What Does The Bible Say About Self-Defense & Gun Control?
There have been debates emerging
about gun control after each tragic shooting that I have seen on the
news. Virginia Tech, Aurora, and now Newtown (I was too young to
remember the reaction after Columbine). The debate that has emerged
after the Newtown shooting seems to be fiercer since many of the victims
were little children, and as responsible Christian citizens, we ought
to have some biblical background to the debate, so that we may safely
navigate through the issue. So, what does the Bible say about gun
control?
Nothing. Guns did not exist when the Bible was written. The end.
I'm only slightly kidding. I would not end this essay here. What the Bible does say that is relevant to the gun control debate has to do with self-defense in general, and the use of swords in particular. When a Christian is faced with violence, what are some options available to him, as a Christian? There are some possibilities, three of which we will consider here. There is the view that the Christian is supposed to do nothing and endure. Then there is the view that he is to evade harm, and finally, the view that he can fight back the aggressor.
The verse most frequently cited for the view that, as a Christian, we are to do nothing and endure is in the Beatitudes, Matthew 5:38-39. It reads, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Some conclude from this that Christians are meant to do nothing in the face of evil, and in some way, allow the harm to progress even further. On a larger scale, they infer that Christians ought to be pacifists.
This does not seem plausible. To be slapped on the right cheek (the Greek word here means to slap) is a sign of contempt, especially since it is most likely being delivered by a backhand if it is going to be landing on your right cheek. The next few verses in this passage about people trying to take your stuff, or traveling an extra mile, or loaning things, don’t seem like terrible moral evils like the holocaust. They’re more like petty inconveniences. So the better way to understand this is not to allow mindless evil to occur, rather, in situations where, on an individual level, someone is being a jerk to you, let it occur. This is explained in more detail here.
That being the most common support for doing nothing, I think we can move on. So, can we defend ourselves? It seems so, but what sort of defense is permissible? The minimal kind of defense is evasion. When there is harm coming your way, and you are simply moving out of harms way instead of actually stopping the threat, you are evading. There seem to be places in the Bible where evasion is a fine choice (instead of staying and turning the other cheek, as the Do-Nothings would have it). In 1st Samuel 19:10, we read, “Saul tried to pin [David] to the wall with his spear, but David eluded him as Saul drove the spear into the wall. That night, David made good in his escape.” In the context of the story, it seems like a good thing that David evaded Saul’s murderous intent. Saul did not miss and have David stay there allowing Saul to chuck another spear at him. David got out of harms way. In Acts 12, we read about Peter’s escape from prison, and how their escape cost the lives of the guards. This seems to be permissible in God’s plan. In Acts 22:25-29, as Paul is about to flogged, he prevents the horrendous torture and says, “Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn’t even been found guilty?” Paul was going to be tortured because of his preaching, and did not turn the other cheek, as the Do-Nothings would prescribe, and used his legal advantage to escape that abuse. There are other cases of Paul escaping persecution, like in 2nd Corinthians 11:32-33. And finally, Jesus himself, the man who said to turn the other cheek, uses evasion on more than one occasion. He evaded a large crowd in John 8:59 and again in John 10:39. So, if a Christian finds himself in a shooting at school or in a theater, it is totally permissible to run to safety. That is consistent with what the Bible teaches.
If that kind of self-defense is permitted, how much further can we go? Can a Christian arm himself with a lethal weapon? There are at least two verses that support this. First, in Luke 22:35-38, Jesus, right before he is about to get arrested, the Bible reads, "Then Jesus asked them, 'When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?' 'Nothing,' they answered. 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. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.' The disciples said, 'See, Lord, here are two swords.' 'That is enough,' he replied." The advice, it seems, is to obtain a sword, a very common lethal weapon during that time. There doesn't seem to be much more to this passage than the plain meaning of the text.
