A Biblical Response to
|
A Biblical/Pacifist Response to Matt TrewhellaThe article at left was from http://www.mercyseat.net/DEFEND/gunapologetic.htm (2008 update: now found here: Mercy Seat Christian Church) The first question that must be asked concerns the title ("Those who say we should disarm"): Who does "we" refer to? Some who say "we" should disarm mean that the United Nations should be armed so that they can use force to disarm everyone else. That is an invitation to genocide. There is a big difference between my disarming myself and my forcibly disarming you, or hiring someone to forcibly disarm you, or "voting" for someone to forcibly disarm you. No pacifist could support "gun control" when it means supporting the increased use of guns by "the government" to control the guns of others through a process of "law" which will be evaded by "law-breakers," to the obvious disadvantage of those who observe the government's "law." Some of the article at left is more against "gun control" than it is against pacifism. Is there anyone who says that the Bible has nothing to say about arms? Surely the people Trewhella is answering believe the Bible says arms should be beaten into plowshares (Micah 4:3). We believe that's the general direction of the Bible -- not toward a society where everyone is armed to the teeth and Christians are killing off unbelievers left and right, but a society where God makes unbelievers dwell in peace with dominion-oriented believers (Proverbs 16:7), and believers are not bombing Iraq "back to the Stone Age." |
| Genesis 4:8-12 In this passage, Scripture records the first murder wherein Cain killed Abel. That Cain must have used some sort of weapon to kill Abel is evidenced by the fact that Abel was bleeding (he was not strangled). Notice how God responded to the killing. He did not institute some sort of weapon-control, rather, He punished the one who committed the crime. | Actually,
God did not punish Cain. Cain's crime was deserving of death. Why did God allow
Cain to live? Answer here.
There is no evidence that Cain used "arms," or that "gun control" or "arms control" would have stopped Cain. |
| Exodus 20 and following In His holy Law, which God decreed at Sinai, nowhere do you see God outlawing weapons in regards to the various crimes which He prohibited in His legislation. He always punishes the perpetrator. He never disarms the citizenry. | God says "Thou shalt not kill." The goal is to beat swords into plowshares. |
| Exodus 22:2 In this verse, God declares that if someone breaks into your house at night and you kill him, you are not guilty of murder. This verse makes clear that you have a God-given right to defend yourself and to defend your family. | Until you
look at it closely:
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)A little thought reveals that this passage is not saying that self-defense is good, but that it is bad. If a thief breaks into your house and you kill him in "self-defense," you are to be put to death! Your blood must be shed to cleanse the land of the murder of the thief (Numbers 35:33). Now, granted, if it is night, and your injuries to the thief cause him to die, you will not be executed. "I'm letting you off this time," the Lord seems to be saying; but only if it is at night (cp. Romans 13:12). It is amazing -- mind-boggling -- how an entire tradition of self-defense and anti-pacifism could be constructed on this verse. And with such confidence. All the difficult sayings of Jesus regarding love -- even for our "enemy" -- can be swept under the carpet as "impractical." John Wayne, not Mother Theresa, becomes the Christian model. More. |
| Deuteronomy 22:23-27 This passage deals with rape. Notice that verse 27 ends with the words "but there was no one to save her." What is the implication of such a statement? The implication is that had someone been around to hear her cry out, they had a moral duty to intervene and protect her from being raped. To stand by would be immoral. We have a God-given right to defend not only ourselves, but also others. | I challenge Trewhella to name ONE self-described pacifist who believes we should "stand by" and do nothing when someone is being attacked. I lived in a Christian/pacifist commune for nearly a decade, I've been on peace marches and protested at military bases hundreds of times. Of the hundreds of pacifists I've met in my life, I've never met one who claims we should just stand there. |
| Numbers 1 In His economy, God instituted an armed citizenry, not a standing army, in order to deal with the affairs of war regarding Israel. This is what the Founding Fathers of America envisioned for our nation. Even in Switzerland today, every home is furnished with a machine gun (one of the reasons Hitler chose not to invade Switzerland). | These
armed citizens were led by priests (Deuteronomy
20:2; Numbers 10:8-9; Numbers 31:6, etc.) to shed the blood of abominable
nations so that the land could be cleansed (atonement made) of their heinous sins.
