Thou shalt not kill.
Those four words are often used by opponents of self defense when they claim that divine law forbids the taking of another human life, even in defense of your own. So, how can a Christian justify the carrying of arms for self defense, or should the abhor such a practice and rely on divine intervention?
The first issue with the opening argument of this article is that it is the result of a mistranslation. While many Roman Catholic texts translate the fifth (sixth in some texts) Commandment as "you shall not kill", many other texts hold true to the original meaning of "you shall not murder." That is the key distinction.
In fact, when analyzing the issue using the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5 goes right to the heart of the matter.
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
This tells us that not only do we have the right to use deadly force against those tho would try to take our own lives, but we have that right to defend others in our care as well. We all have a responsibility to each other individually, and those charged with the protection of the community (such as police officers) are justified using deadly force as well.
When you are forced to defend yourself to preserve your life, it is that act of preservation that is the intended result of the employment of force. You're trying to stop the aggressor. If the aggressor dies as a result of your meeting force with force, that outcome is considered unintentional by the church. You are trying to stop, not kill, though sometimes only the death of the attacker can halt the assault.
During the Last Supper, Jesus was preparing his followers for what was to come after he was gone. He told them, "one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36). Once He, their shepherd, had left them, they would need to protect themselves, even if it meant selling their clothes to be able to buy a weapon to do so.
Some Christians are fond of saying "The Lord Will Provide," yet here is Jesus telling his Disciples to provide for themselves, which would seemingly support Benjamin Franklin's 1757 quote in Poor Richard's Almanac, "God helps those who help themselves." What Jesus is really telling his followers is to prepare themselves using the tools God has provided in order that He might work His will through them.
If evil confronts a man in the form of an armed attacker, do we really expect God to strike the attacker down with a heart attack? Or is it more likely that He would provide "a defense for the needy in his distress" (Isaiah 25:4) through placing an armed, good man in the path of evil? If we are to believe that "the secret things belong to the LORD our God" (Deuteronomy 29:29), we cannot discount the idea that there are earthly ways in which God might intervene on our behalf.
But, how do we reconcile this with the Christian value of turning the other cheek? Again, the answer is in the text.
"When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well." (Matthew 5:39). What is being referenced in the text is not a deadly threat. You're not going to be killed by a slap to the face, and Jesus was urging the letting go of anger and pride.
Consider also Isaiah 2:4, "they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks." Though this is often taken to mean that weapons should be destroyed now, what it is actually referring to in context is Judgment Day. According to the Scripture, after the Final Battle between good and evil, God himself will rule the Earth and all forms of evil, vice, and sin will be gone. It is only after that time that weapons will no longer be needed for self-defense, and until then, we need to be prepared to act to preserve our own lives and the lives of others. It is the Christian thing to do.
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Austin: Another Brady hallucination: More guns, more ‘gun violence’ (Part 1)
- Charlotte: Guns and the Constitution: Rep. Itse responds to readers on secession bill
- DC: DC City Council enables residents’ easy access to mail order handgun carry permits!
- Denver: Active compliance......or not
- Los Angeles: Gun Control: Guns in churches
- Milwaukee: Time to change our attitude about guns
- Minneapolis: Dispelling the myth of 'The Wild West'
- National: When animals attack
- St. Louis: Mexico's bloody drug war is not the fault of 'lax U.S. gun laws'
Comments
Exodus 22:2
You're absolutely right, Brian. I forgot about that one.
Well done, Christ expected us to protect ourselves so the word of God would move forward to every man who had an ear to hear. We are not to be brawlers and trouble makers but makers of peace. However some would rather you dead as they steal your life from you.
Christians should learn from the Nazi movement and always be able to defend themselves in times of persecution.
Doc832
"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who still have swords."
Thomas Jefferson
You also missed John 2:15. If Christ can use a weapon, why should we be ashamed to do likewise?
I don't think you represented Luke 22:36 correctly. The context of the verse does not suggest that Jesus wanted them to bear arms against deadly threats by other people. There were twelve disciples, but as soon as Jesus said this, his disciples brought merely *two* swords, and Jesus said "that's enough." (How could two swords be enough for 12 disciples? Perhaps to defend against wild animals?) And when one of his disciples finally used one of those swords against the attackers who would put Jesus to death (Peter cutting off the ear of one of the arrest party) Jesus rebuked Peter. The entire context of the New Testament and early Christian history also contradicts your interpretation; all of the early disciples were martyred, and none of them resisted their oppressors.
I don't think it is inappropriate to exert self defense in the face of deadly attack, but your use of that one verse is clearly out of both textual and historical context.
@Ludwig: John 2:15 does not justify his disciple's use of weapons. God is righteous to judge, especially at his temple, and his "weapon" in that verse (an improvised cloth whip) is not comparable to any of the weapons we use today (guns) but it is written (James 1:20)"for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires."
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am not going to urinate on God's gift to me. I am going to defend it when it is necessary.
To BERKANA: WHAT R U TALKING ABOUT? They DID resist when faced with danger!
Jesus was told by a disciple on the way to the Garden that they had swords. Jesus did not tell them to take them off!! How come, BERKANA?!!
Jesus knew "all things" -so He already <em>knew</em> they carried swords anyway. Remember: This is the Jesus that could turn a bandit into nothing if he wanted, but He chose to allow His disciples to take care of their own protection.
So the disciples DID carry arms as they went around with Jesus. They traveled in dangerous places (much like Wash. DC, Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit and other "depraved" Big Cities today) with lots of bad guys that wanted to relieve them of their coin -and their precious life.
But what is frequently misunderstood in the verses is when Peter later tried to take up for His Master and remove the servant's head with his sword. The target ducked and only lost an ear! Jesus then told Peter to put up his sword, for vengeance was not 'Gospel'. But He did NOT tell Peter to discard or "REBUKE" his sword - as you tout.
Like the 2nd Amendment then, when you keep it all in context... it makes GOOD sense!
The Bible is against suicide too. To just stand there and let another take your life is "suicide" in my opinion. If your only option to save your life is to take the life of the person who is threatening you, then I believe that God wouldn't be against it or hold you accountable.
When I joined the church I took an oath to, among other things, "resist the forces of evil". I intend to do just that within and without. My faith in Christ is for the former. My gun is for the latter if need be.
9 Proclaim ye this among the nations; prepare war; stir up the mighty men; let all the men of war draw near, let them come up. 10 Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning-hooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong. 11
Joel 3:9-11 (ASV)
As a christian and a gun owner you need to know this:
I do not need nor will I ever ask anyone's permission to own a gun. If you get nothing else from here then get this much.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!