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."

Should Christians Shoot to Kill in Self-Defense?

Don Boys, Ph.D.

I have been asked if Christians should “shoot to kill” in self-defense, No, they should shoot to stay alive! A truism very appropriate today in America is, a gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone. Courts have ruled that the police have no legal obligation to protect you.

In real, everyday life, you and your family are on your own! As Dad you are to be the provider, priest, and protector of the family. You are the paladin "Have Gun, Will Travel" and that means you may have to shoot another person to keep the family safe.

Most Americans admit that self-defense is American but is it Christian? I think so, although many will disagree.

In Genesis 14, some kings kidnapped Lot along with others and fled the countryside. Abraham, being responsible for his nephew, armed his 318 trained servants and pursued them almost to Damascus. He fought the enemy and brought back Lot, his family, and servants and all the bounty. Abraham believed in using force.

It is never mentioned by pacifists that Hebrews 11:34 highly commends Abraham and other famous Old Testament men who were very aggressive against wrong. In fact the writer says they “waxed valiant in fight.”

In Exodus 22:2 God permits the defense of your home. If you are awakened during the night by a thief in your house, you have every right to kill the invader without any sense of guilt. However, if it is daylight you do not have the right to kill the intruder unless he tries to kill you.

All right, but what about the New Testament teaching? First of all, no Christian has a right to retaliation or personal vengeance; however, he does have a Scriptural and constitutional right to defend himself, his family, and his property.

In Luke 19-11-27, Jesus describes a king who killed those who opposed him. According to many authorities, the king in the parable represents Jesus Himself when he returns to set up his kingdom on earth. If killing is always wrong, then why would Christ use a parable wherein one representing Himself kills someone?

In all the examples in the Gospels, Christ or His disciples never told a soldier to not fight or not kill in time of war or self-defense. They had many opportunities to make the point if they wanted to make it. They did not.

Those who boast of not believing in self-defense are almost always inconsistent. They will use seat belts, locks on their autos and homes, take flu shots, etc. but balk when it comes to protecting themselves with guns. Evidently they believe in a “little” self-protection but not “big” protection. Or do they believe in protection against “things” but not against people? Or do they know what they believe?

What pacifists do know is that they have the freedom to espouse their illogical talk because brave, aggressive men like General Patton kicked down the tyrants’ doors to maintain the freedom for pacifist doves to fly around cooing “peace, peace;” when they did nothing to produce that peace. National defense, like self-defense is not wrong—it is right.

Quakers and others opposed to weapons point out the absence of swords or their use in the New Testament after the Book of Acts, but so what? The Bible doesn’t refer to sandals after the Book of Acts, but does any sane person believe Christians did not wear them?

Swords were common in those days, so if it was wrong for believers to own or use swords, we can expect Scripture to clearly say so; but it doesn't.

My critics point out that Jesus told Peter to put up his sword when he cut off the servant’s ear during His arrest in the Garden; however, Christ was clearly saying that His time had come for Him to die for man’s sins, so Pete was not to attempt to stop what must take place.

“But self-defense is so unlike the gentle and mild Jesus” says someone; however, let me point out that the “gentle and mild Jesus” drove the moneychangers out of the Temple with a whip.

One of Christ’s last commands before going to Calvary was to tell the disciples to sell their cloak and purchase a sword! (Luke 22:36) The meaning is, let him procure a sword at any expense, even if he is required to sell his clothes for it, intimating that the danger would be very great, and a sword would offer protection from wicked men.

My critics say that Christ did not mean to purchase a sword; He only meant that they would face many battles as they preached the gospel. Not so, because in verse 38 the disciples said, “Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.” No figurative language there. Christ told them to possess swords as they traveled the world preaching the gospel, although two swords would be sufficient.

Why did He tell them to purchase a sword? Because shotguns had not been invented yet! A used shotgun will be much more practical than an extra suit. Have you obeyed His command?

If you permit a murder or rape of an innocent child when you could have stopped it, then you are morally responsible for it. Go sell your suit and buy a gun, learn to use it, and be willing to use it when necessary. However, remember if you carelessly shoot the Avon lady or paper boy, you will have to take the responsibility.