Still, there are a few objections. One common objection is that Jesus was talking about a spiritual sword, and not a physical one. What that spiritual sword is, it doesn't say. When the Bible uses items like this in a metaphorical way, they expand on what it is supposed to mean, as in Ephesians 6:13-17. That language is not being employed here, so it is doubtful that Jesus was talking metaphorically. Besides, the purse, bag, cloak and sandals don't seem to be used metaphorically, so why should we think the sword is metaphorical? Another objection says that when Jesus said, "That is enough" he meant it to convey a irritated "That is enough", like when a child acts up and his irritated parents tells him, "That is enough!" But this doesn't seem likely either. If this were the case, then what we are reading is Jesus telling them to buy a sword, and the disciples say they have swords, and Jesus gets irritated because they're telling him they have swords. If that sounds like a funny situation, it's probably not the best way to understand what Jesus is saying. A third objection says that the only reason Jesus wanted there to be swords is to fulfill the prophecy he mentions in the next verse after he mentions swords. The prophecy he quotes is Isaiah 53:12. When you read Isaiah 53, you will see that there is no mention of the use of swords to fulfill any kind of prophecy. Isaiah only seems to be talking about the death of Jesus. After all, this is a very famous passage in the Old Testament, where we learn about how the messiah is supposed to die and why. There is no mention of the use of swords from the disciples to fulfill this prophecy, so there is no reason to try to downplay his command to the disciples to purchase swords by arguing that this was only a means to an end, to fulfill prophecy. How then are we to understand this passage? Well, as it was mentioned, just a plain reading of the text will do. Jesus is telling them, when he was with them, they didn't have any needs. But now that he is going to be dead and gone, as is prophesied in Isaiah, they're going to have needs. One of those needs, apparently, is the need to defend themselves. And Jesus prescribes the use of swords as a mean to that end.
The second passage the seems to give approval to the use of lethal weapons is Matthew 26:50-54. It reads, "Jesus replied, 'Friend, do what you came for.' Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him, 'for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?'" Some may think, Doesn't passage seem to prohibit the use of lethal weapons, not allow it? That's half true. Why did Jesus tell the disciple to put the sword back in its place? Well, there may be a few reasons. To fight for Jesus physically in this way was to rebel against the powers that be. This would be an official rebellion, and Jesus avoided this his entire ministry. There are multiple accounts of how people wanted to make Jesus their new ruler, and there being some unrest between the Jews and Rome, military conquest and advancement of his kingdom was the anticipation, yet Jesus resisted that. Let this be a lesson to us today that Christianity cannot be advanced through means of force, like Islam. Another reason was simply because Jesus had a mission, and fighting against those who are a means to fulfill that mission (the guards arresting Jesus) would be a hindrance to God's long term plan. The disciple, though well meaning, was not meant to interfere in a fulfilling of Jesus mission. So because it was only for Jesus' mission at that time, this implies that in other circumstances, the use of the sword is totally permissible. After all, Jesus said, "Put your sword back in its place" meaning that the sword has a place, but this particular time and place was not it. Notice Jesus didn't command his disciple to throw it away either. It is also improbable that Jesus didn't know that his disciple, who had been following him for two or three years, was carrying a sword with him all this time. Jesus probably knew, but has not objected, and tells his disciple that there is a place for them. The use of lethal weapons for means of self-defense seems to be consistent with what Jesus taught.
After all this, an overly-zealous person can still object, "I don't need guns, because I trust the Lord will take care of me." I've heard this so many times in this context, or in the context of money, but I seriously doubt this person is sincere. I trust the Lord as well, but I also understand that the Lord has implemented certain means for our defense. I trust the Lord has, in his providence, let one of his creative creatures invent a seat-belt, and when ride in a car, I put on my seat-belt. Does that mean I don't trust the Lord? No. It just means there are appropriate means for my safety. Or if I live in a house in an area where wildfires are common, I am going to buy fire insurance. Does that mean I don't trust the Lord? No. It just means there are appropriate means for my safety. When I go to sleep, I lock my doors. Does that mean I don't trust the Lord? No, it just means there are appropriate means for my safety. When I ride my bike, I wear a helmet. Does that mean I don't trust the Lord? No. It just means that there are appropriate means for my safety. The Bible does seem to pick up on this. Proverbs 21:31 reminds us that, "The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but victory rests with the Lord." Psalms 127:1-2 declares, "Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain." What these verses are saying is that our trust and security ought to be primarily in the Lord, but putting our trust in him doesn't mean we can be as careless as we can be. Horses are ready for battle, but are only effective if God is there. You can build a house, but it won't be a success if you don't have the Lord. You can have watchmen, but your security won't count for anything if you aren't in God's favor. In all these verses, they employ all these things as good means to an end, but they don't count for anything if they don't have God as well. God and effort on your part are necessary for goals.
