Posted on 06/02/2005 7:12:19 PM PDT by rudy45
Among mainstream Christianity, a growing sentiment allows for—or even endorses—Christians taking up weapons for their own defense or the defense of other Christians. Proponents often point to an incident in South Africa, where attackers charged into a church service one Sunday and began shooting and hurling grenades. The hero of the story, a heat-packing "Christian," returned fire with his .38 caliber pistol, killing or wounding a number of the attackers.
Enthusiasts of this story look at it partly with satisfaction that some of the attackers were "taken out" and partly with disappointment that more worshippers were not carrying guns so more could have been "saved." They do not mean "saved by grace through faith" but by a good old-fashioned shoot-out between believers and nonbelievers.
Some Christians even go so far as to declare the Bible a "book of war." They gleefully point to God's instructions to the nation of Israel to destroy the idolatrous Canaanites (Numbers 33:50-53, 55), but fail to recognize God's original promise to Israel that He would drive out the inhabitants of the land if Israel would obey Him (Exodus 23:20-30). They also point to the commands in the Old Testament to kill lawbreakers within the church-state of Israel. (It is ironic that one of the death-penalty crimes is improper Sabbathkeeping, something they would rather overlook!)
Their basic premise is that Christians are perfectly justified in killing in self-defense or in anticipation of a crime. They claim society in general would be much safer if we had a more fully armed citizenry. Statistics do indicate this: In a secular nation like the United States, society will be safer with an effective deterrent against violent crime, something the government has not been and may not be able to provide without stripping citizens of many civil liberties.
The question for Christians to ponder is this: Even though we benefit from living in a society where gun ownership is a constitutional right, are we ever justified in intentionally killing another human being? The sixth commandment is very clear: "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). However, what about this seemingly gray area of killing someone to protect our life or property or that of the empirical self (family, church, neighbors, etc.)?
God's Instruction
The children of Israel, before they demanded a king in I Samuel 8:5-8, were both a nation and a religious congregation. The human government that God ordained over Israel had both civil and religious authority. As such, many of Israel's civil laws given by God through Moses are not directly applicable today because we do not live in a church-state with God at the helm and directly bearing on the judicial process. Nonetheless, these laws still show God's intent and will concerning civil matters.
God instructed Israel about what to do when a man was killed. Numbers 35:9-28 shows that God recognizes only two classifications of killing: accidental and intentional. "Self-defense" is not even listed as a possibility!
God illustrates "accidental death" as occurring when there is no intent to kill or to harm. It is accidental when there is no awareness that an action will result in the death of another. Deuteronomy 19:5 provides a clear example of such an accident: ". . . as when a man goes to the woods with his neighbor to cut timber, and his hand swings a stroke with the ax to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies."
However, when there is intent to kill or injure, God's law defines it as murder regardless of what the other person was threatening to do, about to do, or in the process of doing. If a man fires a gun with the foreknowledge that it has the potential to kill another man, it is murder. The "self-defense"
category is something afforded by the law of the land, not by the law of God.
Suspension of the Law?
If, as some assert, it is justifiable to break the sixth commandment to protect oneself or one's interests, is it also permissible to break any of the other commandments when threatened? Consider the same question of defense, but substitute any of God's commands for the sixth commandment:
» First Commandment: Could we have another god before the true God if it meant protection for our families and properties? For instance, would God look kindly upon us accepting Allah in order to stay alive?
» Second Commandment: Can we fall back on idol worship if it will keep us alive? Aaron built the Golden Calf for the Israelites because he feared them more than God (Exodus 32:1-9)—and God was very displeased!
» Third Commandment: Can we take on God's name, only to renounce it when trouble comes? Could we diminish the quality of our worship of God if it meant safety and security? Would God be pleased if we ignored His true nature—His character, mind, plans, will, promises—in hope of putting ourselves in a better position?
» Fourth Commandment: The seventh-day Sabbath is a weekly reminder of some of God's attributes, as well as a unique sign and everlasting covenant between Him and His people (Exodus 31:12-17). It plays a crucial part in our relationship with God. Would He ever approve our renouncing the Sabbath to keep from harm? Imperial and Papal Rome martyred many Christians because they held this part of God's law as inviolate.
» Fifth Commandment: A current cultural trend is disrespect toward parents by both adolescent and grown children. However, in Deuteronomy 27:16, God pronounces a death sentence on children who treat their parents with contempt. Likewise, He would condemn a person who broke this commandment to save his skin.
