Many Christians demonstrate a growing sentiment that allows for or even endorses Christians taking up weapons for their own defense or the defense of other Christians. Often they point to incidents such as attackers charging into a church service and begian shooting and hurling grenades. The hero of the story, a “heat-packing Christian," returned fire with his .38 caliber pistol, killing or wounding a number of the attackers.
Enthusiasts of this story look at it partly with satisfaction that some of the attackers were "taken out" and partly with disappointment that more worshippers were not carrying guns so more could have been "saved" not by grace through faith but by a good old-fashioned shoot-out between believers and nonbelievers.
They point to God's instructions to the nation of Israel to destroy the idolatrous Canaanites but they fail to recognize God's original promise to Israel that He would drive out the inhabitants of the land if Israel would obey Him. They also point to the commands in the Old Testament to kill lawbreakers within the church-state of Israel.
Their basic premise is that Christians are perfectly justified in killing in self-defense or in anticipation of a crime.
The question for Christians to consider is even though we benefit from living in a society where gun ownership is a constitutional right, are we ever justified in intentionally killing another human being i.e. killing someone to protect our life or property or that of the church?
Israel, before they demanded a king was both a nation and a religious congregation. The human government that God ordained over Israel had both civil and religious authority. As such, many of Israel's civil laws given by God through Moses are not directly applicable today because we do not live in a church-state with God at the helm and directly bearing on the judicial process. Nonetheless, these laws still show God's intent and will concerning civil matters.
God’s instructions to Israel about what to do when a man was killed shows that God recognizes two classifications of killing: accidental and intentional. "Self-defense" is not even listed as a possibility! God illustrates "accidental death" as occurring when there is no intent to kill or to harm. It is accidental when there is no awareness that an action will result in the death of another. God gives an example in Deuteronomy: . . . as when a man goes to the woods with his neighbor to cut timber, and his hand swings a stroke with the ax to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies."
However, when there is intent to kill or injure, the Law defines it as murder regardless of what the other person was threatening to do, about to do, or in the process of doing. If a man fires a gun with the foreknowledge that it has the potential to kill another man, it is murder. The "self-defense" category is something afforded by the law of the land, not by the law of God.
If, as some assert, it is justifiable to break the sixth commandment to protect oneself or one's interests, it would also be permissible to break any of the other commandments when threatened. Consider the same question of defense, but substitute any of God's commands for the sixth commandment:
· Command 1: Can we have another god before the true God if it meant protecting our families and properties?
· Command 2: Can we fall back on idol worship if it will keep us alive?
· Command 3: Can we take on God's name, only to renounce it when trouble comes? Could we diminish the quality of worship of God if it meant safety and security?
· Command 4: Can we renounce the Sabbath to keep from harm?
· Command 5: Can we disrespect both adolescent and grown children disrespect our parents?
· Command 7: Even though it is highly unlikely that we would ever be "asked" to commit sexual immorality to save our lives, would God wink at our sin in the interest of self-preservation
· Command 8: Would we be justified in stealing food—or anything else—to preserve life when God shows repeatedly in His Word that He will provide for the righteous?
· Command 9: It is extremely easy to lie to save oneself or one's family. Anyone up against a wall with a gun to his head would be tempted to tell a lie to stay alive.
· Command 10: In its wider application, the command against coveting deals with the root of one's sin against his neighbor: attitudes, desires, and secret thoughts. If our "neighbor" is robbing or threatening us, would God hold us guiltless for "coveting" our neighbor's life—desiring that his life be taken?
We are not allowed to suspend God’s law if our life is threatened. Human nature insists on a "self clause." Human nature tells us that God's law is fine unless it goes contrary to what we perceive as our best interests.
Does God allow us to decide when it is permissible to kill? If we intentionally—non-accidentally—take another man's life in defense of our own, we are putting self before God.
The self-defense scenario does not hold up when we conside in light of the other nine commandments. What other scenarios could we imagine that would justify killing another person in response to or in anticipation of a sin? Should we kill anyone who does not convert to Christianity or has an idol in his house? Can we murder a man because we overheard him telling a lie or stone a woman taken in adultery?
These examples are absurd because God says every sin requires the death penalty. Not a single person would be alive if God responded to sin as carnal man wants to respond to sins that directly affect him. In the scenario of killing in self-defense, the one killing is judging that his life is more important than the life he is willing to snuff out. One sinner accounts his life to be of more worth than the life of another sinner. Would God make the same determination?
The rewards and benefits of the Old Covenant were largely centered on physical health, material wealth, and national greatness, while its purpose was to prepare the nation for the Messiah's first coming. Because of this emphasis on the physical, many scriptures in the Old Testament demonstrate God's intent to shield and protect Israel if they would obey. They could depend on their national and individual protection if they adhered to God's Word. If they remained faithful to the covenant, God would protect them—it was a sure thing!
Because the reasons for the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are very different, we have to look at the subject of God's protection through the lens of God's purpose. The intent of the New Covenant is to develop a personal relationship with God, leading to eternal life and godly character. God is willing to do whatever it takes to bring us to the point He desires.
Even faithful Christians may have their houses burglarized, their cars stolen, or their property vandalized. They may be the victims of physical or sexual assault. They may be persecuted and even martyred. Some may be the recipients of violence as a natural consequence of their actions; others will receive it more or less undeserved, just as Jesus
Some contend that God's prohibition against killing is "pacifist" or "weak." Does it take more strength to abide by God's law and suffer the consequences from man or to give in and lash out like the rest of mankind? Others argue that we have to "do our part" in taking care of our property and ourselves. But where does God ever tell us that "our part" includes sinning?
Exodus 22:2 seems to contradict the idea that Christians should not kill in self-defense: "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed." At first glance, this seems to support the "self-defense in one's home" argument, but the distinction is accidental versus intentional. The next verse, Exodus 22:3, explains this: "If the sun has risen on him [the killer], there shall be guilt for his bloodshed."
This statute illustrates that God differentiates between a killing committed when it is dark and one done when it is light. The meaning is not that darkness gives us license to break God's law, but rather that in the dark it is more difficult to determine what level of force is necessary to restrain an unknown intruder. The law gives the homeowner the benefit of the doubt in assuming that he would not deliberately use lethal force, since that falls under intentional or premeditated murder.
James exhorts us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Jesus teaches that murder begins in the heart and has everything to do with intention, even if the act of killing is not followed through: "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."
This instruction reiterates that murder is either accidental or intentional, based on what is in the heart. When applied to Exodus 22:2-3, Jesus’ words show that when a thief is killed in the dark, he allows for the homeowner acting without animosity or premeditation. If a homeowner kills a thief when nothing in the circumstance hinders his judgment, he is without excuse—the act was intentional, and he is guilty of murder.
No comments:
Post a Comment