What does this mean for a present day Christian? First, it means that evasion as a means of protection is always an option when facing mortal danger. Running away is consistent with what the Bible teaches. Secondly, because this is a means of self-defense, we ought not take away the right for other people to defend themselves. Since lethal weapons are a means for self-defense, we ought not take away the right of others to use lethal weapons as a means for self-defense.
Some may object and say that guns and swords are two different things and they are not analogous. I'm not convinced of that. When the disciple, on the night of Jesus arrest, cut off the ear of the servant, I doubt that he successfully hit his target. Swinging a sword at someones head and cutting off their ear seems like a failed decapitation. As far as I know, no one has survived decapitation. That's as lethal as lethal gets. However, I can understand if some Christians aren't willing to go that far. They may want to stop an attack, but they don't want to kill the attacker. This is understandable, and fortunately, there are options. You can dull your blade, or to translate in modern language, you can buy a gun but you don't have to buy high velocity bullets either. Rubber bullets (including ones with electroshock effects), wax bullets, plastic bullets, beanbag (for the shotguns mainly) are alternatives than your conventional metal ammunition. Even putting a laser on your handgun can be enough to deter a criminal before you see each other and you take a shot (warning shots are illegal in some states).
Does this mean that everybody should carry a gun? No, not at all. But some should. When Jesus said that two swords were enough, I'm assuming all twelve of his disciple were present. One weapon for every six people seems like a reasonable percentage. It doesn't have to be you, but don't stop the guy next to you from being the one to own a handgun. Imagine at the shooting in Aurora, one in six people were armed with a handgun. If that were the case, I doubt many people would have heard about it in the news.
Source: Wayne Grudem lectures on my iTunes. I forget where they originated or where I got them. But he's the man, man.
Nothing. Guns did not exist when the Bible was written. The end.
I'm only slightly kidding. I would not end this essay here. What the Bible does say that is relevant to the gun control debate has to do with self-defense in general, and the use of swords in particular. When a Christian is faced with violence, what are some options available to him, as a Christian? There are some possibilities, three of which we will consider here. There is the view that the Christian is supposed to do nothing and endure. Then there is the view that he is to evade harm, and finally, the view that he can fight back the aggressor.
The verse most frequently cited for the view that, as a Christian, we are to do nothing and endure is in the Beatitudes, Matthew 5:38-39. It reads, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Some conclude from this that Christians are meant to do nothing in the face of evil, and in some way, allow the harm to progress even further. On a larger scale, they infer that Christians ought to be pacifists.
This does not seem plausible. To be slapped on the right cheek (the Greek word here means to slap) is a sign of contempt, especially since it is most likely being delivered by a backhand if it is going to be landing on your right cheek. The next few verses in this passage about people trying to take your stuff, or traveling an extra mile, or loaning things, don’t seem like terrible moral evils like the holocaust. They’re more like petty inconveniences. So the better way to understand this is not to allow mindless evil to occur, rather, in situations where, on an individual level, someone is being a jerk to you, let it occur. This is explained in more detail here.