» Seventh Commandment: The spiritual principle behind adultery and fornication is faithlessness to an agreement, covenant, or contract. God accuses Israel of harlotry because they were unfaithful to their covenant with Him. Even though it is highly unlikely that we would ever be "asked" to commit sexual immorality to save our lives, could we break an agreement or contract to protect our lives or properties? Would God wink at our breaking our eternal covenant with Him—sealed with His Son's blood—in the interest of self-preservation?
» Eighth Commandment: The psalmist writes that, in all of his life, he has "not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his descendants begging bread" (Psalm 37:25). We would not be justified in stealing food—or anything else—to preserve life when God shows repeatedly in His Word that He will provide for the righteous (Matthew 6:25, 33).
» Ninth Commandment: It is extremely easy to lie to save oneself or one's family. Anyone up against a wall with a gun to his head would be tempted to tell a "little white lie" to stay alive. Under the perceived threat of death because of Sarah's beauty, Abraham told a "half-truth" to Abimelech. God did not accept this behavior from the "father of the faithful." Would He be pleased with us in any similar situation?
» Tenth Commandment: In its wider application, the command against coveting deals with the root of one's sin against his neighbor: attitudes, desires, and secret thoughts. If our "neighbor" is robbing or threatening us, would God hold us guiltless for "coveting" our neighbor's life—desiring that his life be taken—if God has not ordained it?
It is evident that God does not allow us to suspend His inexorable law if our life is threatened. Human nature, though, insists on a "self clause." Human nature tells us that God's law is fine unless it goes contrary to what we perceive as our best interests.
Sovereignty and Submission
At the core of this question, as with our entire Christian walk, is government—not the government of a nation but the issue of whom we will allow to govern us. In this instance, either we can govern ourselves by "deciding"
when it is permissible to kill, or we can submit to God's benevolent authority and His explanation of morality. In the final analysis, we are not allowed to determine what is right and wrong—God has already done this. Our only decision is if we will act in accordance with God's law!
Each of the nine examples above arrays the "all-important" self against God and His royal law—polar opposites. What we decide demonstrates what we hold in the higher regard, that is, what we worship. For example, if we break the Sabbath or deny its importance in our lives, we are choosing the self over God. Likewise, if we intentionally—non-accidentally—take another man's life in defense of our own, we are worshipping the self rather than God.
Romans 8:7 describes this power struggle perfectly: "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be." Human nature puts its own cares and interests above God, and the result is that the carnal man will not submit himself to God's clear commands. The carnal man will be willing to harm, even kill, another created human being to protect his own interests, in spite of God's law and Jesus Christ's striking example to the contrary.
Judge, Jury, and Executioner
To further illustrate how prominent the self is in this, in taking another man's life, one is acting as his judge, jury, and executioner. This, then, also involves the sin of presumptuousness. Of these three roles, the only authority God has given us is to judge. He commands us to judge—to consider a matter in the light of His definition of right and wrong—but it is not our place to decide a sentence or to carry it out. To do so presumes authority not granted to us.
As we saw earlier, the self-defense scenario does not hold up when considered in light of the other nine commandments. We can undertake a similar exercise in terms of one acting as judge, jury, and executioner. What other scenarios could we imagine that would justify killing another person in response to or in anticipation of a sin? Should we emulate the radical followers of Islam and kill anyone who does not convert to Christianity? Should we shoot someone because he has an idol in his house? Can we murder a man because we overheard him telling a lie or stone a woman taken in adultery?
These examples are absurd because God says every sin requires the death penalty (Romans 6:23). Not a single person would be alive if God responded to sin as carnal man wants to respond to sins that directly affect him. Also, consider that, in the scenario of killing in self-defense, the one killing is judging that his
life is more important than the life he is willing to snuff out. One sinner accounts his life to be of more worth than the life of another sinner. Would God make the same determination?
Protection According to God's Will
The rewards and benefits of the Old Covenant were largely centered on physical health, material wealth, and national greatness, while its purpose was to prepare the nation for the Messiah's first coming (Galatians 3:19, 24). Because of this emphasis on the physical, many scriptures in the Old Testament demonstrate God's intent to shield and protect Israel if they would obey. They could depend on their national and individual protection if they adhered to God's Word. If they remained faithful to the covenant, God would protect them—it was a sure thing!
