What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control?
by
Larry Pratt
Executive Vice-President
Gun Owners Foundation
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. (See footnote a.)
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).
----------------------------------------------------------------
[a] "When our forefathers wrote the constitution of the
United States, consciously or unconsciously they followed the
Israel system of the right of every man to keep and bear arms.
[The Second Amendment] was patterned after the Israel method:
when every able bodied man capable of bearing arms and who might
be called upon by the nation for military duties to defend his
country, his life, liberty and freedom was thus able and prepared
to take his place in the ranks of the army.
"Tyranny, as a rule, arises from within a nation when the
government has been captured by men who would use their acquired
power to oppress the people. These facts were known to the
framers of the constitution, hence they recognized the need and
right of citizens to keep and bear arms in order to insure real
liberty. God in His wisdom...made it a fundamental law in the
land that every man should be a part of the military forces of
the nation -- keeping his arms and equipment in his own
possession.
"Now the right of citizens to keep and bear arms is
fundamental in preserving true freedom, so much so that
subversive forces in sundry and subtle ways first move to disarm
the citizens of a nation which they later plan to dominate. We
have witnessed such moves in the past while states which have
already passed laws violating Article II of our constitution did
so under the pretext of disarming the criminal. The states which
have violated this fundamental principle of the protection of its
citizens against armed violence have not only failed to reduce
crime but have contributed to the increase in violence and crime.
The criminal, who never disarms, knows he is dealing with
law-abiding unarmed citizens. Honest men and leaders never fear
an armed, law-abiding civilian population."
Howard B. Rand, LL.B., Digest of the Divine Law, (Destiny
Publishers, Merrimac, MA, 1943) pp. 163-164.
Editor's note: Parts of this article first appeared in
Plymouth Rock Foundation's FAC-SHEET #62. The Right To Bear Arms.
Plymouth Rock Foundation can be contacted by writing to them at
P.O. Box 577, Marlborough, NH 03455.
Larry Pratt is an Elder of a Northern VA. Presbyterian Church.