That being the most common support for doing nothing, I think we can move on. So, can we defend ourselves? It seems so, but what sort of defense is permissible? The minimal kind of defense is evasion. When there is harm coming your way, and you are simply moving out of harms way instead of actually stopping the threat, you are evading. There seem to be places in the Bible where evasion is a fine choice (instead of staying and turning the other cheek, as the Do-Nothings would have it). In 1st Samuel 19:10, we read, “Saul tried to pin [David] to the wall with his spear, but David eluded him as Saul drove the spear into the wall. That night, David made good in his escape.” In the context of the story, it seems like a good thing that David evaded Saul’s murderous intent. Saul did not miss and have David stay there allowing Saul to chuck another spear at him. David got out of harms way. In Acts 12, we read about Peter’s escape from prison, and how their escape cost the lives of the guards. This seems to be permissible in God’s plan. In Acts 22:25-29, as Paul is about to flogged, he prevents the horrendous torture and says, “Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn’t even been found guilty?” Paul was going to be tortured because of his preaching, and did not turn the other cheek, as the Do-Nothings would prescribe, and used his legal advantage to escape that abuse. There are other cases of Paul escaping persecution, like in 2nd Corinthians 11:32-33. And finally, Jesus himself, the man who said to turn the other cheek, uses evasion on more than one occasion. He evaded a large crowd in John 8:59 and again in John 10:39. So, if a Christian finds himself in a shooting at school or in a theater, it is totally permissible to run to safety. That is consistent with what the Bible teaches.
If that kind of self-defense is permitted, how much further can we go? Can a Christian arm himself with a lethal weapon? There are at least two verses that support this. First, in Luke 22:35-38, Jesus, right before he is about to get arrested, the Bible reads, "Then Jesus asked them, 'When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?' 'Nothing,' they answered. 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. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.' The disciples said, 'See, Lord, here are two swords.' 'That is enough,' he replied." The advice, it seems, is to obtain a sword, a very common lethal weapon during that time. There doesn't seem to be much more to this passage than the plain meaning of the text.
Still, there are a few objections. One common objection is that Jesus was talking about a spiritual sword, and not a physical one. What that spiritual sword is, it doesn't say. When the Bible uses items like this in a metaphorical way, they expand on what it is supposed to mean, as in Ephesians 6:13-17. That language is not being employed here, so it is doubtful that Jesus was talking metaphorically. Besides, the purse, bag, cloak and sandals don't seem to be used metaphorically, so why should we think the sword is metaphorical? Another objection says that when Jesus said, "That is enough" he meant it to convey a irritated "That is enough", like when a child acts up and his irritated parents tells him, "That is enough!" But this doesn't seem likely either. If this were the case, then what we are reading is Jesus telling them to buy a sword, and the disciples say they have swords, and Jesus gets irritated because they're telling him they have swords. If that sounds like a funny situation, it's probably not the best way to understand what Jesus is saying. A third objection says that the only reason Jesus wanted there to be swords is to fulfill the prophecy he mentions in the next verse after he mentions swords. The prophecy he quotes is Isaiah 53:12. When you read Isaiah 53, you will see that there is no mention of the use of swords to fulfill any kind of prophecy. Isaiah only seems to be talking about the death of Jesus. After all, this is a very famous passage in the Old Testament, where we learn about how the messiah is supposed to die and why. There is no mention of the use of swords from the disciples to fulfill this prophecy, so there is no reason to try to downplay his command to the disciples to purchase swords by arguing that this was only a means to an end, to fulfill prophecy. How then are we to understand this passage? Well, as it was mentioned, just a plain reading of the text will do. Jesus is telling them, when he was with them, they didn't have any needs. But now that he is going to be dead and gone, as is prophesied in Isaiah, they're going to have needs. One of those needs, apparently, is the need to defend themselves. And Jesus prescribes the use of swords as a mean to that end.
