BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
Theology

The Church and Self-Defense

H
hoohoou Mar 28, 2013

This was just sent to me. I wondered what some of your thoughts would be on it.

"Joseph Farah Email | Archive

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators News Service.. He is the author or co-author of 13 books, including his latest, "The Tea Party Manifesto," and his classic, "Taking America Back," now in its third edition and 14th printing. Farah is the former editor of the legendary Sacramento Union and other major-market dailies.More ↓Less ↑

When a Yakima, Wash., church began classes on firearms, a local newspaper labeled the idea “incongruous.”

What’s incongruous is that more U.S. churches are not doing it.

In fact, what is even more incongruous is that so few U.S. churches are teaching anything.

Last month, the Open Bible Christian Church began the firearms classes by bringing in a certified trainer to teach personal protection, including lessons to prevent child abductions, women’s basic self-defense and an “all-threat” security training for faith-based organizations.

It should be a model for churches across the country in light of the fact that some of the world’s worst massacres have occurred in Christian worship centers.

There’s nothing incongruous about it. It makes perfect sense. In fact there is a biblical mandate for self-defense, as South African pastor Charl van Wyk has so artfully explained in his must-read book, “Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense” and a documentary movie version of his amazing story about how he stopped the worst church slaughter of modern times and the systematic Bible study he compiled to put his story in context.

But, as I said, there’s a much bigger failure in the American church – and that is that it has abandoned education altogether.

Why is America so quickly deteriorating from the God-centered culture that made it great to the hyper-secular nation that is abandoning biblical morality so necessary for self-government?

Because the American church has withdrawn from its role in teaching. Why are all those buildings empty Monday through Friday? Why aren’t they being used to offer an alternative to government schools? Why are even the children of pastors being dumped into government schools? Why are the children of believers adopting the ways of the world in the extreme? Why are they not being equipped with a biblical worldview that will guide them through their most challenging years? Why is the church failing even to be salt and light to their own offspring, let alone the broader culture as they are commanded by scripture?

Those questions explain why the world finds it incongruous that a handful of churches would actually teach something that the Bible teaches – like self-defense.

The Bible couldn’t be clearer on the right – even the duty – we have as believers to self-defense.

Let’s start in the Old Testament.

“If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him,” we are told in Exodus 22:2. The next verse says, “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.”

In other words, it was perfectly appropriate to kill a thief breaking into your house. That’s the ultimate expression of self-defense. It doesn’t matter whether the thief is threatening your life or not. You have the right to protect your home, your family and your property, the Bible says.

The Israelites were expected to have their own personal weapons. Every man would be summoned to arms when the nation confronted an enemy. They didn’t send in the Marines. The people defended themselves. This was assuredly one of the inspirations for the Founding Fathers in holding the possession of firearms as an unalienable right.

In 1 Samuel 25:13, we read: “And David said unto his men, Gird ye on every man his sword. And they girded on every man his sword; and David also girded on his sword: and there went up after David about four hundred men; and two hundred abode by the stuff.”

Every man had a sword and every man picked it up when it was required.

Judges 5:8 reminds us of what happens to a foolish nation that chooses to disarm: “They chose new gods; then was war in the gates: was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?”

The answer to the rhetorical question is clear: No. The people had rebelled against God and put away their weapons of self-defense.

“Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight,” David writes in Psalms 144:1.

Clearly, this is not a pacifist God we serve. It’s God who teaches our hands to war and our fingers to fight. Over and over again throughout the Old Testament, His people are commanded to fight with the best weapons available to them at that time.

And what were those weapons? Swords.

They didn’t have firearms, but they had sidearms. In fact, in the New Testament, Jesus commanded His disciples to buy them and strap them on.

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.”

I know. I know. You biblically literate skeptics are going to cite Matthew 26:52-54 – how Jesus responded when Peter used his sword to cut off the ear of a servant of the high priest: “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. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?”

Read those verses in context and they support my position. Jesus told Peter he would be committing suicide to choose a fight in this situation – as well as undermining God’s plan to allow Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection.