Because the reasons for the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are very different, we have to look at the subject of God's protection through the lens of God's purpose. The intent of the New Covenant is to develop a personal relationship with God, leading to eternal life and godly character. God is willing to do whatever it takes to bring us to the point He desires. Thus, He will sometimes remove His protection when it serves His purpose.
Even faithful Christians may have their houses burglarized, their cars stolen, or their property vandalized. They may be the victims of physical or sexual assault. They may be persecuted and even martyred. While some may be the recipients of violence as a natural consequence of their actions, others will receive it more or less undeserved, just as Jesus Christ did.
God might allow a man to suffer violence to see how His creative work is coming along, as a potter tests to discern the quality of his clay and the design of his vessel. He might remove a portion of His hedge, not necessarily to punish us, but to instruct us when nothing else will get through.
Under the New Covenant, God does not promise us complete protection (Matthew 5:11-12, 44; 10:23; John 15:20; 16:33; I Thessalonians 3:4; II Timothy 3:12; II Corinthians 11:23-28). However, we are assured that, if we fall victim to violence, it is either because of our actions (Galatians 6:7) or because God is working something out that we may not discern at the time. If we are called by God, and if we reciprocate by loving Him, we have His sure promise that all things will work together for good (Romans 8:28).
Pacifism or Faith?
Some contend that God's prohibition against killing is "pacifist" or "weak." Does it take more strength to abide by God's law and suffer the consequences from man or to give in and lash out like the rest of mankind? Others argue that we have to "do our part" in taking care of our property and ourselves. But where does God ever tell us that "our part" includes sinning?
What it really boils down to is what a person's faith is in: God or self. Do we trust God to shield us according to His will after we understand the moral limits He has set on our actions?
Our Creator has called us to a personal relationship with Him, and our trust in His nature and faithfulness will determine our responses and actions. A living faith goes far beyond lip service and demonstrates what we truly believe. If God is real to us, and if He is sovereign in our lives, we will conduct ourselves according to His law—even when threatened—because we believe in His ability to accomplish His purpose and bring us into His Kingdom.
Inset: Is Exodus 22:2 Contradictory?
Exodus 22:2 seems to contradict the idea that Christians should not kill in self-defense: "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed." At first glance, this seems to support the "self-defense in one's home" argument, but like Numbers 35:16-28, the distinction is accidental versus intentional. The next verse, Exodus 22:3, explains this: "If the sun has risen on him [the killer], there shall be guilt for his bloodshed."
This statute illustrates that God differentiates between a killing committed when it is dark and one done when it is light. The meaning is not that darkness gives us license to break God's law, but rather that in the dark it is more difficult to determine what level of force is necessary to restrain an unknown intruder. The law gives the homeowner the benefit of the doubt in assuming that he would not deliberately use lethal force, since that falls under intentional or premeditated murder (Exodus 20:13).
Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law, and James also exhorts us to "fulfill the royal law" by loving our neighbors as ourselves (James 2:8). Jesus teaches that murder begins in the heart and has everything to do with intention, even if the act of killing is not followed through: "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment" (Matthew 5:21-22).
This instruction reiterates that murder is either accidental or intentional, based on what is in the heart. When applied to Exodus 22:2-3, Christ's words show that when a thief is killed in the dark, there is a good chance that the homeowner acted without animosity or premeditation. But if a homeowner kills a thief when nothing in the circumstance hinders his judgment, he is without excuse—the act was intentional, and he is guilty of murder.
© 2003 Church of the Great God
PO Box 471846
Charlotte, NC 28247-1846
(803) 802-7075
Bump for tomorrow.
Exodus 22:2 seems to contradict the idea that Christians should not kill in self-defense: "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed." At first glance, this seems to support the "self-defense in one's home" argument, but like Numbers 35:16-28, the distinction is accidental versus intentional. The next verse, Exodus 22:3, explains this: "If the sun has risen on him [the killer], there shall be guilt for his bloodshed." This statute illustrates that God differentiates between a killing committed when it is dark and one done when it is light. The meaning is not that darkness gives us license to break God's law, but rather that in the dark it is more difficult to determine what level of force is necessary to restrain an unknown intruder. The law gives the homeowner the benefit of the doubt in assuming that he would not deliberately use lethal force, since that falls under intentional or premeditated murder (Exodus 20:13).