These nations were ceremonially "devoted"
as sacrifices
for atonement.
Does Trewhella really believe in this kind of "Holy War?" Are we to shed
the blood of entire nations in order to make atonement?
More on standing armies. Trewhella's arguments, ironically, are often used to justify standing armies. |
| I Samuel 13:19-22 The Philistines disarmed the Israelites. Weapon-control was instituted. No blacksmiths were allowed lest the Israelites arm themselves. A disarmed people is the sign of a conquered people. A disarmed people is the sign of an enslaved people. | This is completely true. Unless the One doing the disarming is Christ. People who have beaten their swords into plowshares and are following in Christ's steps are "overcomers," even if they are also (literally) slaves (1 Peter 2:18-23). |
| Isaiah 2:1-5 Many, including the United Nations, take the latter part of verse 4 in this passage, which states "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks," and try to say that God wants us to disarm. The context makes clear however, that "swords will be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks" when God Himself rules, not when the United Nations or any other government of man rules. | This is
completely true, unless it intends to convey the idea that Jesus is not now the
Christ (King) and God does not now rule.
Premillennialists believe that Christ must come again before He can exercise the office of King. But the Bible teaches that Christ is now King, as we have attempted to show. The Name "Christ" means "King" or "Messiah." Premillennialists deny that Christ was made King at His First Coming. The exercise of global Christian theocracy awaits a future Second Coming, they tell us, when Jesus will be enthroned in Jerusalem and reign as Christ (Messiah). Notice the harsh verdict of Scripture against this belief:
Premillennialists deny that Jesus is the Christ. They say He must wait until His Second Coming before He is crowned King, and He will then rule from Jerusalem. This is truly anti-Christ. The problem is, they believe in a Jewish conception of Christ's Kingdom, as one rooted fundamentally in socialist violence rather than regeneration. In the same way, those who believe that certain promises of the Gospel remain unfulfilled until a yet-future Second Coming deny the Gospel. If they choose to believe that some event will take place in the future (perhaps millions of years from now, in the case of some), that's no problem for those of us involved in The Christmas Conspiracy!. But if they choose not to obey certain commands which are given by the Christ, or choose not to believe certain promises which are gifts of the King to His people now, then the doctrine of the Second Coming has denied the Gospel and is anti-Christ. |
| Matthew 5:38-39 In this passage, Jesus is not denigrating the Law of God in regards to one’s right to defend himself and others, rather He is repudiating the lex talionis - the law of retaliation, which said, "if someone messes you up today, you go back and mess him up five times worse tomorrow." The Pharisees were even using the Law of God to justify this mindset. Jesus is repudiating this personal vengeance which some sought to justify and participate in. He is not saying we cannot defend ourselves or others. | Trewhella's doctrine of "self-defense" is really the doctrine of proactive vengeance, or pre-emptive "messing up." If someone threatens to rape your wife, you pull out your Smith & Wesson and blow him away. Execute him even before he commits the crime. |
| Vengeance belongs to God (Romans 12:19; Deuteronomy 32:35; Proverbs 20:22). We are not to avenge ourselves. If we see someone who needs our help during the commission of a crime, we have a God-given right and duty to intervene. If however, the crime has been committed (past tense), we have no God-given right or duty to go and execute judgment upon the perpetrator. God will avenge. God will judge. | "Intervene,"
yes. Take preemptive vengeance, no.