The second passage the seems to give approval to the use of lethal weapons is Matthew 26:50-54. It reads, "Jesus replied, 'Friend, do what you came for.' Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him, 'for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?'" Some may think, Doesn't passage seem to prohibit the use of lethal weapons, not allow it? That's half true. Why did Jesus tell the disciple to put the sword back in its place? Well, there may be a few reasons. To fight for Jesus physically in this way was to rebel against the powers that be. This would be an official rebellion, and Jesus avoided this his entire ministry. There are multiple accounts of how people wanted to make Jesus their new ruler, and there being some unrest between the Jews and Rome, military conquest and advancement of his kingdom was the anticipation, yet Jesus resisted that. Let this be a lesson to us today that Christianity cannot be advanced through means of force, like Islam. Another reason was simply because Jesus had a mission, and fighting against those who are a means to fulfill that mission (the guards arresting Jesus) would be a hindrance to God's long term plan. The disciple, though well meaning, was not meant to interfere in a fulfilling of Jesus mission. So because it was only for Jesus' mission at that time, this implies that in other circumstances, the use of the sword is totally permissible. After all, Jesus said, "Put your sword back in its place" meaning that the sword has a place, but this particular time and place was not it. Notice Jesus didn't command his disciple to throw it away either. It is also improbable that Jesus didn't know that his disciple, who had been following him for two or three years, was carrying a sword with him all this time. Jesus probably knew, but has not objected, and tells his disciple that there is a place for them. The use of lethal weapons for means of self-defense seems to be consistent with what Jesus taught.
After all this, an overly-zealous person can still object, "I don't need guns, because I trust the Lord will take care of me." I've heard this so many times in this context, or in the context of money, but I seriously doubt this person is sincere. I trust the Lord as well, but I also understand that the Lord has implemented certain means for our defense. I trust the Lord has, in his providence, let one of his creative creatures invent a seat-belt, and when ride in a car, I put on my seat-belt. Does that mean I don't trust the Lord? No. It just means there are appropriate means for my safety. Or if I live in a house in an area where wildfires are common, I am going to buy fire insurance. Does that mean I don't trust the Lord? No. It just means there are appropriate means for my safety. When I go to sleep, I lock my doors. Does that mean I don't trust the Lord? No, it just means there are appropriate means for my safety. When I ride my bike, I wear a helmet. Does that mean I don't trust the Lord? No. It just means that there are appropriate means for my safety. The Bible does seem to pick up on this. Proverbs 21:31 reminds us that, "The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but victory rests with the Lord." Psalms 127:1-2 declares, "Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain." What these verses are saying is that our trust and security ought to be primarily in the Lord, but putting our trust in him doesn't mean we can be as careless as we can be. Horses are ready for battle, but are only effective if God is there. You can build a house, but it won't be a success if you don't have the Lord. You can have watchmen, but your security won't count for anything if you aren't in God's favor. In all these verses, they employ all these things as good means to an end, but they don't count for anything if they don't have God as well. God and effort on your part are necessary for goals.
What does this mean for a present day Christian? First, it means that evasion as a means of protection is always an option when facing mortal danger. Running away is consistent with what the Bible teaches. Secondly, because this is a means of self-defense, we ought not take away the right for other people to defend themselves. Since lethal weapons are a means for self-defense, we ought not take away the right of others to use lethal weapons as a means for self-defense.
Some may object and say that guns and swords are two different things and they are not analogous. I'm not convinced of that. When the disciple, on the night of Jesus arrest, cut off the ear of the servant, I doubt that he successfully hit his target. Swinging a sword at someones head and cutting off their ear seems like a failed decapitation. As far as I know, no one has survived decapitation. That's as lethal as lethal gets. However, I can understand if some Christians aren't willing to go that far. They may want to stop an attack, but they don't want to kill the attacker. This is understandable, and fortunately, there are options. You can dull your blade, or to translate in modern language, you can buy a gun but you don't have to buy high velocity bullets either. Rubber bullets (including ones with electroshock effects), wax bullets, plastic bullets, beanbag (for the shotguns mainly) are alternatives than your conventional metal ammunition. Even putting a laser on your handgun can be enough to deter a criminal before you see each other and you take a shot (warning shots are illegal in some states).
Does this mean that everybody should carry a gun? No, not at all. But some should. When Jesus said that two swords were enough, I'm assuming all twelve of his disciple were present. One weapon for every six people seems like a reasonable percentage. It doesn't have to be you, but don't stop the guy next to you from being the one to own a handgun. Imagine at the shooting in Aurora, one in six people were armed with a handgun. If that were the case, I doubt many people would have heard about it in the news.
Source: Wayne Grudem lectures on my iTunes. I forget where they originated or where I got them. But he's the man, man.
Comments
Post a Comment