The Bible, Guns, and Self-Defense

[priell3]

Whatever your faith, or even if none at all, this is a very detailed and informative article. It would be of both interest and value to also read Rabbi Bendory's article: "The Ten Commandments, Killing, and Murder" as an appropriate corollary.


Gun control is in the news again. every time there's a shooting, guns are blamed, and yet 100 million gun owners did not kill anyone the day these news reporters were murdered.

Liberals are calling for more laws to restrict gun ownership. How many more laws are needed to stop someone like the racist Virginia shooter? This guy had it in for the employees of the TV station. If he didn't have access to a gun, he might have used a knife.

Timothy McVeigh used explosives.

Muslim extremists use swords to behead their victims.

Some murderers use poison.

I understand the grief that Andy Parker, the father of Alison Parker, in his call for more gun control laws. He believes he must do something in the memory of his daughter.

Other than removing guns from every person in the United States by force, there aren't many more controls that can be put on people who want to kill other people.

Why are people fleeing war-torn areas? They have no means to defend themselves against people with guns.

Additionally, there is no way to stop the illegal importation of guns in the same way there is no way to stop the illegal importation of drugs into the United States. We would only be establishing a well-armed criminal class and turning Americans into sitting-duck victims.

I read a series of posts on Facebook by someone who claims the Bible does not support killing another person in self-defense.

The following article by William O. Einwechter is a helpful antidote to such thinking.

__________________

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. . . . (Ex. 22:2-3)

At the heart of the debate over gun control is the issue of self-defense. Citizens may desire gun ownership for hunting and recreation, but the primary reason for owning a gun is self-defense against criminals and a tyrannical government.

Therefore, any biblical text that deals with the right of self-defense is central to determining the right of gun ownership under God’s law. Perhaps the most crucial text to address the right of self-defense is Exodus 22:2-3.




This Scripture appears in that portion of the Pentateuch known as “The Book of the Covenant” (Ex. 21-23). The Book of the Covenant follows the declaration of the Ten Commandments, and provides a concrete application of the principles of truth and justice contained in the Ten Commandments by means of “statutes and judgments.”

The context of Exodus 21:2-3 is dealing with theft and restitution. Within this discussion of theft, the case of a thief breaking in is presented. In this case law two scenarios are given.

In the first scenario, a thief is “found breaking up,” that is, breaking in by breaking up the roof, a window, or a door during the night hours. Thus we have a forced entry into the house (or property) that is discoverd by the owner. The owner responds to this alarming and threatening situation (for in the dark of night he knows not the intent, identity, or arms of the intruder) by killing the robber, presumably with some sort of weapon. The declaration of God’s law is that in these circumstances the owner is innocent of any wrongdoing, and is fully justified in using lethal force to defend himself and his family.

The second instance involves a thief “breaking up” under different circumstances. In this case, it is during the daylight hours, and presumably, the owner can identify the intentions of the intruder and see that he is unarmed and poses no threat to life or limb, but is a mere thief. Yet, in spite of this the owner kills the thief. In these circumstances the owner who uses lethal force is guilty of a crime. This was not an act of self-defense (for he was not attacked or threatened) but an act of brutality against an unarmed man whose only intention was the theft of property. The penalty for theft was restitution, not death. Thus, this is a case of the unauthorized taking of human life, and is, therefore, murder, punishable by death. God’s law authorizes the protection of life by deadly force if necessary, but His law does not permit the defense of property in the same manner.

It is important to note that the case presented here of a thief breaking in involves the shedding of blood. Therefore, this case law is an application of the righteousness of the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” Consequently, the biblical law of self-defense empowers us to defend our lives against wicked men who hate God, His law, and the life of their neighbor. We may assume that those who threaten us with bodily harm or weapons hold the life God has given us in contempt, and, therefore, we may defend ourselves against such evil even to the point of killing our assailant.

In conclusion, let us consider the implications of Exodus 22:2-3 for the right of self-defense.

1. This case law establishes the righteousness of self-defense. God’s law permits a man to defend himself and his family. This defense may require the use of deadly force, and this certainly implies the use of weapons.