1.1 The morality of arming and organizing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memorize: "He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'" — Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36)
1.1.1 Biblical inspiration and authority
Before we can rightly consider arming and organizing ourselves as a militia, we must consider whether or not doing so is the right thing to do. Later on we will see that we have the historical and constitutional right to form a militia. But ultimately, right and wrong is determined by God's will, and God's will is determined from the Bible. Why turn to the Bible to answer our questions about right and wrong?
If you are a Bible believer, you must be committed to following its moral standards. If you do not believe the Bible, you should still know and weigh what it says and use it to justify your actions to Bible believers.
To answer this question we will briefly look at what the Bible says about its own inspiration, inerrancy, sufficiency, and authority.
First, look at 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is God- breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Here the apostle Paul is teaching us that the Bible (or Scriptures) are inspired by God or God-breathed. Take careful note of two things that Paul says are God-breathed or inspired. He says that "all Scripture is God-breathed." Notice here that it is the actual Scriptures themselves, the words of the Bible, that are inspired (God-breathed) and not simply the authors. God gave us the precise wording of the Bible in its original Hebrew and Greek, not just the main ideas. Paul also says that "all Scripture is God-breathed." It is not just portions of the Bible that are inspired but all of it. We therefore say that the Bible is the word of God! This testimony that the Bible is the word of God runs throughout the whole Bible. (See, for example, Exodus 34:27, 2 Samuel 23:2, Jeremiah 26:2, John 12:49, John 17:8, 1 Corinthians 14:37, and Revelation 2:18.)
Now to say that the entire Bible is equally inspired word-for- word does not necessarily mean that it is all of equal value or interest to us. It simply means that word-for-word it all came from God.
The Bible is word-for-word the word of God. Therefore it is completely true or without any errors. This is what we mean by "inerrancy." Think about it. If God knows everything (1 John 3:20) and cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18), and if the Bible's words are God's words, then there cannot be any mistakes in the Bible. Otherwise, God would either have to be wrong himself or lying to us.
While this line of reasoning is undeniable, the Bible does not leave us to make our own conclusions about its truthfulness. The concept of infallibility or inerrancy is clearly the Bible's own teaching about itself. Jesus said, "Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen, will by any means disappear from the Law" (Matthew 5:18). In other words, the Bible must be fulfilled in the smallest detail. He also taught that "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35) and praying to the Father stated, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17). God's word can only be truth if it is free from errors. Remember in school when true or false questions on tests were false if any part of them were wrong? Luke wrote his gospel "so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:4). Peter wrote, "We have the word of the prophets made more certain" (2 Peter 1:19). More certain than what? Read 2 Peter 1:16-18. Peters says that the word of the prophets is more certain than his own eyewitness experience of Jesus Christ.
Now the fact that the Bible doesn't have any mistakes is not simply "academic" truth. It is of immense practical importance. Only if it is all true can we know for sure that any particular part of it is true. Do you want to do right by obeying a command in the Bible only to find out later that you were wrong to do what you did? Of course not. We need a Bible that is true throughout to have any real hope of pleasing God.
There is still more you need to know about the Bible. Not only is it God's word, not only is it true, but it contains everything you need to know about God and your relationship with him. The fact that it is everything we need to know is summed up by the word "sufficient" and is clearly taught by Paul the apostle in 2 Timothy 3:15-17. It tells us everything we need to know for salvation (2 Timothy 3:15), truth (2 Timothy 3:16), and good works (2 Timothy 3:17). This is why the Bible tells us over and over again never to add to it or to take away from it (Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, Revelation 22:18).
Now when we say that the Bible tells us everything we need to know, we need to realize that some things are stated directly and some indirectly. A good algebra textbook, for instance, may not give answers to every algebra problem. Yet is does fully define the rules and principles by which every algebra problem may be solved. The Bible likewise contains all that we need for our relationship with God even if it does not provide direct answers for every problem or question we face. On such indirect issues we must draw valid conclusions based on what Scripture does say.
This leads us to the final point which needs to be made about the Bible: the Bible alone is authoritative meaning that it, and only it, must be completely believed and obeyed. Since all of the Bible is God's word we cannot pick and choose what we want to obey. Since it is all true we cannot neglect a portion of it by raising doubts about its reliability. Since it contains all we need for our Christian walks we cannot appeal to something or someone besides the Bible as our final authority on some issue.