The author seems to understand that self defense IS authorized by this passage, but as it conflicts with the strict pacifist position he seems to be advocating he tries to discount it in an explanation that only necessary force is allowed to be used. But isn't that the same view that most Christians who would own a firearm would also state? I doubt that there are all that many Christians that would advocate using more than necessary force to defend their family against an armed intruder. And in his example of the South African churchman who used a firearm, it could be argued that he used no more force that was necessary. Would he draw a distinction that one is only allowed to use minimal force at night in one's own home and that the exact same and minimal amount of force becomes unacceptable during the daytime or out of the home even though lives of others are at stake?
I don't own a firearm, but were an intruder burst into my home and begin to slaughter my children with a knife I wouldn't stand back and listen to their screams...I would use what force was necessary to stop the carnage. If, instead, it was a neighbor who was being raped or stabbed in the stairwell outside my door I would again use necessary force to protect the victim. The author makes what I thought was a very weak argument about judging the value of another were one to end up killing the attacker. No, it's not a matter of judging but protecting the weak. It is God who will judge him, but were I unfortunate enough to end up killing the person in an effort to protect someone being stabbed by him it is not out of judgment but protecting the weak. If one were to follow his logic to it's conclusion we should release all those who are in prison as they are being judged and only God should judge...and that is simply not rational.
LOL "armed his trained servants" is from KJV. I went to my NIV, same verse, and it says, "called out the 318 trained men..." I hope the omission of the reference to being armed wasn't a surrendering to political correctness lol.
If you don't kill 'em with ONE shot, you'll look worse in court.
One bullet: it's not beyond a reasonable doubt that you intended to only disable or incapacitate and the fates just happened to be against your target. (the old "sh_t happens" argument)
Multiple shots: the jury could mistakenly assume that you were enjoying the situation.
Thanks, here's the online NIV that I use:
http://www.ibs.org/niv/
Speaking as a certified firearms instructor of twenty years and a former LEO myself, this assertion is simply untrue. A good shooting is a good shooting regardless of rounds expended. Unless they hit an innocent bystander, in which case your specific intent to kill your attacker transfers to the new victim and you go down for that indictable offense.
One bullet: it's not beyond a reasonable doubt that you intended to only disable or incapacitate and the fates just happened to be against your target. (the old "sh_t happens" argument)
At close range my one shot is going for a cranio-ocular (cranial vault or thru the eye) target zone and it's lights OUT muchacho! Besides current police doctrine states that one should keep shooting until the attacker no longer presents a threat. Police doctrine also allows for the Mozambique drill, when it's done just a hair slower: The cops call it FAILURE TO STOP, and it operates thusly: Two shots are fired COM (Center of Mass) and then the reactions are observed. IF the perp still presents a viable threat, it can be assumed that he is wearing body armor and the head shot taken. You can't go wrong if you adhere to police doctrine and use police equipment (firearms and loads). What if you're using a mousegun caliber say a .380? Odds of a one shot stop are about 50-50 or less depending on bullet configuration.
Multiple shots: the jury could mistakenly assume that you were enjoying the situation.
What a pant-load of crap. Just how is a jury going to assess such a state of mind absent a witness that states you're hollering like Slim Pickens as he rides the H-Bomb down to the target in Dr. Strangelove. Suppose the autopsy shows a body full of PCP? In such a case (and there are many such documented cases) a cylinder full of .44's would not keep the perp on the ground unless there was a dynamic CNS strike like thru the spine. A few years ago, a California Highway Patrolman ran into a similar situation and he ran his .41 magnum DRY (18 rds in the body!) to the point that the wounded perp was still trying to rise and attack even as the concrete road surface beneath his body was being PULVERIZED by the shots passing thru the body. Finally another cop arrived and ended the situation with a 12 ga slug to the head.
Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting twice....or more. Recent evidence from the sandbox indicates that it is taking multiple shots from the M9 9mm Beretta to put down an enemy combatant. Why do you think the services are hollering for a return to the 1911 45ACP? Many have already done so.
It'll never fly, Orville.
IOW, my maintaining moral purity by not killing is more important than the protection of the innocent.
I have a simple scenario that generally unmasks pretenders to pacifism like this idiot.
