From Graybeard;<\/p>\n
There has been an assumption that the right to bear arms is a God-given right. Lately several people have asserted that there is no such right. Is this a tenable position for one in the Judeo-Christian tradition? Obviously, for one who does not believe in God there can be no God-given rights. For those outside the Judeo-Christian tradition I cannot presume to speak. But for those within the Judeo-Christian tradition there are some considerations which, I believe, lead us to the position that God has, indeed, given us the right to own firearms.
\nGenesis 1:27 is foundational to the Judeo-Christian view of mankind:<\/p>\n
\u201cGod created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.\u201d<\/p>\n
The doctrine of mankind, men and women, being created in the image of God is one of the core doctrines for Judeo-Christian theology. Because we are created in God\u2019s image, there is a dignity and a sanctity inherent in every human being. Germain to our consideration is a principle built upon this doctrine found in Genesis 9:5-6:<\/p>\n
\u201c(5) Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man\u2019s brother I will require the life of man.<\/p>\n
(6) \u201cWhoever sheds man\u2019s blood,
\nBy man his blood shall be shed,
\nFor in the image of God
\nHe made man.\u201d<\/p>\n
The consequence of taking an innocent person\u2019s life is that the murderer\u2019s life is forfeit \u2013 the murderer must be put to death \u2013 and the reason for this principle is explicitly tied to the fact that mankind is made in the image of God. Numbers 35:31 says:<\/p>\n
\u201cMoreover, you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.\u201d<\/p>\n
There is no other Scripturally acceptable punishment for one who intentionally kills an innocent human being.<\/p>\n
By virtue of being created in the image of God, that is, everyone has a right to live unless one violates one of a set of conditions found in Scripture. One of these conditions pertinent to our consideration is in Exodus 22:2<\/p>\n
(2) \u201cIf the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.\u201d<\/p>\n
That is, if one, in an attempt to stop a theft, kills the thief then that person is not guilty of murder and no penalty for shedding blood is due them. The concept of what constitutes a \u201cthief\u201d may be seen in Jesus’ words in the first part of John 10:10:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy;…\u201d<\/p>\n
It is evident, therefore, that in addition to having the right to life by virtue of being made in the image of God, Judeo-Christian theology also supports the right to self-defense and defense of one\u2019s property even to the point of killing the thief or assailant.<\/p>\n
Being prepared to defend one\u2019s self, family, and property is something practiced by the Israelites from Abram on. It is recorded in Genesis 14:14:<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he led out his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.\u201d<\/p>\n
Abram (Abraham) had 318 men in his own household trained to fight. Later Jacob, speaking to Joseph, says in Genesis 48:22:<\/p>\n
\u201cI give you one portion more than your brothers, which I took from the hand of the Amorite with my sword and my bow.\u201d<\/p>\n
In passing he mentions the fact that he had weapons, and used them when he had to fight with the Amorites. The possession of swords and bows was a given among the Israelites. To defend themselves and their families they owned weapons \u2013 both close-range, that is a sword, and long-range, a bow.<\/p>\n
Again, in Luke 22:35ff we read:<\/p>\n
(35) And He said to them, \u201cWhen I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?\u201d They said, \u201cNo, nothing.\u201d (36) And He said to them, \u201cBut now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. (37) For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, \u2018And He was numbered with transgressors\u2019; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.\u201d (38) They said, \u201cLord, look, here are two swords.\u201d And He said to them, \u201cIt is enough.\u201d
\nThis is a puzzling Scripture. One understanding is that in order to be \u201cnumbered with transgressors\u201d as was prophesied Jesus needed the disciples to have swords. This does not take into account the fact that Jesus was crucified with two thieves, nor Paul\u2019s declaration in 2 Corinthians 5:21<\/p>\n
\u201cHe made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.\u201d<\/p>\n
Other considerations could be brought to bear. But another understanding is that Jesus was preparing His disciples for a different mode of operation from how He had them working previously. Instead of going in total dependence upon the gifts from others, they were to take their money and a bag of supplies and a sword with which to defend themselves from brigands on the way. This second understanding is in keeping with how the Patriarchs and later Israelites lived.<\/p>\n
It is arguable, then, that owning weapons was considered normal and natural. If Luke 22:36 is not considered to be a figurative statement, the ownership of a weapon even seems to have the sanction of Jesus Himself.<\/p>\n
If mankind is created in the image of God, both male and female, and if by virtue of that have a right to life and a right to self-defense, then there also exists for all mankind the right to possess the means to defend oneself. Historically we find that this involved, from the time of the Patriarchs through the time of Christ, the possession of a weapon such as a sword or bow. A sword is a close-quarters weapon, a bow is a long-range weapon. In our modern world the practical analogs would be a pistol and a long-gun; rifle or shotgun.<\/p>\n
That is, if it being made in the image of God bestows the God-given right to life, and if that entails the God-given right to self-defense, then it also entails that it is a God-given right to possess the means to defend oneself, that is that there is a God-given right to own a firearm.<\/p>\n
Therefore, we find that it is a tenable position for those in the Judeo-Christian tradition to profess that we have a God-given right to own a gun. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"