We cannot argue with any part of the Bible any more than we can argue with God himself! God has "laid down precepts that are to be fully obeyed" (Psalm 119:4). If we disobey, we will surely fail (Matthew 7:24-25).
We must make sure that whatever we do in any department of life, including the use of force, conforms to the truth and moral principles of the Bible.
1.1.2 The continuity of the Old and New Testaments
If the Bible is the word of God, is it a self-consistent message? Yes! Some sincere Christians believe that the New Testament overturned the Old Testament rendering the Old Testament obsolete. But this is false.
The New Testament did not change or overturn the moral principles of the Old Testament. It simply clarified, developed, added to, or fulfilled them.
Look at what Jesus Christ said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, unto heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18). Several things should be noted about these two verses.
First, Jesus did not abolish what the Old Testament said. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus did not contradict anything said by the Old Testament. Rather than abolishing the law against murder, he went beyond it to prohibit hatred (Matthew 5:21-22). He did not abolish the law against adultery but went beyond it to prohibit lust (Matthew 5:27-28). He did not abolish the principle that punishment by the state should be limited to "an eye for an eye" but simply corrected the abuse of this legal principle of justice by forbidding personal vengeance (Matthew 5:38-39) which the Old Testament also forbids (Deuteronomy 32:35). And he did not negate any Old Testament law by telling us not to hate our enemy because this was a tradition of the scribes found nowhere in the Old Testament (Matthew 5:43-44).
Whenever Jesus wanted to justify his actions or establish a truth, he did it by quoting the Old Testament, not by denying it. Even when he said that loving God and loving our neighbor are the greatest commandments, he was quoting Old Testament commandments that were still in effect. The fact is, the law is still in effect and binding today. "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at one point is guilty of breaking all of it" (James 2:10).
Second, Jesus did come to fulfill the Old Testament. In Colossians 2:16-17 the apostle Paul says, "Therefore, do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however is found in Christ." So it is true that some things in the Old Testament no longer apply to us because Jesus has fulfilled them. But it is only ceremonial aspects of the law that were changed, not the moral aspects. And whatever was finally fulfilled by Jesus Christ was replaced by something better.
The religious festivals of the Old Testament pointed to Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection (1 Corinthians 5:7). The Old Testament priesthood was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who is our High Priest and replaced by the priesthood of all believers (Hebrews 7:23-24). The Old Testament physical temple was fulled in Jesus Christ and replaced by the spiritual temple of the church. The Old Testament sacrificed were fulfilled once and for all by the death of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:27). There is no such thing as something in the Old Testament which was abolished without being substituted by something better in Jesus Christ.
Third, the whole law remains binding until the end of the world. Nowhere did Jesus or the apostles ever change or do away with any moral law or principle of the Old Testament. We have already seen that Jesus based his morals on the Old Testament. Furthermore, the New Testament emphasis on love is not instead of the law but the essence of it.
Paul wrote, "Let no debt remain outstanding except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:8-10). Just because we are filled with Christian love does not mean that we can now sleep around, murder, steal, and covet. Indeed, our love makes us do what the Old Testament law commands.
The relationship of the Old Testament law to salvation
This brings us to the question of why Paul deprecates the law and good works (Roman 3:20, Galatians 24, Ephesians 2:8-10, etc.). Nowhere does Paul deny the validity of the moral laws for determining what is right and wrong and for guiding our everyday lives. Like Jesus, his arguments and teaching were always based on the Old Testament itself (Acts 17:2-3, Romans 1:17, Romans 3:10-18, etc.). What Paul denies is the validity of the view that obedience to God's laws can save us. As sinners, we are incapable of full obedience to the law and therefore cannot please God (Romans 3:20, Romans 8:6-8). So we must depend upon the grace of God in Jesus Christ to be forgiven (Romans 6:23).
But this was nothing new! Obeying God's laws did not save anyone in the Old Testament anymore than in the New Testament, and grace did not save anyone any less. No one in the Old Testament was forgiven or saved because they obeyed the law; the law simply made them aware of their sin just as in the New Testament (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7-8, Galatians 3:24).
The Lord looked with favor or grace on Abel (Genesis 4:4) who made his offering in faith (Hebrews 11:4).
Noah found favor (grace) in the eyes of God (Genesis 6:8) because of his faith (Hebrews 11:7).
Abraham was saved by faith (Genesis 15:6) in the gospel of Jesus (Galatians 3:8) and is a pattern for our faith (Romans 4:1-10).
Moses found favor in the eyes of the Lord because God is gracious, not because Moses obeyed the law (Exodus 34:6-9, Psalm 103:7-8).
David depended on God's mercy for forgiveness (Psalm 51:1-5).
The point of all this is that the Old and New Testaments are equally valid and totally consistent in teaching what is right and wrong. Anyone reading the Old Testament will easily recognize the fact that it does not condemn violence or war when it is justified by biblical principles. Abraham rightly fought to rescue his nephew Lot from invaders (Genesis 14). God gave ground rules for conducting warfare (Deuteronomy 20). The book of Judges is basically a history of heroes and patriots who fought against the tyranny of invading armies and ungodly rulers. David was the greatest king of Israel as well as one of its best soldiers (1 and 2 Samuel). Nothing in the New Testament changes any of these facts.