Jesus told Peter to put his sword in its place – at his side. He didn’t say throw it away. After all, He had just ordered the disciples to arm themselves. The reason for the arms was obviously to protect the lives of the disciples, not the life of the Son of God. What Jesus was saying was: “Peter, this is not the right time for a fight.”

We should recall Nehemiah, who rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem.

“They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon,” we’re told in Nehemiah 4:17-18. “For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded.”

So what’s incongruous about churches teaching the proper use of firearms?

It’s the responsible thing to do. It’s the biblical thing to do. It’s the practical thing to do.

Why is the church in America becoming irrelevant? Because it’s not teaching the Bible – about self-defense or anything else. It has abandoned its proper role in education completely to the state.

Now that’s incongruous – and tragic for the church and for America."

G
ginnyrose Mar 28, 2013

Never read in Acts or in the epistles where the disciples ever taught the church to teach self-defense - they were living in far more dangerous times then we ever have. Jesus never taught his disciples principles of self-defense - in fact he tells them that who takes the sword shall perish by the sword.

I believe Jesus has the last word on this subject.

Let us look at this issue from another angle: why will people resort to dubious methods to prolong life? If they love the LORD Jesus, are eager to meet him, why resort to self-defense to prevent this from happening? Sounds to me some folks are not ready to meet the LORD.

BTW, Richard Wurmbrand, who endured years of persecution at the hands of the Communists, says that "if God wants you alive, persecution cannot kill you". I think he is right!

P
proudpapa Mar 28, 2013

///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.”///

this was for one purpose and one purpose alone and that was to fullfill the written Logos. v 37

Luke 3:14
And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

If soldiers are commanded to not use violence to no man than such a positon has to be universel for all.

H
hoohoou Mar 28, 2013

ginnyrose, those were almost exactly my thoughts.

T
TMK Mar 28, 2013

PP we have been through this before-- in Lk 3:14 the correct translation is that John the baptist was telling these soldiers not to extort money by threats or false accusation. He was not telling the soldiers they were not allowed to defend their country.

This is another instance of where the KJV gets it wrong.

The original article addresses Jesus's statement to Peter in the garden, and I agree with the article.

sermonindex Mar 28, 2013

But where do we find first century Cbristians locking and loading for Jesus? There was never any practice of first century house churches defending themselves. Those in persecuted nations cannot defend themselves today.

I doubt very seriously if one can find a New Testament warrant for believers to pack and pray. Churches that are into self defense and teaching self defense have really strayed from the scriptures. If they are falling back on the O.T then they are in the shadow and not the reality of Christ.

The New Testament exhorts us to trust in Christ for our protection. Not our colts. One more question for those who want to strap on. Are you prepared for the consequences of taking a life when you pull that weapon out. Law enforcement professionals who are highly trained in fire arms generally go through counselling when they have taken a life in the line of duty. You who glibbly come on this forum about wanting to be Wyatt Erp or Wild Bill Hickock should think very carefully about taking a life. For you will gave to live with the consequences of that action for the rest of your lives.

Those who think I am blowing smoke here. Go visit a local VA hospital. Look at the number of soldiers who are returning from Afghanistain. Many are living with the nightmares of lives they have taken in the war. Then see if you are so anxious to strap on.

Honestly it is hard for me to fathom a Spirit filled believer in Jesus Christ carrying his Bible in one hand and a nine mill in the other. This may be the way of the Moslem. But not Jesus Christ.

My thoughts.

Bearmaster.

G
ginnyrose Mar 28, 2013

______________________________________________________________
QUOTE:
Are you prepared for the consequences of taking a life when you pull that weapon out. Law enforcement professionals who are highly trained in fire arms generally go through counselling when they have taken a life in the line of duty. You who glibly come on this forum about wanting to be Wyatt Erp or Wild Bill Hickock should think very carefully about taking a life. For you will gave to live with the consequences of that action for the rest of your lives.
______________________________________________________________


Some time ago when this topic was discussed someone posted how a man shot and killed a person in self-defense - and told about the emotional trauma he had to live with since then. Know where this was and who posted it?

T
turn Mar 28, 2013

There are more than a few unbelieving agnostics around who know well enough that Jesus said: "Turn the other cheek." and "Love your enemies." (Matthew 5:39, 44).

