What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control?

by Larry Pratt
Executive Vice-President
Gun Owners Foundation
www.gunowners.org
Jan. 1995

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.

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).