1.1.3 Jesus Christ was not a pacifist
Of course, Christ's emphasis on love is sometimes perceived to imply that he was a pacifist who condemned all violence and war. But this is a misunderstanding.
A close look at the Bible will show that Jesus Christ was not a pacifist and will demonstrate that he approved of the justified use of deadly force.
Neither John the Baptist, nor Jesus, nor the apostles condemned soldiering.
"Then some soldiers asked him, 'And what should we do?' He replied, 'Don't exhort money and don't accuse people falsely — be content with your pay'" (Luke 3:14). John the Baptist did not tell soldiers that being soldiers was immoral per se, but simply condemned the abuse of their position as soldiers.
Jesus did not rebuke the centurion for being a soldier, but commended him for the faith that came from his understanding of authority in the military (Matthew 8:5-13; see also Acts 10:1-48).
Jesus Christ both permitted and commanded his followers to be armed.
"He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one'" (Luke 22:36). Now that the apostles had learned the lesson of trusting in God (Luke 10:4), they were to be prepared to defend themselves as they travelled through dangerous areas to take the gospel to the whole world.
"Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. Jesus commanded Peter, 'Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?'" (John 18:10-11). Notice that Jesus allowed Peter to have the sword both before and after this incident. The problem was not that defending someone is wrong; the problem was that it was inappropriate at this time since Jesus wanted to die for our sins (Mark 10:45).
"'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him, 'for all who draw the sword will die by the sword'" (Matthew 26:52). Again, Jesus did not necessarily condemn using the sword. He told Peter to put it back in its scabbard, not to get rid of it. What Jesus is saying is that anyone who fights risks his life in doing so. This is a matter of fact, not of ethics.
Jesus Christ used just force.
"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of money changers and the benches of those selling doves" (Matthew 21:12).
"So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables" (John 2:15).
"When Jesus said, 'I am he,' they drew back and fell to the ground." He used his divine power against aggressors (John 18:6).
Jesus Christ would have been justified in defending himself.
On several occasions Jesus Christ evaded an angry crowd rather than giving in to their intent to kill him (Luke 4:28-30, John 8:58-59, John 10:35-39). It was not yet the time for him to sacrifice himself for the sins of many. When the time did come, and his disciples tried to defend him, Jesus said, "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?'" (Matthew 26:53). Jesus was quite capable of taking care of himself if he wanted to be defended. And his statement that he could call on the Father did not only mean that he had the ability to defend himself, but that he was morally justified in doing so as well. He was under no inherent obligation to die, although he and the Father did plan for him to die.
Jesus Christ will someday use deadly force on a wide scale.
All through the Bible we read of the day when Jesus will return to set things straight. At his second coming he will throw the wicked into the fiery furnace (Matthew 13:41-43). He will separate the righteous from the wicked and send the latter into the eternal fire (Matthew 25:41). He will bring destruction upon unbelievers (1 Thessalonians 5:1-3, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10). He will lay waste to the present heavens and the earth (2 Peter 3:10). And with justice he will judge and make war on the evildoers of the earth (Revelation 19:11-21). This all demonstrates that Jesus is not absolutely opposed to the deadly punishment of wrongdoers. Indeed, there will come a day when he brings it about on a universal scale. But for now, he is delaying his just wrath while giving mankind a chance to repent of their wicked deeds (2 Peter 3:9).
Jesus taught that force was a last resort.
Of course, it is true that violence is not always — indeed rarely — justified. "Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place'" (John 18:36). So Christians should not use force to establish or maintain the kingdom of God or impose their religious beliefs on others. But this does not mean that Christians should never use force. Jesus implies that if the situation was different, if his kingdom was an earthly kingdom, then force would be acceptable.
Jesus also said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9) showering that our goal should always be to seek peaceful resolutions if at all possible (see also Romans 12:17-19). Later he said, "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39). Slapping the right cheek was not a life-threatening attack, but a personal insult similar to spitting on someone. So Jesus was teaching that we should not resort to force when we face minor personal insults and mistreatment. But he was not condemning self-defense when our very lives are threatened as we have already seen.
Finally, Christ tells us, "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:44-45). How can we love our enemies and kill them at the same time? Clearly Jesus is saying we should harbor no hatred towards anyone. Our actions should never be motivated by hatred or vengeance but only by justice. Judges can and do justly sentence criminals to prison while having compassion on them. God can and does desire a sinner's repentance as he condemns him forever. So also it is possible and necessary for us to love our mortal enemies, to pray for their souls and seek to change their minds and behavior, even when we are forced to take up arms against them.
1.1.4 Principles of just war