It is not only the Anabaptists who have these verses in their Bibles.

P
pilgrim777 Mar 28, 2013

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.”

I know. I know. You biblically literate skeptics are going to cite Matthew 26:52-54 – how Jesus responded when Peter used his sword to cut off the ear of a servant of the high priest: “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. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?”

Read those verses in context and they support my position. Jesus told Peter he would be committing suicide to choose a fight in this situation – as well as undermining God’s plan to allow Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection.

Jesus told Peter to put his sword in its place – at his side. He didn’t say throw it away. After all, He had just ordered the disciples to arm themselves. The reason for the arms was obviously to protect the lives of the disciples, not the life of the Son of God. What Jesus was saying was: “Peter, this is not the right time for a fight.”

Hi houhou,

I was wondering why you stopped at Luke 22:36? You left an unfinished conversation. Here it is:

Luke 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me,

*****And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.***** (Isa 53:12)

Luke 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Two swords were not nearly enough for any kind of reasonable defense don't you think? However, two swords were more than enough for Jesus to be "reckoned among the transgressors", and fulfill prophecy. And Peter, became the "transgressor" when he used his sword to cut off the servant of the high priest's ear.

In another place we see that Isa 53:12 was referenced when Jesus was buried between 2 criminals. But, the Holy Spirit through Luke obviously wanted that also noted when Jesus said 2 swords are enough.

When you take the whole counsel of God you get a fuller picture of what is happening, the "whys" and the "wherefores" become clearer.

This is why Jesus said get some swords and then stopped them at two. Did He not say that He could call 12 legions of angels to rescue Him? Then what was up with the swords? To fulfill scripture about Him from Isa 53:12.

Why didn't Jesus ever teach about self defense? Jesus certainly wasn't a Pacifist. He lived and taught Non-resistance which is onerous to the flesh. Pacifism is more like what Ghandi and MLK participated in. Protests, marches, work stoppages, etc. Jesus never taught "peaceful" rebellion to get your way. That is exactly what Pacifism is.

Christians who offer up no resistance to their persecutors are called Pacifists, but this is an incorrect labeling, term. It has become a derogatory term when used against Christians, a term akin to cowardice. There is a huge difference between the teachings of Pacifism and the teaching of Non-Resistance that Jesus taught.

Israel was occupied by an aggressive enemy and yet the Early Church never leaned on the arm of the flesh (as far as I can tell) to fight. Jesus said, "Don't fear the one that can kill the body but not he soul." Are the weapons of our warfare, carnal?

For those who subscribe to Augustine's treatise of "Just War", which seems to have permeated Protestantism, I can only say that to kill for a good reason would be like stealing to give to the poor, we have a commandment to love one another, including our enemies. "What ifs" are fleshly fears. Keep his love and he will keep you, even if your body is destroyed.

Pilgrim

M
murrcolr Mar 28, 2013

Quote: There is a huge difference between the teachings of Pacifism and the teaching of Non-Resistance that Jesus taught.

Then he goes and makes a whip and drives them out of the temple..

John 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables

Quote: He lived and taught Non-resistance which is onerous to the flesh.

So why would one who lived and taught Non-resistance use a whip to drive people out?

G
ginnyrose Mar 28, 2013

______________________________________________________________
QUOTE:
It is not only the Anabaptists who have these verses in their Bibles."
______________________________________________________________

The Anabaptists I know use a variety of Bible translations - KJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, NKJV, etc. :-) Anabaptists do not have an 'Anabaptist' Bible. But then I suppose you knew this...

sermonindex Mar 28, 2013

Collin there is a difference between driving out those who were committing sin in his Father's house such as the money changers. And defending his Father's house from Roman occupation. Jesus never did that.

Also we do not see Jesus preaching the Sermon on the Mount with a Sig 23,in his side pocket.

Bearmaster.

M
murrcolr Mar 28, 2013

Quote: Collin there is a difference between driving out those who were committing sin in his Father's house such as the money changers. And defending his Father's house from Roman occupation. Jesus never did that.

