(c) 1996, 1997 David C. Treibs, sirdavid@ktc.com God and Guns: The Bible's Perspective on Personal Ownership and Use of Weapons, and Related Matters
(c) 1996, 1997 David C. Treibs, sirdavid@ktc.com
What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control?
by Larry Pratt
Executive Vice-President
Gun Owners Foundation
www.gunowners.org
Jan. 1995
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).
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.
***
Author is Dr. Dan Peters, Senior Pastor of Limerick Chapel, Limerick, PA 19468 For permission to reprint this article contact Dan Peters at dpeters@limerickchapel.org (Please do not reprint this article without permission.)