As we have seen, Jesus Christ was not a pacifist and it is sometimes necessary to respond to evil with force. But why and when is force right and when is it wrong? Through the Bible there are several key principles to answer this question.
The right to life. All through the Bible it is assumed that individuals have the right to life. For instance, Exodus 20:13 says, "You shall not murder." The reasons we cannot murder is because God says so. But the reason he says so is because he has given us the right to live. This right to life implies the right to self-defense. If we should not be murdered, then we are justified in preventing someone from killing us. This is shown throughout the Bible.
Capital punishment. For various terrible crimes and sins, only death is a sufficient punishment. God himself instituted capital punishment. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man" (Genesis 9:6). "Anyone who strikes a man and kill shim shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:12). Consistent with the principle of "an eye for an eye" (Exodus 23-25), only a murderer's death can satisfy the demands of justice for murder. Capital punishment is also the just penalty for despising authority (Deuteronomy 17:12), rebellion (Deuteronomy 21:21), and kidnapping (Deuteronomy 24:7). It makes no difference in principle whether an individual, or an army, or political leaders are guilty. If a man is guilty of a capital crime, he should die at the hands of an executioner. If any army is guilty of a wide-scale crime, they too should die, at the hands of an opposing army if necessary. If our leaders are corrupted to the extent of imposing tyranny upon the people, then they should be forcefully overthrown and replaced by a legitimate government.
Resisting tyranny. This idea of resisting tyranny is common in the Bible. Clearly we should not resort to force when mere possessions are at stake. High taxes and the like can be endured and do warrant taking lives. But when leaders are responsible for murder, deny civil liberties, and generally impose a draconian regime upon the people, then we should disobey, resist, and rise up to fight. In Exodus 1:15-22 the king of Egypt ordered that all newborn boys be killed. But the Hebrew midwives did right by disobeying and sparing the innocent babies. As we said previously, the book of Judges is full of accounts of leaders raised up by God for express purpose of delivering Israel from the hands of tyranny. Read about Ehud (Judges 3), Deborah (Judges 4), Gideon (Judges 6- 7), and Samson (Judges 13-16). These people are commended for their faith in the New Testament because they responded to God's calling to fight against tyranny (Hebrews 11:32-34).
Justice not revenge, collective not personal. Paul the apostle wrote, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody" (Romans 12:17). We must always be motivated to do what is right. "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone" (Romans 12:18). By all means we must seek peaceful resolutions. "Do not take revenge my friends" (Romans 12:19). We are not to get even with an evildoer nor are we to take justice into our own hands. But it is not evil or vengeful for people to individually defend themselves or to collectively exact just punishment.
Obeying authority. Since the Bible is the inspired word of God, we must follow its commands and principles. We must take seriously the concept of just war taught explicitly in the Old Testament and implicitly in the New since the Bible is consistent in its moral precepts. Since Jesus was not a pacifist, we cannot say that christians renounce all armed conflict. And while force should be a last resort it is sometimes necessary for self-defense and to resist tyranny.
This leads us to the all important idea of authority. Who is in charge. What must we obey? When is resistance justified? "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me'" (Matthew 28:18). All legitimate authority rests in the Lord Jesus Christ. All earthly authority is therefore derived and limited authority. Christ gives parents the authority to raise children according to his principles (Ephesians 6:1-4). But we have no authority to abuse our children or lead them astray. He gives ordained leaders of the church authority within the church, but they are accountable to Christ (Hebrews 13:17). They also have no authority to abuse or lead astray Christians. Likewise, he gives authority to governments to maintain law and order, not to abuse citizens or to perpetrate evil.
Consider Romans 13:1-5 which is perhaps the most important biblical passage about the authority of governments. "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God" (Romans 13:1). In America, the highest governing authority is the Constitution, not elected officials who are sworn to uphold and defend it.
"Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves" (Romans 13:2). Violating Constitutional liberties is rebelling against God, whether it is done by a criminal or the politicians. Thus,
When elected officials break their oath to uphold the Constitution, it is not the patriotic citizen who is in rebellion, but the governing official!
"For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you" (Romans 13:3). If you do what is Constitutionally right by forming a militia and the government accuses you of wrongdoing, then in fact they have lost all authority because they have turned away from the very thing which legitimizes them.
"For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, and agent of wrath to bring punishment to the wrongdoer" (Romans 13:4). God intends the government to do you good by maintaining law, order, and justice. When the government systematically punishes the upright citizen and commends wrongdoing, it is no longer serving God's purpose.
"Therefore , it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience" (Romans 13:5). Jesus Christ is the ultimate authority and the Constitution is the real governing authority. If we are submitted to Jesus Christ and committed to Constitutional liberties, then our conscience demands the resistance of unconstitutional authority which is no authority at all.