In first century Palestine there was no separation between church and state. The priests at the temple in Jerusalem not only officiated over the religious life of the Jews and they were also rulers and judges.

The money changers were as much a part of the "system" as the were the Priests.

Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, ‘What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.’ John 11:45-48

P
proudpapa Mar 28, 2013

pilgrim777, Hello! welcome back!
it has been a long time.

P
proudpapa Mar 29, 2013

Hi TMK

TMK wrote ///PP we have been through this before-- in Lk 3:14 the correct translation is that John the baptist was telling these soldiers not to extort money by threats or false accusation. He was not telling the soldiers they were not allowed to defend their country.
This is another instance of where the KJV gets it wrong. The original article addresses Jesus's statement to Peter in the garden, and I agree with the article.///

TMK, it never was and it can not be proven that "Diaseio" means "to extort money by threats or false accusation."
That is again an opinion a speculation and not a fact.

It is obvious why protestant and catholic translators would decide to translate "Diaseio" as "Do not take money from anyone by force" what is unusual however is why the KJV translators whom where mostly puritan and would have not been Pacifict, felt lead to translate "Diaseio" as do violence to know man.

TMK, I will give you credit your perspective is consistent. and their for it would be pointless for me to disscuss this issue with you.

My point is for those whom believe that Jesus taught a radical message, one of being nonresistant, even when called to defend ones own country.
For those whom believe this, We must acknowledge that the KJV translation of "Diaseio" as violence to know man, is superior to that of all other translations that render "Diaseio" as "Do not take money from anyone by force" otherwise we are without any biblical fondation for such a belief.

P
pilgrim777 Mar 29, 2013

Hi proudpapa,

Thank you. I hope you have been well. The Lord is good!

Regarding the moneychangers and driving them out of the Temple, this gives us a spiritual picture of how zealous the Lord is to drive idols out of our lives and procure full deliverance for us. It has nothing to do with using force against sinners in the church or unbelievers outside of the church.

Again, look at the conduct of Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church, before the Church was corrupted.

Paul knew it was going to happen. He fought the battles from within and without, his whole Christian life.

Act_20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Pilgrim

P
pilgrim777 Mar 29, 2013

Collin there is a difference between driving out those who were committing sin in his Father's house such as the money changers. And defending his Father's house from Roman occupation. Jesus never did that.

Also we do not see Jesus preaching the Sermon on the Mount with a Sig 23,in his side pocket.

Bearmaster.

LOL. That's funny, Bear. Also, a keen distinction between why Jesus was driving out the money changers.

I think it is also interesting that Romans 13 is used quite a bit to impress upon Christians that civil authorities were put in place by God (which they are) and that somehow the Church can execute the same calling that God has given to the civil, worldly authorities. The Church has a different calling. And if you read a bit further in Romans 13, the Holy Spirit carefully delineates our calling.

Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Love worketh no ill to his neighbor.

Even the armor we put on is not Kevlar.

Rom 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

M
murrcolr Mar 29, 2013

Quote: Regarding the moneychangers and driving them out of the Temple, this gives us a spiritual picture of how zealous the Lord is to drive idols out of our lives and procure full deliverance for us. It has nothing to do with using force against sinners in the church or unbelievers outside of the church.

However uncomfortable it may be to admit Jesus used force and violence to drive the money changers out so that the “spiritual picture” could be painted..

sermonindex Mar 29, 2013

Brother Jesus did use force to drive the money changers out of the temple. For he said the temple, his Father's house would be a house off prayer for all nations. Later foreshadowing the spiritual body of the church.

But why did Jesus not use force to defend himself when he was going to the cross for our sins. One mighty angel from God would have dispellled that murderous mob that came for him. For sure this is as question to be pondered.

Bear.

T
turn Mar 29, 2013

In the Sermon on the Mount of the Lord Jesus Christ says this:

But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:39)

In Romans 12, the Apostle Paul said this:

v.14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.

v.17 Repay no one evil for evil...

v.19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but make space for the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."

v.20 ...if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink...

v.21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.


If you believe the Word of God, then that is good because it will require faith to live according to these words.

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 25 posts