You are locked in a room that has a one-way window. On the other side of the window is a violent child molester who is getting ready to rape and kill a three year old girl. They are unaware of your presence.
You can only intervene by pushing a button that will cause the killer to painlessly drop dead. In the next few minutes, either the child will die horribly, if you choose to permit it, or the molester will die painlessly.
Do you push the button?
If you don't, you are a pacifist, and you belive your moral perfection is more important than the suffering of innocents.
If you do, you are not a pacifist, and all your arguments against violence are merely about whether it is valid in a particular case, not about whether it is always wrong.
And thank you to all others.
Speaking as a juror who sat on a case of in-home shooting, there was a **** of a lot of discussion about how many shots were fired and the resulting effects.
"police doctrine" takes it up the *** when it's civilian against civilian. Civs aren't expected to understand that doctrine (some cops apparently don't either) and there were instructions not to use that in deliberations. What cops do is their own thing and the law covers-up for them as best it may.
Apparently the concepts of irony and sarcasm are lost on you - or I should have put quotes around words. There was a lot of discussion about which shot did him in and which came before/after. There was talk about "blazing away" and whether it was that the defender may have overstepped his bounds and shouldn't have confronted the agressor at all. It was actually scary hearing some of the opinions and comments of some of the "great unwashed" who were in the jury room.
_I'm_also_ of the opinion that it takes as many shots as it takes (two others in the room were also right-minded) but the rest started getting into "was it right that the agressor died" and "should he only have been incapacitated until the Holy Mighty Police arrived to make everything all better and provide a 'Law & Order'-type finale to the incident "because that's their job", as one particularly self-infatuated housewife put it. And so forth.
I have no argument with you about what _should_ be done in a shooting situation - I merely point out the way civilian courts may take or misunderstand certain actions in certain situations.
Understand: the jury has to decide based upon the evidence shown and what they're supposed to know and understand as (uneducated) civilians and not as people who are conversant with military combat tactics. It doesn't matter _what_ a gung-ho is supposed to do in a shooting situation; it matters what the law expects a civilian to understand and do - and the way things are today, civilians are expected not to have guns at all and to just "play nice" and let the agressor have their way. And the cops are called in after-the-fact to try to arrest the agressor.
The 'sheep' are by and large conditioned to believe that they're not supposed to defend themselves but merely scream and holler and let the authorities 'protect' them, and then file big lawsuits afterward. And unfortunately it's sheep who fill most of the juries in this nation and if they're believing that they're not supposed to put up an armed resistance then "anybody who shoots a lot is badder than someone who shoots only once who's badder than someone who doesn't shoot at all" (a paraphrase).
"Of course you can't act with the precision or forbearance of the Government. It is more reason for the thugs to be careful of private citizens. "
precision and forebearance of the government is why the second amendment was penned to begin with... you make very good points, now one question... if the meak will inherit the earth, what will the meaker walk away with?
teeman
I know this thread is really cold now, but you hit on the two scriptures that I believe prove your point without any other support...
Jesus was telling them to buy a KILLING MACHINE. In those days, the sword had no other pre-meditated purpose. (In other words, yes, it could slice bread or cut a rope, but that wasn't what it was intended for...) It was the ancient equivalent to the hand gun.
And, if you will notice, not only did Jesus tell them to make sure and buy one, but when the soldiers came to get Him, and Peter pulled his sword out, Jesus didn't make any comment about "Why do you carry that thing? Don't you trust me?", or any such nonsense. Jesus KNEW he had it, and didn't have a problem with him carrying it. Jesus just explained to him that now was not the time.
If Jesus did not have a problem with his disciples carrying the most deadly personal possession of his day, I don't think He has a problem with me downing a home invader.
Its not the earth the Meak inherit, its the dirt.
Camelot, Modred's song.
What about the physical manifestation of evil? Usually, if we fall victim to violence, it is because someone else has CHOSEN to inflict violence. Our sinful actions (acknowledged by the author) affect others; perversely, he denies that the sinful actions of others can affect us - and declares that we cannot resist the sinful acts of others, regardless of obvious effect.
Funny how the author completely ignores Luke 22:36 "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."
Commentators go nuts trying to explain that "sword" means some spiritual abstraction, yet agree that "purse" and "scrip" refer to mundanely possessing tools for paying one's own way and carrying one's own stuff ... by which reasoning "sword" should also mean mundanely possessing tools for one's own defense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.