Where are the Men?

Within the last year the question of where the men are has come up more and more. Why aren’t men more active in ministry? How come men don’t take their faith more seriously? George Orwell said, the ordinary man is passive….Against major events he is as helpless as against the elements. So far from endeavoring to influence the future, he simply lies down and lets things happen to him. What a tragedy in which men have been put in today’s society! I believe that men that see that other men have an “identity” in the secular world, they don’t want to have the Christian label on them.
So much emphasis has been put on manners and appearances, that shame is big in the church. This has help keep men in line. What we don’t realize, is that their identity is being squashed, their will is being broken, and that the lives of those who love and depend upon them are being diminished as well. But, the truth is, that everyone loses when men are not allow to be whom God made them to be. Can you imagine what would happen if Jesus appeared at your church next Sunday and begin to say, “You hypocrites!” “White-washed tombs.” “You fools!” “Dull people.” And “a brood of vipers fit for hell!” We would probably say to Him, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, Jesus, don’t say it at all.” What I am saying, is that men (Christian) are expected to follow a nonexistent Jesus, which hinders and frustrates those of us who possess a vital masculine nature but are told no to activate it.
Bill Hybels says that passive Christians repel non-Christian from the faith; “I’ve learned through the years that seekers are not impressed with spinelessness…Most of the time, seekers…respect and admire Christians who aren’t afraid to take a stand…
Let me say it once more: Seekers have little respect for weak Christians. Deep down they’re looking for somebody – anybody – to step up and proclaim the truth and then to live it boldly
Today we teach men that they should not stand up for themselves and for others. We have told them that good Christians don’t do conflicts! Think about it guys: Wouldn’t it be great to view conflict as an event you could enter into with moderation, tact, and wisdom, the way you’ve seen other men embrace it? To be freed from the shackles of niceness, a fearful vice that takes on the deceptive posture of virtue, an idol that distances you from God and from others? I am not saying that we stop being nice personas, but that we need to put our priorities into prospective, and allow God to use us according to how He has made us. Then marriages would be saved, our culture war would gain new and powerful members, children would get a dad to admire, missions would be launched, and God’s redemptive plan would transform yet another dark realm of this messed-up world.
Many men are often uncertain about what the next step in their Christian life ought to be after salvation. We need to help eliminate the guesswork for them. We need to give to our ministry a fresh new look that would attract other to be part of it, teaching them how to grow closer in their faith to their Savior. A ministry packed full of encouragement and practical insights, which will help unlock the Christian life. Our theme for the next two year, “Back to basic” will give some insights to what needs to take form in our men’s ministries, to get back on track with the will of our God and Savoir.