of a loved one can't murder the accidental killer before their emotions cool and reason returns.
This Chapter goes on to outline what will be done to a murderer. Anyone who is guilty of premeditated murder and flees to one of these cities was in big trouble. The elders of the city "hold court" and if he was found guilty, he was delivered to the "avenger" (a relative of the person murdered) and put to death with no appeals or pleas of "cruel and unusual punishment."
It is interesting to note the limited specification of just what constitutes murder in this passage. In the 11th verse of this chapter, we find what constitutes murder: "But if any man hate his neighbor, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die..."
Two requirements had to be met BEFORE a man was guilty of murder. First, the murderer had to "hate" his victim. Though this would be hard to prove since it is impossible for a human judge to look into a criminal's mind, it was probably not a point of defense for those charged with murder since their actions would prove hateful intent; undoubtedly this "hate" included hating a victim because he was rich, had something the criminal wanted, was from a certain family or the like.
Second, the murderer had to be waiting somewhere to commit his act; in effect the crime had to be premeditated. (It should be noted that Mosaic law required that at least two witnesses be available to testify against a law breaker and that their testimony agree; consequently, the intent to commit the crime would have to be gleaned from the testimony of the witnesses or the crime would be "thrown out of court" as it were.)
Obviously, someone who is uses lethal force to defend himself against a stranger (who has broken into a home suddenly assaults a citizen on a dark street) doesn't fit into the category of being a murderer. In such a case, a citizen would not be killing out of hate (how could he hate someone he didn't know anything about) and he would not have been lying in wait to commit his act against the criminal who had singled the citizen out. The bottom line is that a person defending himself against criminal attack does so without breaking any Bibical laws or commandments.
Of course there is the "religious" argument that people shouldn't have weapons. What does the Bible say about weapons? Are they evil (as some religious leaders would have us believe)?
There are NO admonitions not to carry weapons in the Bible. In the Old Testament, men carry swords, bows and arrows, spears or whatever freely and without restrictions as long as the nation remained under its own sovereignty. Only when Israel was taken over by enemy nations were the people forced to give up weapons.
All right. But how about Jesus? Wasn't he a meek leader who refused to take any forceful actions on his own?
In fact, this isn't the Jesus portrayed in the New Testament.
The Bibical Jesus is far from meek. He apparently drove those breaking Jewish laws from the temple in Jerusalem once (and possibly twice) and wasn't above risking life and limb to point out very publicly and vocally where things needed to be changed among corrupt religious and government leaders.
During this period of Jewish history, a Roman "ban" on weapons was in place and the average Jew was disarmed with weapons legally allowed in the hands of special Jewish "police" groups charged with enforcing the law (both Roman and Jewish religious law) as well as in the hands of the occupying army.
Even in this situation, the Jews often carried short swords or daggers concealed on their persons. In fact, Jesus tells his disciples on one occasion, "... he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." (This is in Luke 22: 36--a passage not often used for sermons in churches advocating pacifism!).
This same Bible passage also tells that the disciples told Jesus that they had two swords with them already (apparently concealed on their persons!). Jesus, who is facing the his own death in a short time, does NOT admonish them that this having weapons is a sin! Rather, he says that two swords are enough.
Later, Peter even went so far as to use one of the swords to attempt to lop of the head of one of the men who had come out with swords and clubs to arrest Jesus; Peter missed taking off a head but did get an ear. Jesus averted a slaughter of his outnumbered disciples by healing the injured man and giving himself over to the group that had come to capture him. His disciples fled into the night, with one even shedding his clothes in the process (Mark 14: 50-52).
Certainly these passages suggest that both Jesus and his disciples were not the timid, passive characters many church leaders would have us believe. Rather they were active men capable to taking action to defend themselves against enemies.
It would, of course, be wrong to think that the New Testament advocates a violent life style. Verses like "Blessed are the peace makers" (this was before any revolver had that title, remember) and "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword," among others would counter any arguments with such a thrust. But the New Testament hardly advocates total pacifism in the face of danger, either.
Another argument often made is that "we should be like Christ" and--according to liberal thinking--be pacifists. Disregarding the nearly (to many) blasphemous idea that a person can be perfect like Christ, those making this argument are guilty of a vary limited view of what the New Testament has to say about Jesus.
While Jesus allowed himself to be killed by his enemies, the whole Bibical account also has him raised up from the dead and finally judging his enemies as well. The conquering Christ that breaks his enemies apart with a rod of iron and has a sword in his mouth (capable of waging war on enemies) is ignored by these people. If anything, the admonition to be "like Christ" would make us more like Rambo than Gandi.
The New Testament teaches that "Christians" should obey the laws of the land they are in, provided the laws aren't immoral according to Bibical principles (Hebrews 13: 17). This has some important ramifications for those interested in self-defense.
While laws may vary slightly from one place to another, generally laws in the US and most Western countries allow a person to defend himself or any member of his family from what he perceives as being an immediate threat of grave bodily harm or death. For those living in such countries, self-defense is legal and, as we've seen, it isn't non-Bibical. Therefore, self-defense is a moral and "Christian" thing to do if we're to take the bibical admonition to obey the laws of the land.
Some thought should be given as to just WHY Judo-Christian laws, as well as those of most other civilized societies, have been so harsh on criminals and have allowed good men to defend themselves against criminal attack. The short answer is that this is the only way to protect the society and--in the long run--protect those unable to protect themselves.
How can this be?
It must be remembered that most criminals are REPEAT offenders. Anyone who would assault or kill a person if he doesn't defend himself will probably commit other serious crimes in the near future. That means that, should you choose to "live and let live", letting a criminal rob and kill you simply allows him to go on to another innocent victim later on. In effect, your lack of action may well cause other innocent people to be hurt or killed.
With this in mind, certainly anyone interested in being "his brother's keeper" should realize that stopping a criminal with force would very possible save a number of other people untold misery and possibly even their lives.
Likewise what kind of "bother's keeper" sits by passively while a criminal robs, beats, or kills and innocent victim? Again, the moral imperative is to take action. The passive bystander is definitely guilty of being immoral when he refuses to defend others or himself.
Everyone must "know himself" and what he believes and feels before deciding to defend himself or others. Failure to give thought to his inner self may cause him to hesitate at a critical moment when he should take decisive action. Such hesitation can spell death in a self-defense situation. But a person should never hesitate because of what misguided religious leaders who wish to rewrite both the Bible and Western law have preached. The Bible doesn't preach becoming a whimp. Rather, it teaches being a good citizen who is capable of defending himself. In the US, those prepared to fight back against a criminal when he has left them no other choice are legally AND morally justified in doing so.
When faced by a criminal who has murder in his eye, a good citizen should just mutter, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."