2. If a man is not guilty of any crime for slaying an intruder on the mere supposition that he may be armed or pose a threat to him or his family, how much more does the law of God authorize self-defense against an armed assailant who definitely threatens bodily harm. A man is justified in defending himself whenever he is attacked or his life endangered.

3. The primary responsibility for defense against violent attacks is a personal responsibility. The defense of one’s life and one’s family is chiefly an individual responsibility, not a community or governmental responsibility. (There is no indication that Israel had a standing police force or army. The armed men of Israel, under the direction of their magistrates, were the army and police force.) There is certainly a need to love our neighbor and come to his defense if we can. But the first line of defense against violence and aggression is the man who is prepared to use whatever force necessary in the protection of his own life and those for whom he is responsible (e. g., his family). This, of course, means that he must be armed to meet all possible threats to his life. Today, this requires a citizen to be armed with guns.

4. Any weapon is permissable for use in self-defense. This case law does not say the owner is guilty if he uses a sword, but not guilty if he uses a club. The issue is not one of weapons, but the right of self-defense. God’s law does not make an arbitrary distinction between acceptable and unacceptable weapons for self-defense. And there are no biblical laws restricting the access of citizens to weapons necessary for self-defense. To limit a citizen’s access to lethal weapons (e.g., guns) is to limit his ability for self-defense. Gun control is self-defense control. Who would want to control and limit the individual’s ability to defend himself except thugs and tyrants?

5. This case law would be a great deterrence to criminals. After all, citizens are armed and authorized to kill, if necessary, intruders and attackers!

6. This case law also restrains the individual in the use of weapons in self-defense. He must be very careful, lest he use deadly force when it is not called for. If he does, he pays with his own life.

This article was originally published in The Christian Statesman, vol. 140, no. 1, (January-February, 1997.)

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/24677/t...gou4BZIwUZU.99

[BigHenry]

interesting read thanks

[gghbi]

As it was presented to me some years back, my understanding of the sixth commandment is that "Thou shalt not murder" is the correct translation, which makes more sense. I do not have the reference at hand, it has been a while.

[Mitch10mm]

The logic is screwy. Gun show loopholes, high capacity magazines and "assault" rifles. Yet these have rarely applied to the survivors or victims families involved in high profile cases.

Giving the benefit of doubt and sympathy for their grief, it just amounts to "doing something". Even if it amounts to nothing or nothing more than punishing the innocent.

It's gruesome to think about but imagine Lanza with a shotgun or Harris and Klebold with revolvers and well aimed or execution style shots. Any of the shooters with box cutters instead of a gun. The sad truth is, there wasn't much evidence of resistance or a willingness to fight back.

I prefer to have the tools to defend, to put up a struggle and fight back. I know with Columbine there was talk of placing their guns to the heads of some of the victims and asking them questions. How hopeless must that feel? Being in that position or a witness to it?

No matter ones faith I can't accept a God would want you to submit to evil. In terms of Good versus Bad how can the message be to not fight? I could not as a father watch as my son was questioned at gunpoint knowing whatever answer the result will be the same and do nothing. Even if it was hopeless and likely to change nothing.

I don't think it would be a nice place if the strong were to rule unchecked by the weaker. Arms enable those that may be weaker but right to challenge those stronger but wrong. It's the way it has to be.

[Manxdriver]

From the New Testament (New American Standard Bible) , Jesus speaking in Luke 22:36
And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one".
The sword being THE weapon of the day, this can be translated directly to "If you have a wallet, don't leave home without your American Express, and a backpack, and if you are a big old girlie-man and don't have a 1911, for crying out loud, sell your Columbia Rain Parka and BUY one!"

Seriously though, I believe the Lord would condone the carrying of a large bore firearm AND the taking of a scumbag's life for the very reasons we have laid out in our laws: to protect life, prevent rape, prevent kidnapping and to prevent great bodily harm. Yeah, I think He'd be ok with it.

[priell3]

As it was presented to me some years back, my understanding of the sixth commandment is that "Thou shalt not murder" is the correct translation, which makes more sense. I do not have the reference at hand, it has been a while.

Click the link at the top of my OP.