Think about this: OK to kill the guy before he commits any crime, but if he actually commits the crime, "stand by" and do nothing. "Providence" (miraculous supernatural divine intervention in response to prayer) only works ex post facto? |
| God has given the sword (a symbol of judgment) to the civil magistrate (Romans 13:4). If a crime has been committed, it is to be reported to the civil authorities and they have a God-given right and duty before God to execute judgment. | See www.Romans13.com for an analysis of this passage. |
| Matthew 26:51-52 Some try to say that this passage proves that Jesus was a pacifist and against guns. Quite the contrary. Where does Jesus tell Peter to put his sword? "In its place." John makes it clearer, Jesus said to Peter "Put your sword into the sheath" (John 18:11). Jesus didn’t tell him to melt it down into a plowshare, rather he told him to put it "into the sheath." The sword has its proper place. It’s not evil. But Peter was wanting to use it in an improper situation. Jesus came to earth to die. Peter would be abrogating the purposes of God if he intervened with the sword. As Jesus goes on to say in verse 11 of John chapter 18, "Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?" Jesus was trying to teach His disciples that His Kingdom is not expanded in the earth through the use of force, rather it is expanded through the preaching of the Gospel and the discipling of the nations. | Peter was
attempting to defend a wholly innocent man from a lynching. But not in a Biblical
manner.
Peter has some profound things to say about this in chapter 2 of his first letter. He says we are to follow in the steps of Christ. Which can only mean that we don't use violence to defend ourselves. Trewhella implies that this policy applies only to Christ, who came to be killed as a sacrifice. Peter applies it to us, however.
This last line is completely true, period. |
| If someone wants to live by the sword, they will die by the sword, as Jesus says. In other words, he who uses the sword for improper purposes will die by it. It was improper for Peter to have used it in that situation. A criminal or a tyrant who uses the sword improperly will rightly die by it. But the use of the sword in a proper fashion, to defend one’s person or one’s family or one’s country, is not condemned by Scripture, rather Scripture upholds it. | Peter was not threatening to use the sword offensively. He was only using it defensively, against criminals. Christ told him to put his sword away, and Peter told his Christian readers to do the same, and follow Christ's example. |
| God is not a pacifist. Jesus is not a pacifist. As Jesus said in the very next verse, verse 53, "Or do you not think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?" Jesus could have used force. The use of force; the use of swords were simply improper for the situation in which Christ was involved. He was suppose to die. He and the Father are not pacifists. He did not use force because He had to drink the cup of the Father. | True, God is not a pacifist. Jesus is a violent Messiah. But the Bible plainly says to leave violence and vengeance to God. |
| Exodus 15:3 This verse of Scripture declares the Lord to be a "man of war." That God is not a pacifist is evidenced throughout Scripture. Even Jesus Himself, who is the brightness of God’s glory and the express image of His person, and who has declared all that God is (Hebrews 1:3; John 1:18), drove the moneychangers out of the temple with a whip and overturned their tables (John 2:15). The book of Revelation defines Him as a King who does what? "Judges and makes war" (Revelation 19:11). The Scripture declares that Jesus Christ is "the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). God’s character does not change. God is not a pacifist. | Trewhella's argument is exactly the opposite of the Bible's. He says in effect "Because God is violent, we get to be violent too." That's the oppose of what the Bible says. We are to leave violence to God. |
| In closing, there are some who say that "we should not have guns; we should just trust God." My response to those who say this is - "let me ask you, do you have a lock on your front door?" They always say "yes." I then ask "Do you lock it when you leave or go to bed at night?" Those who live in the city always say "yes." I then ask "Why do you have a lock on your door? Why don’t you just trust God?" | Locking a
burglar out is quite different from killing him.
We are to "trust God" after we have taken every precaution and exercised personal responsibility. |
| Just because we have a lock on our door or a gun in our closet does not mean we are trusting in them to protect us with the same trust with which we’re to trust the Lord. | Correct. |
| Rather, we simply see the wisdom and prudence of having such things in order to be good stewards in protecting our belongings and our families. | Correct. |
| The psalmist understood that there was no contradiction. The psalmist (David) who said in verse one of Psalm 144 "Blessed be the Lord my Rock, Who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle" said in verse two of Psalm 144 "My lovingkindness and my fortress, My high tower and my deliverer, My shield and the one in whom I take refuge." This pamphlet is available in print form. Click here to order. | Saints in
the Old Testament had an obligation to engage in "battle" as an act of
ceremonial blood shedding to make atonement. (See above.) We do
not.
We are creating a new website to expand on these issues: http://DominionPacifism.com |